Holding

The High Court was wrong to reject the preliminary objection of laches; a writ challenging seniority after such a long delay must be dismissed, and the seniority list of 28 January 1976 stands.

Summary

The case concerned the fixation of seniority among Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau, where various Office Memoranda (1940, 1949, 1959) had successively altered the basis for seniority. Petitioners (direct recruits of 1957) filed a writ in 1976 challenging seniority lists that placed earlier departmental assistants above them, despite earlier lists in 1958, 1961 and 1965 showing the opposite. The High Court dismissed the writ, and the Division Bench set aside that dismissal, ignoring the respondents' preliminary objection of laches. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the laches objection and that a petition raised after a delay of nearly three decades should be dismissed to preserve administrative stability. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench judgment, dismissed the writ petition, and directed that promotions be reviewed according to the seniority list dated 28 January 1976.

Issues considered

The validity of seniority lists issued under successive Office Memoranda
Whether a writ petition challenging seniority after a long delay should be dismissed on the ground of laches
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the preliminary objection of delay

Subjects

seniorityfixation of senioritylachesdelaycivil servicesgovernment serviceadministrative lawwrit petitionIntelligence Bureau

Judgment

r

A
K.R. MUDGAL & ORS.
v.
R.P. SINGH & ORS.

SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 B

[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.I

Civil Services.

. Seniority list-Fixation of seniority-Necessity for aggrieved offi-
cials to approach Court at the earliest. c
--~
. r
The Ministry of Home Affairs by its Office Memorandum dated
14th May, 1940 laid down that if a vacancy arose in the cycle meant for
a direct recruit, the direct recruit would rank senior to the depart-
mental candidates even though the direct recruit joined the post after D
the departmental candidate had been promoted and confirmed. This
principle of fixation of seniority was subsequently superseded by Office
Memorandum dated 22nd June 1949, which provided that the seniority
would be determined on the basis of the length of service. Another
Office Memorandum issued on 22nd December, 1959, in supersession of
the 1949 Office Memorandum laid down that the seniority was to be E
lixed on the basis of the date of confirmation.

Some of the officfals, who had been directly appointed as Assis-
tants in a department of the Government of India in the year 1957, f"tled
-• a writ petition in the High Court in th.e year 1976 questioning the
validity of the appointments of certain other Assistants who had been F
appointed or absorbed as Assistants prior to the induction of the writ
petitioners into service as Assistants, and also the assisgnment of
seniority to them over and above the petitioners.

The lirst draft seniority list of the Assistants in that department
was issued in 1958 on the basis of length of continuous service placing G
the officials who were respondents to the writ petition above the peii-
tioners, and was duly circulated. No objections were received from the
writ petitioners against the seniority assigned to them in the said seni-
ority list. Subsequently, the seniority lists in the Grade of Assistants
were again issued in 1961 and 1965.but again no objections were raised
by the writ petitioners. H

993
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11986] 3 S.C.R.

A On the basis of the 1959 Office Memorandum the seniroity list, as
maintained in the department up to 1965, was revised in March, 1968.
In the revised seniority list the writ petitioners became senior to many
of the departmental Assistants, who had a longer length of service, but
for one reason or the other had not been confirmed in the post or were
confirmed after the confirmation of the writ petitioners. Consequent to
B the decision of this Court in Union of India v. M. Ravi Verma, 11972] 2
SCR 992, the said seniority list was again revised in the year 1976
resulting in the respondents in the writ petition, who were governed by
the 1949 Office· Memorandum, being shown as seniors to the peti-
tioners.

c The petitioners questioned the validity of the seniority list
published in 1976. The respondents in the writ petition raised a ·preli-
minary objection to the writ petition stating that it was liable to be
dismissed on the ground of Iaches. The writ petition was dismissed by
the Single Judge. The Letters Patent appeal tiled by the petitoners was,
however, allowed by the Division Bench, without adverting to the
D ground of delay. The ancillary directions given by (he Court resulted in
the disturbance of the seniority of the above said. respondents, who had
been working in the department and on the date of the judgment had
put in more than twenty-five years of service as Assistants.

