Holding

Seniority of officers recruited under Rule 5(1) is to be determined by granting them the benefit of service in the equivalent post in their parent department, i.e., from the date of regular appointment to that post, per Rule 5(2) and its proviso.

Summary

The case concerned employees of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) who were recruited under Rule 5(1) of the CAT (Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 and were absorbed on the same day. A dispute arose whether their inter‑se seniority should be measured from the date of deputation to the CAT or from the date of appointment to an equivalent post in their parent department. The CAT had relied on an Office Memorandum dated 3 July 1986 and fixed seniority from the deputation date, which the appellant challenged. The Supreme Court examined Rule 5(2) and its proviso, held that seniority must be determined by giving credit for service in the equivalent parent‑department post, i.e., from the date of regular appointment in that post. The Court rejected the Office Memorandum as overriding the Rules and clarified that "source" refers to the mode of recruitment (transfer on deputation/transfer) not to the appointing authority. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the CAT’s order set aside and a fresh seniority list directed to be prepared.

Issues considered

The correct method of determining inter‑se seniority of officers recruited under Rule 5(1) of the CAT Recruitment Rules, 1989.
Whether seniority should be counted from the date of deputation to the CAT or from the date of appointment to an equivalent post in the parent department.
The applicability and binding effect of the Office Memorandum dated 3 July 1986 in the face of the recruitment rules.
The interpretation of the term "source" in the recruitment rules.
The relevance of length of service in a particular class, category or grade for seniority determination.

Subjects

seniorityinter se seniorityrecruitment rulesabsorptiondeputationservice lawCentral Administrative Tribunalrule interpretationlength of serviceofficial memorandum

Judgment

A M.RAMACHANDRAN
v.
GOVIND BALLABH AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

B (S.P. KURDUKAR AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Service Law :

Central Administrative Tribunal (Group Band C Miscellaneous Posts)
C Recruitment Rules, 1989-Rule 5(1) and (2), proviso.

Inter se seniority-Determination of--Deputationists-Permanent ab-
sorption on the same datr:--Benefit of service rendered on equivalent post in
parent department-Entitlement of-Whether seniority to be determined from
the date of deputation or from the date of appointment in equivalent post in
D parent department? Held, employees entitled to benefit of service rendered on
equivalent post in their parent department-Thus, seniority to be determined
with reference to the date of appointment on equivalent post in parent
department.
-
Seniority-Determination of-Length of servicr:--Relevancy of-Held,
E length of service in a particular class, category or grade parties holding at the
relevant time, relevant for determining seniority and not the total length of
service.

Office Memorandum-Applicability of-Inter se senioritJDetermina-
F tion of-Rules providing method of detennination-Effect of-Held, Office
Memorandum cannot be taken into account for determining seniority as the
rules hold the field.

Words and Phrases :

G "Source''-Meaning and interpretation of in the context of Rule 5(2),
proviso of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscel-
laneous Posts) Recruitmelll Rules, 1989.

Central Administrative Tribunal recruited employees from time to
time on deputation. The services of the said employees on deputation were
H permanently absorbed by the Tribunal on the same day in terms of S.
38
M. RAMACHANDRAN v. GO VIND BALLABH 39
5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscel- A
.laneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989. A dispute arose whether the
seniority of employees should be counted from the date oftheir deputation
or l'rom the date of their appointment to equivalent posts in parent
department. The Tribunal relying upon the Office Memorandum dated
3.7.1986 held that the seniority of employees should be determined from
B
the date of their deputation. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1. All the employees recruited in the service under Rule
5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B and C Miscel- C
Ianeous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989, are entitled to the benefit of the
service on equivalent post in their parent department for the purpose of
determining their seniority. [51-8]

R.S. Bakshi v. J.M. Menon, [1982] 1 SCC 379; Wing Commander!.
Kumar v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 453; K. Madhavan & Anr. v. Union D
oflndia & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 566; K. Anjaiah & Ors. v. K. Chandraiah &
Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 218.andM. Hara Bhupal v. Union of India &_ors., [1997]
3 sec 561; relied on.

