- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhey Ram Sharma And Others v. Haryana State Electricity Board And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Haryana State Electricity Board (“the Board”) issued two separate advertisements for engineering posts. The first, dated 30 June 1967, invited applications for Apprentice Engineer (Electrical) positions, stipulating an apprenticeship of six months that could be extended up to three years. The appellants applied under this advertisement and, after completing the apprenticeship, were formally appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II with effect from 1 January 1969 by order dated 18 April 1969.
A second advertisement dated 14 July 1968 sought direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer Class II. Respondents 2–29 were selected through this process and received appointment letters between October and December 1968—i.e., before 1 January 1969.
When the Board later published the seniority list for Assistant Engineers Class II, the respondents were shown senior to the appellants because their appointments pre-dated 1 January 1969. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging this placement and seeking correction of the seniority list. A Single Judge dismissed the writ, and the Division Bench sustained that dismissal. The appellants then brought the matter to the Supreme Court in three civil appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Assistant Engineers appointed through direct recruitment in October–December 1968 (respondents) rank senior to Apprentice Engineers who completed training and were notionally appointed with effect from 1 January 1969 (appellants).
- Whether extension of the appellants’ apprenticeship beyond six months—permitted by the advertisement and appointment letters—could be challenged to claim earlier seniority.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The 1967 advertisement indicated a six-month apprenticeship; had the Board adhered to that period, the appellants would have been appointed earlier and thus would rank senior.
- Some previous batches allegedly served only six-month apprenticeships, demonstrating that the Board could have followed the same practice for them.
- Consequently, the published seniority list placing respondents above them was arbitrary and required correction.
Respondents’/Board’s Arguments
The opinion does not detail the respondents' specific arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1977) 1 SCC 308 | Date of entry into service determines inter-se seniority unless a consistent statutory rule provides otherwise. | Cited to affirm that earlier entrants (respondents) presumptively rank senior. |
| Paramjit Singh Sandhu v. Ram Rakha Mal (1982) 3 SCC 191 | Reiterated primacy of actual appointment date in seniority disputes. | Relied upon to reject appellants’ reliance on notional seniority. |
| A. Janardhana v. Union of India (1983) 3 SCC 601 | Clarified constitutional consistency of seniority rules under Articles 14 and 16. | Used to support the view that altering seniority contrary to appointment dates would offend equality principles. |
| A.N. Pathak v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence 1987 Supp SCC 763 | Upheld precedence of actual service entry for seniority across recruitment modes. | Strengthened the conclusion that respondents, having entered service first, must remain senior. |
| Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 | Constitution Bench approval of the “date of continuous officiation” test for seniority. | Provided authoritative confirmation for the rule applied by the Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court first determined the actual appointment dates: respondents were appointed between October–December 1968, whereas appellants were appointed on 18 April 1969 with notional effect from 1 January 1969.
2. Drawing from the cited precedents, the Court reiterated that inter-se seniority ordinarily turns on the date of entry into service; notional or retrospective seniority cannot displace an officer who has already entered the cadre, absent a valid statutory rule consistent with Articles 14 and 16.
3. Respondents 6, 16, 17, and 28 posed a factual query concerning date of joining. The Court accepted the Board’s affidavit and appointment letters showing these respondents were both appointed and had joined before the appellants’ appointment order; their positions therefore remained unaffected.
4. On the apprenticeship argument, the Court noted that both the advertisement and the individual appointment letters expressly allowed the Board to extend apprenticeship up to three years (and specifically fixed one year for these appellants). Consequently, requiring the appellants to serve beyond six months was within contractual terms and could not be impugned to disturb seniority.
5. The Court rejected comparisons with earlier instances of six-month apprenticeships, holding that such past practice could not override explicit conditions accepted by the present appellants.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed. The seniority list published by the Haryana State Electricity Board stands; respondents remain senior to appellants. No order as to costs.
Implications: The judgment re-affirms the settled principle that the actual date of appointment (or continuous officiation) governs seniority and that notional dates cannot prejudice officers who have already entered service. While it adds no new doctrine, it consolidates existing precedent and provides administrative clarity for the Board and similarly situated public bodies.
N.P Singh, J.— The appellants in three appeals filed a writ application before the High Court, claiming seniority over Respondents 2 to 29 of the said application and sought a direction from the High Court, for correction of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers Class II, published by the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). The said writ application was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellants was also dismissed by the said High Court.
2. An advertisement dated June 30, 1967 was published by the Board inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Engineers Class II (Electrical) and Apprentice Engineers (Electrical). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellants made applications for Apprentice Engineers (Electrical). The advertisement prescribed three conditions. The first condition was in respect of the academic qualifications. The second condition relating to the period of apprenticeship was as follows:
“He will have to undergo apprenticeship for a period of six months or such period as may be decided by the Board which can be extended up to a maximum of three years. After completion of the said training, they will be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer Class II in the scale of Rs 350-25-450/30-600.EB-40-800 with starting salary of Rs 350 p.m on the basis of their work and conduct.”