Allowing the appeals by special leave tiled by the Union of India as
E well as the officials, who had been appointed prior to the date on which
the writ petitioners were appointed, the Court,

HELD: The High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary
objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the
ground oflaches. [IOOOE-F]
F
It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority
assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible, as
otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds
of the Government servants there would also be administrative compli-
cations and difficulties. llOOOD-E]
G
Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no
sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the
writ petitions tiled after several years. A Government servant who is
appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4
years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to
H his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity. IlOOOC; 9960-E]
K.R. MUDGAL v. R. P. SINGH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.[ 995

The respondent-petitioners should have in the ordinary course . . A
questioned the principle on the basis of which the seniority lists were
being issued from time to time from the year 1958 and the promotions
which were being made on the basis ofthe said lists within a reasonable
time. For the first time they filed the writ petition in the High Court in
the year 1976 nearly 18 years after the ID'S! draft seniority list was 8
published in the year 1958. The appellants have been put to the neces-
sity of defending their appointments as well as their senioriiy after
nearly three decades. This kind of fruitless and harmful litigation
should he discouraged. [IOOOB-C; 996 E-Fl

All the promotions made in the department to he reviewed in
accordance with the impugned seniority lisl of 1976. I lOOlG] c
R.S. Makashi & Ors. v. l.M. Menon & Ors., I 1982] 2 SCR 69 and
Maloon Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India & Ors., [1975]
Supp. SCR 409, referred to.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
2925-26 of 1~81

From the Judgment and Order dated 19th December, 1980 of the
Delhi High Court in Letter Patent Appeal No. 6 of 1978.
E
M.K. Ramamurthi and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.·

R.K. Garg, P.H. Parekh and C.V. Sobba Rao for the Res-
' pondents.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
F
VENKATARAMIAH, J. Some of the officials who had been
directly appointed as Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau of the
Government of India in the year 1957 filed a writ petition in the year
1976 in Civil Writ Petition No. 638. of 1976 on the file of the High
Court of Delhi questioning the validity of the appointments of certain
G
other Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau of whom some had been
appointed prior to 1.2.1954 and the remaining had been appointed or
absorbed as Assistants prior to the induction of the writ petitioners
into service as Assistants and also the assignment of seniority to them
over and above the petitioners in the Writ Petition. The said Writ
Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A decision of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners in the writ petition
filed an appeal in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 1978 before a
Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the
appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held
that the posts of Assistants ·which existed on 1.2.1954 had to be filled
by persons who were eligible in terms of Paragraph 15 of the reorgani-
B sation Scheme of 1955 effective from 1.2.1954 and that there was in-
fringement of the terms of Paragraph 15 in their cases. The Division
Bench also gave some other ancillary directions resulting in the dis-
turbance of the seniority of the respondents who had been working in
the Intelligence Bureau. By the date of the said judgment the said
respondents had put in more than 25 years of service as Assistants in
c the Intelligence Bureau. Aggrieved by the decision of the Division
Bench, the Union of India as well as the officials, who had been
appointed prior to the date on wh.ich the writ petitioners were
appointed have filed these two appeals by special leave.

At the outset it should be stated that it is distressing to see that
D cases of this kind where the validity of the appointments of the officials
who had been appointed more than 32 years age is questioned are still
being agitated in courts of law. A Government servant who is
appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4
years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to
his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity. It is unfortu-
E nate that in this case the officials who are appellants before this Court
have been put to the necessity of defending their appointments as well
as their seniority after nearly three decades. This kind of fruitless and
harmful litigation should be discouraged.
..
,

F
The ministerial posts in the Intelligence Bureau were reorga-
nised with effect from 1.2.1954 vide Ministry of Home Affairs Letter
<
No. 40/154/49-P.III dated 17.9.1955. In accordance with the said :,_
Scheme the Ministerial Duty Posts were reorganised into following
three categories:

Category A - Administrative Officer and the Assistant
G Director (Non-Police)

Category B - Superintendents and Assistant Superinten-
dents

Categoty C - Assistants.
H
K.R.MUDGALv. R.P. SINGH (VENKATARAMIAH,J.( 997

All Duty Posts in Category 'C' were required by that Scheme to A
be filled by Assistants or U.D.Cs placed in charge of such posts. The
posts of Assistants were classified as belonging to Grade IV in the
Intelligence Bureau Service. The mode of initial constitution of Grade
IV, confirmation of the existing Assistants called 'departmental candi-
dates' at the initial stage and the future recruitment to Grade IV B
consisting of Assistants were regulated·by Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the
said Scheme. The principle of fixation of seniority as laid down in the
Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 20/1/40-Ests(S)
dated 14.5.1940 was that if a vacancy arose in the cycle meant for a
direct recruit, the direct recruit would rank senior to the departmental
candidate even though the direct recruit joined the post after the
departmental candidates had been promoted and confirmed. This c
principle of fixation of seniority was subsequently superseded by the
Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 30/44/48-Apptts,
dated 22.6.1949 which provided that the seniority would be deter-
mined on the basis of the length of service. Prior to the reorganisation
which came into force with effect from 1.2.1954 the seniority of
D
Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau was fixed on the basis of the 1949
Office Memorandum.

