GIRISH KUMARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                         [2019] 7 S.C.R. 881                            881


                         GIRISH KUMAR                                   A
                                 v.
          STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4894 of 2019)
                           MAY 10, 2019                                 B
        [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment)
Rules, 1967 – Appendix IX – Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation
of Seniority) Rules, 1982 – r.5 – Appellant was promoted to the post
                                                                        C
of Office Superintendent by order dated 22.10.2007, however, w.e.f
07.10.2005 – Respondent No.3-Junior Assistant was undergoing a
departmental enquiry, however he was exonerated in departmental
enquiry on 15.06.2006 – Considering r.5 of 1982 rules, he was
promoted as Senior Assistant on 06.11.1999 and thereafter, he was
promoted as Office Superintendent on 22.10.2007 – Respondent            D
No.3 was granted deemed date of promotion to the post of Office
Superintendent w.e.f 07.10.2005 – Respondent No.3 was placed in
the higher position in the seniority list above the appellant and was
consequently promoted as Section Officer on 01.02.2008 – Writ
Petition by the appellant – High Court directed appellant to
                                                                        E
approach the Additional Divisional Commissioner – Additional
Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal of the appellant and
set aside the order of promotion of respondent no.3 – Writ petition
by respondent no.3 – High Court set aside the order of the Additional
Divisional Commissioner – On appeal, held: Respondent no.3 was
granted the deemed date of promotion to the post of Office              F
Superintendent with effect from 07.10.2005 – However, he was
actually promoted as Office Superintendent on 22.10.2007 –
Therefore, in fact, he has rendered service as Office Superintendent
only from 22.10.2007 – As per Appendix IX to the Recruitment rules,
1967, the eligibility for appointment to the promotional post of
                                                                        G
Section Officer requires three years continuous service – The
language used in Appendix IX is unambiguous, simple and plain –
Therefore, on a fair reading of Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules,
1967, to become eligible for the promotional post of Section Officer,
a person ought to have rendered continuous service of not less
                                                                        H
                                881
882            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     than three years – In the instant case, respondent no.3 had not
      completed three years of service for a continuous period of not less
      than three years in the feeder cadre in District Service (Class III)
      (Ministerial) Grade II, therefore, he was not eligible for promotion
      to the post of Section Officer – The High Court committed a grave
      error in holding otherwise – Thus, the Additional Divisional
B
      Commissioner, rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of
      promotion of respondent no.3.
            Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Service (Recruitment)
      Rules, 1967 – Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority)
      Rules, 1982 – Distinction between the rules – Discussed.
C
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD : 1. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of
      Seniority) Rules, 1982 and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
      District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 both are different
D     rules and enacted under the different provisions and they operate
      in different fields. The Recruitment Rules, 1967 are enacted/
      framed in exercise of powers conferred by clause xxxix of sub-
      section 2 of Section 274 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
      Panchayat Samities Act, 1961. The said Rules shall apply to the
      recruitment to all posts in District Technical Service (Class III),
E     District Service (Class III) and District Service (Class IV). On
      the other hand, the Seniority Rules, 1982 are framed/enacted in
      exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the
      Constitution of India. As per the Seniority Rules, 1982, the
      seniority of government servants shall be regulated in accordance
F     with the provisions of the Seniority Rules, 1982. The said
      Seniority Rules, 1982 are made applicable to the District Service
      also. Therefore, the Seniority Rules, 1982 shall govern the
      seniority only and not with respect to the recruitment. The
      recruitment shall be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 1967
      only. [Para 8] [890-H; 891-A-C]
G
            2. In the present case, the High Court has considered Rule
      5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982 and has not at all considered the
      Recruitment Rules, 1967. Respondent no.3 might have been
      granted the deemed date of promotion to the post of Office

H
GIRISH KUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS                         883