The third condition was in respect of giving an undertaking in writing that the candidate shall serve the Board for a period of two years after completion of his training. In the offer of appointment issued to the appellants, it was said:
“apprenticeship: You will have to undergo apprenticeship for a period of one year or such period as may be decided by the Board. After completion of the above said training, you will be considered for appointment to the post of Asstt. Engineer Class II in the scale of Rs 350-25-450/30-600.EB-40-800 at the basic pay of Rs 350 p.m on the basis of your work and conduct.”
3. After completion of the training in terms of the advertisement and the offer of appointment, the appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II, w.e.f January 1, 1969.
4. It may be mentioned that another advertisement dated July 14, 1968 had been published by the Board for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers Class II and pursuant to that advertisement, Respondents 2 to 29 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondents”) made applications and they were selected and appointed between October and December 1968 as Assistant Engineers Class II. As the respondents aforesaid had been appointed between October and December 1968 and the appellants had been appointed w.e.f January 1, 1969 in the seniority list which was published, the respondents were shown above the appellants. There is no dispute that so far the appellants are concerned, they were appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II by an order dated April 18, 1969, w.e.f January 1, 1969 after completion of their apprenticeship, whereas the respondents were appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II before January 1, 1969. There was some confusion in respect of Respondents 6, 16, 17 and 28 as to whether they had also been appointed prior to January 1, 1969, but during hearing of the appeals, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Board giving the dates of their appointments as October 23, 1968, November 21, 1968, November 21, 1968 and December 6, 1968 respectively. Photo copies of their appointment letters have been annexed along with the affidavit. They, however, joined later. It is well known that while determining the seniority of an officer, the date of his appointment is a more important factor than the date of his joining. In many compelling circumstances like accident, the distance at which a particular candidate resides and the time taken by him to join, cannot be ignored. So far the present case is concerned, Respondents 6, 16, 17 and 28 were not only appointed before the appellants but they joined also before April 18, 1969 the date of the appointment of the appellants. The notional seniority given to the appellants with effect from January 1, 1969 shall not affect the seniority of Respondents 6, 16, 17 and 28.
5. This Court has examined the question of fixation of seniority inter-se between officers appointed from different sources i.e by promotion and by process of direct recruitment. It is almost settled that while determining the inter-se seniority amongst officers recruited from different sources or between officers appointed by the same process at different times, the date of entering in the service is relevant. A person who enters in the service first shall rank senior unless there is some rule providing otherwise which can be held to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of N.K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1977) 1 SCC 308, AIR 1977 SC 251, Paramjit Singh Sandhu v. Ram Rakha Mal (1982) 3 SCC 191, AIR 1983 SC 314, A. Janardhana v. Union of India (1983) 3 SCC 601, AIR 1983 SC 769, A.N Pathak v. Secy. to the Govt., Ministry of Defence 1987 Supp SCC 763, (1988) 6 ATC 626, AIR 1987 SC 716. The same view was approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715, (1990) 13 ATC 348.
6. Once it is established that the appellants were appointed Assistant Engineers Class II on April 18, 1969 w.e.f January 1, 1969, whereas the respondents had been appointed between October and December 1968 as Assistant Engineers Class II, then the respondents shall rank senior to the appellants, as they entered in the cadre of Assistant Engineers Class II of the Board before the appellants. The High Court has rightly pointed out that in fact the appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II on April 18, 1969, but notional seniority was given to them with effect from January 1, 1969. In this process they cannot affect the seniority of even Respondents 6, 16, 17 and 28.
7. According to the appellants, as in the advertisement aforesaid, it had been said that they had to undergo apprenticeship for a period of six months, after expiry of that period they should have been appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II. It was urged that if they had been appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II just after the expiry of the period of six months of apprenticeship, they would have ranked senior to the respondents. It need not be pointed out that the advertisement while saying that the candidate concerned will have to undergo apprenticeship for a period of six months had also said that he will have to undergo training for such period, as may be decided by the Board, which can be extended up to a maximum of three years. Even in the offer of appointment, referred to above, it had been said in clear and unambiguous terms that the candidate will have to undergo apprenticeship for a period of one year or such period as may be decided by the Board. We fail to appreciate as to how the appellants while challenging the seniority list can make a grievance in respect of the period of apprenticeship which was specifically mentioned in the advertisement and in the offer of appointment. According to us, if the appellants were required to undergo apprenticeship for a period exceeding six months, no injustice has been done to them and that cannot be a ground for questioning the seniority list.
8. On behalf of the appellants, it was also pointed out that in the past in respect of some of the candidates, the period of apprenticeship was for six months only. That is of no consequence when in the advertisement as well as in the offer of appointment with which we are concerned, it had been clearly stated that such period of six months could be extended up to a maximum of three years. Accordingly, the appeals fail. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Alert