Before the reorganisation of the Intelligence Bureau the direct
recruitment of Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau was made through
the Employment Exchange, advertisements .and by inviting appli-
E
cations of persons working in other Ministries etc. The Intelligence
Bureau was exempted from making recruiiment to its ministerial posts
through the Union Public Service Commission in accordance with the
Government orders issued from time to time. No direct recruitment
was made through the Union Public Service Commission. It was only
after the reorganisation of the ministerial posts in the Intelligence
F
Bureau that the Union Government was required to make direct re-
cruitment of Assistants in the ratio of 85% through the Union Public
Service Conunission and 15% by promotion of U.D.Cs in terms of the
'said Scheme. The Intelligence Bureau was again exempted from the
purview of the Union Public Service Commission since 1969 and now
we are told that it conducts its own examination for making recruit-
G
, ment of Assistants directly.

The officials who were shown as Respondent Nos. 3 to 9, 12 to 31
and 42 to 49 in the Writ Petition were working as Assistants on
1.2.1954, i.e., the date of the reorganisation of the ministerial posts in
the Intelligence Bureau. Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 in the Writ Peti- H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.
,
A lion were appointed as direct recruits through other sources before the
Intelligence Bureau Ministerial Reorganisation Scheme was issue_d on
17 .8.1955. Respondent Nos. 32 to 41, 50 and 51 are those officers who
were promoted from the posts of U. D. Cs to the posts of Assistants
against 15% quota of promotees prescribed in the reorganisation
B scheme. The petitioners who had filed the Writ Petition were, how-
ever, recruited through the competitive examination held by the
Union Public Service Commission in the year 1955 against the 85%
quota of direct recruitment provided for in the Scheme and they joined
,.
service in 1957. The first draft seniority list of the Assistants was issued
in 1958 on the basis of length of continuous service placing the officials
who were respondents to the writ petition above the petitioners
c therein and was duly circulated . No objections were received from the
writ petitioners against the seniority assigned to them in the said seni-
ority list. Subsequently, the seniority lists in the Grade of Assistants
were again issued in 1961 and 1965 but again no objections were raised
by the writ petitioners except petitioner No. 6 who objected to the
D
1965 list. In 1959 the Ministry of Home Affairs issued another Office
Memorandum No. 9/11/55/IPS dated 22.12.1959 in supersession of the
1949 Office Memorandum laying down the principles of fixation of
seniority. According to this Memorandum, the seniority was to be
fixed on t)le basis of the date of confirmation as against the 1949 Office
Memorandum which laid down that the seniority should be fixed in
accordance with the length of service. On the basis of the 1959 Office
E
Memorandum the seniority list as maintained in the Intelligence
Bureau up to 1965 was revised in March, 1968. In the revised seniority
list the writ petitioners became seniors to many of the departmental
Assistants (who had been impleaded as respondents) who had a longer
length of service but for one reason or the other had not been con-
firmed in the said post or were confirmed after the confirmation of the
F
writ petitioners. The 1959 Office Memorandum came up for considera-
tion before the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. M. Ravi
Varma & Ors. etc., 11972] 2 S.C.R. 992. In that decision t.his Court
held that the Office Memorandum dated 22.12.1959 had expressly
made it clear that the general principles embodied in the annexure
thereto were not to have any retrospective effect and in order to put
G
the matter beyond any pale of controversy it had been mentioned that
'hereafter the seniority of all persons appointed in the various Central
Services after the date of these instructions should be, determined in
accordance with the general principles annexed hereto'. !Il accordance
with the above view this Court held that the seniority of two of the
H respondents in that case, whose seniority was in issue, had to be
K.R. MUDGALv. R.P. SINGH {VENKATARAMIAH, J . l 999

determined on the basis of their length of service in accordance with A
Office Memorandum dated 22..6.1949 and not on the basis of th~ date
of their confirmation because they had been appointed prior to
22.12.1959. Two of the respondents in the writ petition out of\yhich
these appeals arise, i.e., respondent Nos. 7 and 36 had also filed writ
petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the senior- B
ity list of Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau which had been issued
in March, 1968. The Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgment
dated 11.11.1974 on the basis of the decision in Ravi Varma's case
(supra) held that the seniority of respondents 7 and 36 should be fixed
on the basis of the 1949 Office Memorandum. On the basis of the
judgment in Ravi Vanna's case (supra) arid the decision of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to above, the seniority list of the c
Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau was again revised for correcting
the error committed earlier and a draft partial seniority list was issued
on 16.6.1975 proposing to revive the earlier list dated 22.12.1958. In
this seniority list the respondents in the writ petition, who were work-
ing as Assistants at the time of the reorganisation and were governed ·o
by the 1949 Office Memorandum were shown as seniors to the peti-
' tioners who had filed the writ petiti~n in accordance with the position
in the 1958 seniority list. The petitioners filed objections to the said
seniority list. Their objections were not accepted and a seniority list
was· issued in January, 1976 showing the officials who had been im-
pleaded as respondents in the writ petition as seniors to the petitioners E
in the writ petition. In the writ petition the petitioners questioned the
validity of the above seniority list published in January, 1976.