Superintendent with effect from 07.10.2005. However, he was             A
actually promoted as Office Superintendent on 22.10.2007.
Therefore, in fact, he has rendered service as Office
Superintendent only from 22.10.2007. As per Appendix IX to
the Recruitment rules, 1967, the eligibility for appointment to
the promotional post of Section Officer requires three years
                                                                        B
continuous service. The language used in Appendix IX is
unambiguous, simple and plain. Therefore, on a fair reading of
Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules, 1967, to become eligible
for the promotional post of Section Officer, a person ought to
have rendered continuous service of not less than three years.
“Continuous service” might have been defined under the                  C
Seniority Rules, 1982. However, the same shall be for the
purpose of seniority and the Seniority Rules only. Therefore, if
any employee is granted the deemed date of promotion, his
seniority shall be considered accordingly from the deemed date
of promotion. However, that shall be only for the purpose of
                                                                        D
inter se seniority only and the same shall not be applicable while
considering the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules.
In the Recruitment Rules, “continuous service” is not defined.
Therefore, one has to consider the ordinary dictionary meaning
of “continuous” which means “uninterrupted or unbroken”. The
High Court has added the word “actual” which as such is not             E
there in Appendix IX. While considering the relevant provisions
and as per the rule of interpretation, when the language used is
unambiguous, plain and simple, the provision is required to be
read as it is and nothing is to be added. Therefore, when in
Appendix IX, the eligibility criteria is that no person shall be
                                                                        F
eligible for promotion unless he has completed service for a
continuous service of not less than three years means he has to
render/complete service for a continuous period of uninterrupted/
unbroken three years service. Therefore, when respondent no.3
has not completed three years of service for a continuous period
of not less than three years in the feeder cadre in District Service    G
(Class III) (Ministerial) Grade II, he was not eligible for promotion
to the post of Section Officer. The High Court has committed a
grave error in holding otherwise. Therefore, the Additional
Divisional Commissioner, rightly allowed the appeal and rightly
                                                                        H
884            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     set aside the order of promotion of respondent no.3 dated
      1.2.2008 to the post of Section Officer. [Para 9] [891-D-H;
      892-A-C]
            3. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the Single
      Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are hereby
B     quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Additional
      Divisional Commissioner is hereby restored and it is held that
      respondent no.3 is not entitled to be promoted to the post of
      Section Officer and instead action should be taken to promote
      the appellant to the post of Section Officer, as directed by the
      Additional Divisional Commissioner. [Para 10] [892-D-E]
C
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4894
      of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2010 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in L.P.A. No. 209 of
D     2010 in Writ Petition No. 5437 of 2010.
            Arun R. Pedneker, Samrat Shinde, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
           Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R.
      Sharma, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Nishant
E     Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
F     and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed in L.P.A. No. 209/2010 in Writ
      Petition No. 5437 of 2010, by which a Division Bench of the High Court
      has dismissed the said letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant
      herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned
      Single Judge, the original appellant before the High Court in Letters
G     Patent Appeal has preferred the present appeal.
            3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
            That the appellant herein – Girish Kumar was appointed as Senior
      Assistant on 26.6.2001. That thereafter he was promoted to the post of
H     Office Superintendent by order dated 12.10.2007, however, with effect
GIRISH KUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS                                  885
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

