Union of India (UOI) and Another vs K.K. Baxi and Others

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 1305 of 1984. In this Special Civil Application the petitioners therein prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders of the Central Government dated 8th December, 1982 and 22nd September, 1983 which are Annexures ''B'' and ''C respectively to the Special Civil Application. It is further prayed for declaring the administrative instructions issued in letter dated 6th June, 1978 as void ab initio being inconsistent with the statutory rules and/or being otherwise not applicable for determining the seniority of the petitioners therein. It is further prayed in the Special Civil Application to direct the Central Government to fix the year of allotment of the petitioners at 1969 and 1967 respectively under the seniority rules. After elaborately discussing the various provisions in the rules, namely, the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, the learned single Judge appreciated the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and allowed the petition. It is as against this order, the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission have preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal.

Mr. Shah, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, firstly states that but for the Government of India decision No. 3 dated 25-8-1955 which is in the letter G. I. MHA No. 2/32/51-AIS (1) the orders of the Central Government may be held, but in view of this decision of the Central Government, which is decision No. 3, the orders have to be upheld. Decision No. 3 reads as follows:

It has also been decided in consultation with UPSC that as between two or more non-State Civil Service Officers selected at the same time the Officer who was placed higher in order of merit would be senior to the officers placed lower in order of merit.

Respondents 1 and 2 have clearly prayed in the Special Civil Application to declare this administrative instruction as void ab initio being inconsistent with the statutory rules. It is contended by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are the petitioners in the Special Civil Application that their year of allotment is 1969 and 1967 respectively while that of the person by name Mr. Mehta is 1973. Applying the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, the date of allotment has to be separately considered and if that be so, the seniority cannot be fixed on the basis of year of selection, but it must be fixed on the year of allotment. Since respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have their allotment year as 1969 and 1967, Mr. Mehta, whose year of allotment is 1973, cannot, on any account, be considered as senior to respondents 1 and 2 herein. While the matter was pending before the learned single Judge, it is an admitted fact that the Central Government has withdrawn this decision No. 3 referred above. No doubt, Mr. Shah contended that such a withdrawal will operate only prospectively and will not operate retrospectively. We are unable to appreciate this argument. The decision of the Government can as well be deleted in order to come in conformity with the seniority rules. When especially the respondents 1 and 2 have approached for declaring this Government decision as void ab initio and has based their claim on the statutory rules which govern the fixing of seniority, it goes without saying that the seniority of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should be fixed in accordance with the date of their allotment to the particular post and not on the basis of the date of selection as such. This aspect of the case has been elaborately discussed and considered by the learned single Judge of our High Court.

We are in complete agreement with the reasoning and finding on this aspect of the case and accordingly we do not find any merits in this Letters Patent Appeal. For all these reasons, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.