The respondents in the writ petitio,n raised a preliminary objec-
tion to the wdt petition stating that the writ petition was liable to be
• dismissed on the ground of ]aches. Although the learned Single Judge ·F
and the.Division Bench have not disposed of the above writ petition on
of
the ground delay' we feel that in the circumstances of this case the
writ petition should have been rejected on the ground of delay alone.
The first draft seniority list of the Assistants was issued in the year
1958 and it was duly circulated amongst all the concerned officia.l~- In
that list the writ petitioners had been shown below the respondents. G
No objections were received from the petitioners against the seniority
list. Subsequently , the seniority lists were again issued in 1961 and
1965 but again no objections ~ere raised by the writ petitioners, to the
seniority list of 1961, but only the petitioner No. 6 in the writ petition
represented against the seniority list of 1965. We have already men-
tioned that the 1968 seniority list in which the writ petitioners had been H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986l 3S.C.R.

A show·n above the respondents had been issued on a misunderstanding
of the Office Memorandum of 1959 on the assumption that the 1949
Office Memorandum was not applicat5le to them. The June 1975 seni-
ority list was prepared having regard to the decision in Ravi Vanna's
case (supra) and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
B the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos. 7 and 36 and thus the
mistake that had crept into the 1968 list was rectified. Thus the list was
finalised in January, 1976. The petitioners who filed the writ petition
should have in the ordinary course questioned the principle on the
basis of which the seniority lists were being issued from time to time
from the year 1958 and the promotions which were being made on the
basis of the said lists within a reasonable time. For the first time they
c filed the writ petition in the High Court in the year 1976 nearly 18
years after the first draft seniority list was published in the year 1958.
Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense
of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the writ
petitions filed .after several years as in this case. It is essential that any
D one who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should
approach the court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the ·
creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government
servants there would also be administrative complications and diffi-
culties. Unfortunately in this case even after nearly 32 years the dis-
pute regarding the appointement of some of the respondents to the
E writ petition is still lingering in this Court. In these circumstances we
consider that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary
objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on
the ground of laches. The facts of this case are more or less similar to
the facts in R.S. Makashi & Ors. v. J.M. Menon & Ors., [1982] 2
S.C. R. 69. In the said decision this Court observed at page 100 thus:
F
"In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court
was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised
, by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should
be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and
!aches, inasmuch as ·it seeks to disrupt the vested rights
regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had
G
accrued to a large number of respondents during the period
of eight years that had intervened between the passing of
the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ
petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge
raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid
H down in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968
(',·------------------------------------------------------------
l ...
I ,

,\ .
KR MUDGAL v. R.P. SINGH [VENKATARAMIAH, J.J

ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the
1001

A

~
ground of delay and !aches and the writ petition in so far as
it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government
Resolution should have been dismissed."

We are in respectful agreement with the above observation.
·'"(. I We may also refer here to the weighty observations made by a
B

f
• Constitution Bench of this Court in Maloon Lawrence Cecil D'Souza
I v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 409 at·page 413-414
-~~!(
which are as follows:

"Although security of service cannot be used as a shield c
against administrative action for lapse of a public servant,

-
by and large one of the essential requirements of content-
ment and efficiency in public services is a feeling of secu-
rity. It is difficult to doubt to guarantee such security in all
its varied aspects. It should at least be possible to ensure
D
that matters like one's position in the seniority list after
having been settled for once should not be liable to be
reopened after lapse of many years at the instance of a
party who has during the intervening period chosen to keep
quiet. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time
is likely to result in administrative complications and
difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest E
of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters
should be given a quietus after lapse of some time."

We feel that in the circumstances of this case, we should not
embark upon on and enquiry into the merits of the case and that the
F
writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of !aches alone.

We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside thejudgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition
filed in the High Court. We also direct that all the promotions made in
the Intelligent Bureau shall be revi~wed in accordance with the
G
impugned seniority list dated January 28, 1976. There shall be no
order as to costs.

P.S.S. App.eals allowed.