from 7.10.2005. One Govind Jerale, appointed as Junior Assistant on              A
8.9.1994, was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 6.11.1999.
Respondent No.3 herein was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.8.1994.
He was suspended from service sometime in the year 1999. His
suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 17.7.2001. That
thereafter he was exonerated in departmental enquiry on 15.6.2006.
                                                                                 B
That thereafter he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 1.7.2006.
However, in view of the fact that he was exonerated in departmental
enquiry, considering Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation
of Seniority) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Seniority Rules,
1982’), Respondent No.3 was granted 6.11.1999 as deemed date of
promotion as Senior Assistant, i.e., the date on which his junior Govind         C
Jerale was promoted as Senior Assistant. It appears that thereafter on
22.10.2007, respondent no.3 was promoted as Office Superintendent.
The Divisional Commissioner granted to respondent no.3 07.10.2005
as deemed date of promotion as Office Superintendent. As Respondent
No.3 was placed in the higher position in the seniority list above the
                                                                                 D
appellant herein, he was consequently promoted as Section Officer by
respondent no.2, vide his order dated 1.2.2008.
       3.1 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of promotion promoting
respondent no.3 herein to the post of Section Officer, the appellant initially
preferred writ petition before the High Court. However, the said writ
petition came to be disposed of by the High Court with liberty to the            E
appellant to approach the Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad for redressal of his grievance. It appears that thereafter
the appellant preferred appeal bearing no. DB/Appeal/Cell/7/2009 before
the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 05.11.2008. It
was the case on behalf of the appellant that the eligibility criteria as per     F
the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules,
1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Recruitment Rules, 1967’) for the
post of Section Officer was ‘continuous service of not less than three
years’ in the grade of Office Superintendent and respondent no.3 never
completed his continuous service of not less than three years on the post
of Office Superintendent, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of       G
Section Officer. That vide order dated 20.05.2010, the Additional
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad allowed the said appeal preferred
by the appellant herein and quash and set aside the order of promotion
of respondent no.3 to the post of Section Officer.
       3.2 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional                 H
886             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 20.05.2010, respondent no.3
      preferred Writ Petition No. 5437 of 2010 before the High Court. That
      by judgment and order dated 29.06.2010, a learned Single Judge of the
      High Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order passed
      by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 20.05.2010
      and consequently confirmed the order of promotion of respondent no.3
B
      dated 1.2.2008.
             3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Letters Patent
      Appeal No. 209/2010 before the Division Bench of the High Court. By
      the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court
C     has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order
      passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appellant has preferred
      the present appeal.
             4. Shri Arun R. Pedneker, learned Advocate has appeared for the
      appellant and Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate has appeared
D     for respondent no.3 herein.
             4.1 Shri Arun R. Pedneker, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
      of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
      circumstances of the case both, the learned Single Judge as well as the
      Division Bench of the High Court have not properly appreciated the
E     distinction between the Seniority Rules, 1982 and the Recruitment Rules,
      1967.
             4.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate appearing
      on behalf of the appellant that both, the learned Single Judge as well as
      the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred in solely
F     relying upon Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982 and have materially
      erred in not considering the requirement under the Recruitment Rules,
      1967.
             4.3 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on
      behalf of the appellant that the High Court ought to have appreciated
G     that the Seniority Rules, 1982 shall be applicable with respect to seniority
      and not with respect to recruitment. It is submitted that when the
      Recruitment Rules, 1967 provide that for promotion to the post of Section
      Officer, a person/employee ought to have completed three years of
      continuous service in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial), Grade II,
      in that case, the same is required to be adhered to or complied with. It
H
GIRISH KUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS                               887
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

is submitted that in the present case, respondent no.3 as such has not        A
completed three years of continuous service in the District Service (Class
III) (Ministerial) Grade II and thereafter was not eligible for promotion
to the post of Section Officer.
        4.4 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellant that completion of three years of continuous       B
service/complete service is the sine qua non for being eligible for the
promotional post of Section Officer as per Appendix IX of the
Recruitment Rules, 1967. It is further submitted that the High Court has
failed to consider that the Recruitment Rules, 1967 are framed in terms
of the powers given under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 and reflects the eligibility criteria which is   C
to be fulfilled by a candidate before he be promoted to a particular post.
It is submitted that therefore anyone who does not fulfil the said criteria
shall not be entitled to be promoted to the post of Section Officer. It is
submitted that the language which is used to the Rules (Recruitment
Rules, 1967) is plain and simple and gives rise to only one interpretation    D
alone that the candidate must have completed three years continuous
service in the feeder cadre, so that he may be well-acquainted and
well-versed with the work before he could be promoted to the post of
Section Officer. It is submitted therefore when the language which is
used under the Rules is plain and simple and unambiguous, the High
Court ought not to have considered and/or added the word “actual”             E
service of three years rendered in the feeder cadre.
     4.5 Relying upon the definition of “continuous” defined in the Black
Law Dictionary, it is submitted that as per the definition “continuous”
means “uninterrupted, unbroken etc.”
                                                                              F
      4.5 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant that in the present case as such the High Court
has considered the relevant provisions of the Service Rules, 1982, more
particularly Rule 5 of the Service Rules, which pertains to deemed date
of promotion and inter se seniority, however, does not consider at all the
relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 1967 and/or the                 G
requirements to be complied with/fulfilled under the Recruitment Rules,
1967.
      4.6 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed
                                                                              H
888             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High
      Court and to restore the order passed by the Additional Divisional
      Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 20.05.2010.
            5. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Vinay
      Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
B     no.3.
             5.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Advocate
      appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 that as such respondent no.3
      was granted the deemed date of promotion to the post of Office
      Superintendent with effect from 07.10.2005. It is submitted therefore
C     once respondent no.3 was granted the deemed date of promotion as per
      rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982 and consequently respondent no.3
      was placed in the seniority list above the appellant, in that case, unless
      and until the seniority of respondent no.3 above the appellant is challenged,
      thereafter the appellant cannot make any grievance.
D            5.2 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing
      on behalf of respondent no.3 that even otherwise the appellant entered
      into service on 26.6.2001 as Senior Assistant. However, in the cadre of
      Senior Assistant, respondent no.3 was granted the deemed date of
      promotion with effect from 6.11.1999. It is submitted that appellant
      choose not to challenge the deemed date of promotion 6.11.1999 granted
E     to respondent no.3 for the post of Senior Assistant. It is submitted that
      therefore its consequence must follow.
             5.3 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that
      rules of eligibility for appointment to the promotional post of Section
      Officer under Appendix IX requires three years continuous service and
F     Seniority Rules, 1982 cannot be read for conferring eligibility prescribed
      under Appendix IX is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by Shri Vinay
      Navare, learned Senior Advocate that first of all the term “continuous
      service” is not defined under the Recruitment Rules, 1967. It is submitted
      that Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services Rules,
G     1968 makes Maharashtra Civil Services (MCS) Rules applicable to Zilla
      Parishad employees. It is submitted that the term “continuous service”
      is essentially a technical term in service jurisprudence. It is submitted
      that there is nothing wrong or illegal if MCS Rules define and explain
      what “continuous service” is.
            5.4 It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on
H
GIRISH KUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS                                889
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