1.2. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 is the relevant rule relating to the E
determination of the seniority of the officers recruited to the service under
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. The seniority of such recruited officers is required
to be determined with reference to the date of their regular appointment
to the posts. The proviso to Sub-rule (2) shall cover the case of such
officers whose seniority cannot be determined under Sub-rule (2) as in the
F
present case of the persons appointed/recruited on the same date. In such
a case the seniority of the officers recruited from the same source has to
be determined by giving them the benefit of the equivalent post held by
them in their parent department .. Sub-rule (2) and its proviso, is based
upon the general principle of service jurisprudence. The Office Memoran-
dum dated 3.7.1986 cannot be taken into account for determining the inter G
se seniority of the persons recruited to the service on the same date as the
rules hold the field. [50-B; C; DJ

1.3. Seniority is a relevant term having reference to the class,
category and the grade to which the reference is made. Length of service H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A is a recognised method of determining the seniority. Such length of service
shall have reference to the class, category or grade which the parties were.
holding at the relevant time. It, therefore, follows that total length, of
service is not relevant for determining the seniority but length of service
to a particular class, category or grade is relevant consideration for the
B purposes of counting the period with respect to length of service for the
purposes of determining the seniority. In other words the period of holding
of the equivalent post in the parent department would be the relevant
period to be taken note of for the purposes of determining the seniority
under Rule 5(2) and its proviso. Any other interpretation would be against
C the settled rules of service jurisprudence and is likely to create many
anomalies resulting in failure of justice and defeating the acquired rights
of the civil servants based upon their length of service. A perusal of the
Rules does not, in any way, show and rightly so that the rule making
authority had ever intended to take away the benefit of the length of
services of a person in his parent department before his deputation and
D absorption in the service. [50-E; F; G; H; 51-A]

2. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the source of
appointment of parties to the dispute was either the Central or the State
--
Government or the High Court or the Subordinate Courts. The proper
E interpretation of the Rule read with Schedule is that all such parties were
recruited from the same source, i.e. Transfer on deputation/Transfer and
possessed requisite qualifications for recruitment to the new service. The
source of recruitment can either be internal or external. Internal source
would relate to cases where the appointments are made by promotion or
F by transfer and by absorption. External source would conceive the recruit-
ment of eligible persons who are not already in service in the organisation
to which the recruitment is to be made. [47-C; F]

A.K. Bhatnagar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1990) 4 SC 610
and Union of India v. H.R. Patankar & Ors., AIR (1984) SC 1587, held
G inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2704 of
1997.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.96 of the Central
\'
•
'
M. RAMACHANDRAN v. GOVIND BALLABH [SETHI, J.] 41
Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in O.A. No. 1067 of 1995. A
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant.

Anoop George Chaudhary, D.S. Mehra, (Ms. Anil Katiyar), (NP),
Ms. Binu Tamta and A.S. Rawat for the Respondent.
B
Govind Ballabh (In-Person) for the Respondent No. 1 Preveen
Swamp for the Respondent.
,.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. The. dispute sought to be resolved in this appeal is c
regarding Inter se seniority of the employees of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the CAT") who were recruited from
time to time as per requirement but came to be absorbed on the same day
in terms of Section 5(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Group B
and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred D
to as "the Ruies"). One set of employees claim their seniority from the date
of their deputation to the aforesaid service of the. CAT and the other set
- of employees pray for counting of the period of their service to the
equivalent post held by them in their parent department, before their
deputation and absorption in the service. On the. application filed by E
respondent no. 1, the. CAT accepted the former plea and directed the
determination of the seniority of the employees of the CAT from the date
of their deputation. Such directions were issued on the basis of the official
memoranda and departmental instructions after holding that there did not
exist any provision in the Rules for the purposes of determination of the
F
seniority of persons recruited to the service by absorption on the same day
Not satisfied with the findings of the Tribunal, the appellant herein has
preferred this appeal.