behalf of respondent no.3 that in the Seniority Rules, 1982 “continuous        A
service” and the “deemed date” are defined. It is submitted that as per
proviso to rule 3(c) “continuous service” is where a person is continuously
officiating in a post, cadre or service from a deemed date of appointment
under the provisions of the seniority rules, such person shall be deemed
to have rendered continuous service with effect from such deemed date.
                                                                               B
It is submitted therefore that when respondent no.3 was granted the
deemed date of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent with
effect from 7.10.2005, as rightly held by the High Court, it can be said
that respondent no.3 has completed three years of continuous service
and therefore is entitled to be promoted to the post of Section Officer.
       5.5. It is further submitted that in the Recruitment Rules, 1967,       C
more particularly Appendix IX before the word “continuous service”
word “actual service or actual experience” is not used. It is submitted
that in Appendix IV at serial no.3, the word used is “experience” as
requisite qualification. It is submitted therefore that whenever the
authority intended they used the word “experience”. It is submitted that       D
therefore as in Appendix IX before the word “continuous service” neither
the word “actual service” is mentioned nor “actual experience” is stated
and therefore “continuous service” in Appendix IX need not be “actual
experience” under the Recruitment Rules, 1967.
        5.6 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing   E
on behalf of respondent no.3 that if the submission/contention on behalf
of the appellant is accepted, it will give an absurd result. It is submitted
that it will be absurd to say that a person gets benefit of deemed date
and continuous service under the Seniority Rules, 1982 but he cannot
derive such continuous service for satisfaction of eligibility condition. It
is submitted that such interpretation will make the Seniority Rules, 1982      F
absurd and unworkable. It is submitted therefore that the provision has
to be read to make it harmonious.
       5.7 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of respondent no.3 that if mere grant of a deemed date is not
held good enough to consider respondent no.3 eligible for the promotional      G
post, then the very object of granting the same would be otiose.
      5.8 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of respondent no.3 that in any case the view taken by the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is a
                                                                               H
890             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     possible view and it relates to interpretation of the provisions of State
      Law, the interference of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
      of India is not called for.
            5.9 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
      present appeal.
B            6. We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
      at length.
             7. The short question which is posed for consideration before this
      Court is, whether an employee who has been assigned the deemed date
      of promotion as per Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982 and as such has
C     not actually worked at all on the promotional post, can it be said that he
      has completed service for a continuous period of not less than three
      years in the feeder cadre, which is the requirement under the relevant
      Recruitment Rules?
              8. As per Appendix IX to the Recruitment Rules, 1967, which are
D     framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 274 of the
      Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 for
      promotion to the post of Section Officer, no person shall be eligible for
      promotion unless he has completed service for a continuous period of
      not less than three years in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade
E     II. Respondent no.3 was promoted as Office Superintendent on
      22.10.2007. However, he was granted deemed date of promotion under
      Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982 for promotion as Office
      Superintendent. He was promoted to the post of Section Officer on
      1.2.2008. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that as respondent
      no.3 was actually promoted as Office Superintendent on 22.10.2007
F     and therefore has not completed service for a continuous period of not
      less than three years in the District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade
      II and therefore he was not eligible for promotion considering the relevant
      provisions of the Recruitment Rules, more particularly Appendix IX.
      However, it is the case on behalf of respondent no.3 that once he was
G     granted the deemed date of promotion under Rule 5 of the Seniority
      Rules, 1982, his date of promotion for all purposes shall be continued/
      counted from 7.10.2005, i.e., from the deemed date of promotion. The
      learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court have
      considered and applied the Seniority Rules, 1982 under which respondent
      no.3 was granted the deemed date of promotion. However, it is required
H
GIRISH KUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS                                891
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

to be noted that the Seniority Rules, 1982 and the Recruitment Rules,          A
1967 both are different rules and enacted under the different provisions
and they operate in different fields. The Recruitment Rules, 1967 are
enacted/framed in exercise of powers conferred by clause xxxix of sub-
section 2 of Section 274 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samities Act, 1961. The said Rules shall apply to the
                                                                               B
recruitment to all posts in District Technical Service (Class III), District
Service (Class III) and District Service (Class IV). On the other hand,
the Seniority Rules, 1982 are framed/enacted in exercise of powers
conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per
the Seniority Rules, 1982, the seniority of government servants shall be
regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Seniority Rules, 1982.      C
The said Seniority Rules, 1982 are made applicable to the District Service
also. Therefore, the Seniority Rules, 1982 shall govern the seniority only
and not with respect to the recruitment. The recruitment shall be governed
by the Recruitment Rules, 1967 only.
       9. In the present case, the High Court has considered Rule 5 of         D
the Seniority Rules, 1982 and has not at all considered the Recruitment
Rules, 1967. Respondent no.3 might have been granted the deemed
date of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent with effect from
07.10.2005. However, he was actually promoted as Office
Superintendent on 22.10.2007. Therefore, in fact, he has rendered service
as Office Superintendent only from 22.10.2007. As per Appendix IX to           E
the Recruitment rules, 1967, the eligibility for appointment to the
promotional post of Section Officer requires three years continuous
service. The language used in Appendix IX is unambiguous, simple and
plain. Therefore, on a fair reading of Appendix IX of the Recruitment
Rules, 1967, to become eligible for the promotional post of Section Officer,   F
a person ought to have rendered continuous service of not less than
three years. “Continuous service” might have been defined under the
Seniority Rules, 1982. However, the same shall be for the purpose of
seniority and the Seniority Rules only. Therefore, if any employee is
granted the deemed date of promotion, his seniority shall be considered
accordingly from the deemed date of promotion. However, that shall be          G
only for the purpose of inter se seniority only and the same shall not be
applicable while considering the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment
Rules. In the Recruitment Rules, “continuous service” is not defined.
Therefore, one has to consider the ordinary dictionary meaning of
“continuous” which means “uninterrupted or unbroken”. The High Court           H
892                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     has added the word “actual” which as such is not there in Appendix IX.
      While considering the relevant provisions and as per the rule of
      interpretation, when the language used is unambiguous, plain and simple,
      the provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is to be added.
      Therefore, when in Appendix IX, the eligibility criteria is that no person
      shall be eligible for promotion unless he has completed service for a
B
      continuous service of not less than three years means he has to render/
      complete service for a continuous period of uninterrupted/unbroken three
      years service. Therefore, when respondent no.3 has not completed
      three years of service for a continuous period of not less than three
      years in the feeder cadre in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial)
C     Grade II, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer.
      The High Court has committed a grave error in holding otherwise.
      Therefore, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rightly
      allowed the appeal and rightly set aside the order of promotion of
      respondent no.3 dated 1.2.2008 to the post of Section Officer.
D            10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgments and orders passed
      by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High
      Court are hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the
      Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 20.05.2010 is
      hereby restored and it is held that respondent no.3 is not entitled to be
E     promoted to the post of Section Officer and instead action should be
      taken to promote the appellant to the post of Section Officer, as directed
      by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. However, in
      the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
      costs.
F
      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.




G




H