Most of the facts in the case are admitted. The controversy revolves
upon the interpretation of the Rules. The appellant contends that Rule 5(2) G
and its proviso governs the method for determinating the seniority but the
respondent no. 1 who has appeared in person and learned counsel
appearing for the Union of India have contended that the inter se seniority
of the employees of the CAT has to be determined on the basis of the
official memoranda on the subject which were consolidated by the H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Government of India on 3rd July, 1986. Necessary admitted facts are that
the Central Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 1.11.1985. The
CAT (Staff) (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 came into effect on 31
October, 1985. Rule 4 of the said Rules prescribed that the condition of
service of the officers and other employees of the CAT in matters of pay,
B allowances leave, provident fund, age of superannuation, pension and
retirement benefits, medical facilities and other conditions of service were
to be regulated in accordance with such rules and regulations as were, for
the time being, applicable to the officers and employees belonging to
Group A, B, C and D, as the case may be, of corresponding scales of pay
..
stationed at those places. The respondent no. 1 was in the service of Delhi
C High Court and sent on deputation to the CAT, Principal Bench as Court
Officer on 8.1.1986. The terms of his deputation were extended from time
to time in public interest. The appellant, who was holding the post of
Section Officer in his parent department with effect from 31 December,
1982, joined the CAT on deputation as Section Officer on 1.6.1987. The
D respondent no. 1 is alleged to have become entitled to hold equivalent
post in his parent department on 1.8.1986. The Rules for the post of Section
officer/Court Officer in CAT were notified, for the first time, on 20th
September, 1989. All willing and fit deputationists including all private
parties in this appeal were absorbed in the service on i.11.1989. The draft
E seniority list of Section Officers/Court Officers/Private Secretaries in the
CAT was published on 16.11.1990. Final seniority list as on 1.11.1989 is
admitted to have been published on 17.5.1994. Respondent no. 1 filed
Original Application before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative
.'
Tribunal on 2.6.1995 seeking the following reliefs :
F "(i) to quash erroneous guidelines (Ann.A- 6 collectively) issued
by respondent No. 2 being contrary to statutory rules and
D.O.P.T's instructions/0.Ms;

(ii) to quash letter No. PB/7/12/94-Estt.l dated 24.1.1995 (Ann.A-
G 12) issued by respondent no. 2;

(iii) to direct respondents to take 26.11.85 as the date of regular
appointment to the applicant in Delhi High Court as deter-
mined by the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court for all purposes;

H (iv) to quash all the DPC proceedings held in June, 1994 for
M. RAMACHANDRAN v. GOVIND BALLABH [SETHI, J.] 43

appointment/selection to the posts of Deputy Registrar in the A

-· (v)
CAT;

to direct the respondents to assign the applicant appropriate
placement in the final seniority list of SO/CO/PS above
respondents No. 4 to 10 circulated vide letter No. 1/55/90-
Estt. Dated 17.5.1994 in accordance with Rule 5(2) of CAT B
Gr.'B', 'C' Misc. Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989 read with
DOPT consolidated OM dated 3.7.1986;

(vi) to direct respondents to hold fresh/review DPCs for appoint-
menl to the posts of Deputy Registrar in the Tribunal accord-
ing to CAT (Gr.'A' posts) Recruitment Rules 1988 on the
c
basis of appropriate placement of the applicant in the final
seniority list of SO/CO/PS(s) as on 1.11.1989 as prayed at (v)
above;

(vii) to direct the respondents no. 1 and 2 to fill up the 50% post D
of Deputy Registrar by promotion first as envisaged in the
CAT (Gr.' A') Rules, and further absorption of deputationists
be taken up only thereafter in consonance with Recruitment
Rules;

{viii) Any other or further orders/directions to redress the E
grievance of the applicant as may be deemed proper in the
circumstances of the case with costs."

It was contended on behalf of the respondent no. 1 that by letter dated
9.6.1989 the CAT had called for options for absorption to the post of F
PAs/Senior PA and Section Officer in the CAT in response to which he
consented for absorption along with. respondents 4 to 10. The respondent
No. 1 and respondent no. 10, namely Shri Govind Ballabh and Shri A.K.
Ajmani are stated to have been absorbed with effect from 1.11.1989 vide
order dated 14.12.1989 allegedly on the basis of the first DPC's recommen-
dation while respondents 4 to 9 including the appellant, who are stated to G
have exercised their option for absorption after the first DPC met in
November, 1989, were absorbed with effect from 1.11.1989 on the basis of
._,, subsequent DPC's recommendation made in February, 1990. He con-
tended that he and respondents 4 to 10 were, in June, 1994, considered for
selection to the post of Deputy Registrar and all of them recommended H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A for selection but no orders for their regular appointments were issued till
the date he filed the Original Application before the CAT. It was alleged
that instead of finalising the tentative seniority list circulated on 16.11.1990,
the CAT issued its own guidelines one after another in the years 1991, 1992
and 1993 allowing the deputationists/absorbers the benefit of service
rendered by them in their parent department towards seniority allegedly
B contrary to DOPT's own rules and instructions on the subject which,
according to him, adversely affected his rights. The Second seniority list is
stated to have been circulated on 25th March, 1992 and the third on 14th
June, 1993 . .The final seniority list, as noted earlier, was circulated on 17th
May, 1994.
c
The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the guidelines issued
by it, which were sought to be quashed, were not legal and thus not
sustainable .. It also noticed that the correctness of the impugned guidelines
had been doubted by the CAT itself who withdrew the same vide its letter
D dated 5.5.1995. No party is aggrieved by such findings of the Central
Administrative Tribunal.

Referring to Rule 5 of the Rules, the Central Administrative Tribunal
noticed that the rule making authority had visualised a situation where a
E problem in fixing seniority could arise from the persons recruited from the
same source and working in the same parent department. It erroneously '
interpreted the term "source" to mean the Central/State Govt./High
Court/Subordinate Courts and that the proviso to Rule 5(2) lay down that
f
the seniority of officers recruited from such alleged sources in the post held
by them in the parent department was not to be disturbed, which according
F to it, only m~ant that where two persons were recruited from a single
source i.e. Central Government or State Government or High Court or
Subordinate Courts and the parent department was the same, it was then
and only then that the seniority which they brought with them would not
be disturbed and in all other cases the seniority was to be determined with
G reference to their date of regular appointment to the post in the CAT. The
Tribunal further held :

"22. The question may then arise that if all the existing employees
were absorbed on the same date i.e. 1.11.1989 although by different
H orders, how then is their inter-se seniority to be determined. In the
M. RAMACHANDRAN v. GO VIND BALLABH [SETHI, J .] 45

absence of anything in the Recruitment Rules themselves to answer A
this point, we would necessarily have to full back on DO & T's
OM dated 3.7.1986 extracted in paragraph 8 above and in respect
of deputationists (applicant as well as respondents 4 to 10 are
deputationists) who were holding the same or equivalent grade on
regular basis in their parent department, determined their inter-se-
seniority from the date they were holding the post on deputation
B
or the date from which they were appointed on a regular basis to
the same or equivalent grade in their parent department whichever
is later.

23. In our view this is the only way in which the provisions of Rule C
5 of the CAT (Group B and C Misc. Post) Recruitment Rules,
1989 can be harmoniously interpreted with DP & T's instructions
dated 3.7.1986 on the subject and CAT's impugned guidelines
which serve counter to the same are therefore, not in accordance
with law.
D
24. We would add that it is only this interpretation which can
obviate results which would otherwise be quite extraordinary in
grant of seniority to persons in CAT from a date even prior to the
inception of CAT on 1.11.1985; or two sets of principles for
determination of seniority one laid down by DP & T and the other
by CAT, or a distinction wholly invidious between employees E
absorbed on or before 1.11.1989 and those absorbed thereafter."

It has to be noticed that the learned counsel appearing for the Central
Administrative Tribunal submitted at the hearing that despite filing of a
joint counter it supported the case of the appellant herein. F
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and the respon-
dent no. 1 who argued the case in person took us through the pleadings
and various memoranda issued to persuade us to agree that the rules do
. not envisage the determination of the inter-se seniority of the persons
recruited to the service by absorption in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Rules. G
In order to appreciate rival contentions it is. necessary to have a
glance of Rule 5 which provides :

"5. Absorption/regularisation of ex1stmg employees. (1) Not-
withstanding anything contained in the provisions of these rules, H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the persons holding the posts of Court Officers/Section Officers,
Hindi Translator, Assistant, Junior Librarian, Caretaker, Upper
Division/Receptionist/Store-keeper and Lower Division Clerk on
the date of commencement of the rules either on transfer or on
deputation basis or as the case may be, on direct recruitment basis
and who fulfil the qualifications and experience laid down in these
B rules and who are considered suitable by Department Promotion
Committee shall be eligible for absorption/Regularisation in the
respective grade subject to condition that such persons exercise
their option for the absorption and that their parent Departments
do not have any objection to their being absorbed in the Tribunal.
c (2) The seniority of officers mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall be
determined with refer.ence to the dates of their regular appoint·
ment to the posts conerned :

Provided that the seniority of officers recruited from the same
source and in the posts held by them in the parent Department
D
shall not be disturbed.

(3) The Suitability of persons for absorption may be considered by
a Department Promotion Committee."
-
E Rule 4 deals with the method of recruitment and provides that the recruit-
ment to the post, age limit, qualifications and other conditions relating
thereto shall be as specified in Column 5 to 14 of the Schedule attached
to the Rules. Column No. 11 refers to the method of recruitment and
column No. 12 to the source from which the posts are to be filled up.
F Column No. 12 provides :

"(i) Promotion ·

Assistant with 8 years regular service in the scale of pay of Rs.
1400-2600 or equivalent.
G (ii) Transfer on deputation/Transfer.

-
Persons working under Central/State Government/High Court/
Subordinate Courts.

H (a)(i) holding analogous post on regular basis; or
M. RAMA CHAND RAN v. GO VIND BALLABH [SETHI, J.] 47

(iii) holding posts of Assistant or equivalent in the scale of Rs. A
1400-2600 with 8 years regular services and

(b) possessing the educational qualifications prescribed for direct
recruits in Column 8.

Note : The period of Deputation including the period of deputation B
in another ex-cadre post held immediately preceding this appoint-
ment in the same or some other organisation/department of the
Central Government shall ordinarily not exceed 3 years."

There is no dispute that appointment/recruitment to any service can be
made from different sources, i.e., by direct appointment, by promotion or c
by absorption/transfer. The source of recruitment can either be internal or
external. Internal source would relate to cases where the appointments are
made by promotion or by transfer and by absorption. External source
would conceive the recruitment of eligible persons who are not already in
service in the organisation to which the recruitment is to be made. For the D
purposes of posts in the service regarding which the dispute has arisen, the
source of recruitment for the purposes of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 are; (i) ·
promotion, (ii) transfer on deputation/transfer. Persons specified in the
aforesaid categories possessing requisite qualification prescribed therein
are eligible for appointment. Reference to the._per~ons and the departments
cannot be held to mean that such reference was to the 'source' as admit-
E
tedly the sources are .either promotion or J:>ytransfer on deputation/trans-
fer. It is not disputed that in the insta¢--6se all the contesting parties have
been recruited to the service frocisource (ii). It is also conceded that
before their recruitment on deputation they possessed the requisite
qualifications as prescribed under Column No. 12(ii)(a)(i)(ii)(b). The F
Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in holding that the source of appoint-
ment of parties to the dispute was either the Central or the State Govern-
ment or the High Court or the Subordinate Courts. The proper
interpretation of the Rule read with Schedule is that all such parties were
recruited from the same source, i.e., i:ransfer on deputation/Transfer and G
possessed requisite qualifications for recruitment to the new service.

Referring to the Official Memorandum dated 3rd July, 1986, it has
been contended on behalf of the contesting parties that the relative
seniority of all the direct recruits has to be determined in terms of para
3.4.1 of the said Memorandum. The aforesaid para prescribes : H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 3.4.1 In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation
and . absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules
provide for "Transfer on deputation(fransfer"), his seniority in the
grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the·
date of absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on
the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regu!ar
B basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade
shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject !o
the condition that he will be given seniority from---

the date he has been holding the post on deputation,
c
(or)

the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to
the same or equivalent grade in his parent department,

D whichever is later."

The interpretation put on the said para centres around the words
"whichever is later" occurring a< its end. It is contended that the seniority
must be determined from the date a person is holding the post on deputa-
E tion or the date from which h~ had been appointed on a regular basis to
the same or equivalent grade in its parent department "whichever is later",
meaning thereby if a person gets himself deputed earlier to the service, he
would be entitled to seniority notwithstanding the length of service or
earlier holding of the equivalent post or grade by a person who incidentally
happens to be sent on deputation at a later date. Such a contention, if
F accepted, would be against the settled principles of service jurisprudence.
We also feel that, as the Rules hold the field, the Official Memorandum
has to give way in the matter of determination of inter se seniority of the
persons recruited to the service on the same date.

G Relying upon its earlier decisions in R.S. Bakshi v. l.M. Menon, (1982]
1 SCC 379 and Wing Commander!. Kumar v. Union of India, (1982] 3 SCR
453, this Court in K. Madhavan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] 4
sec 566 held :
"It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government
H servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an
M. RAMACHANDRAN v. GOVIND BALLABH [SETHI, J.] 49

equivalent post in another government department, the period of A
his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into con-
sideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post. The
transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in the post from
which he has been transferred. It has been observed by this Court
that it is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied where
persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service
B
that their pre-existing total length of service in the parent depart-
ment should be respected and presented by taking the same into
account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre."

In K. Anjaiah & Ors. v. K Chandraiah & Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 218 this C
Court held:

"It is a just and wholsome principle commonly applied to persons
coming from different sources and drafted to serve a new service
to count their previous length of service for determining their
ranking in the new service cadre." D

- In M. Hara Bhupal v. Union of India & Ors., [1987) 3 SCC 561 this Court
considered the scope of Rule 5(1) of the Rules but did not refer to either
Rule 5(2) or its proviso for the purposes of deciding the question regarding
the principles to be applied in determining the seniority of che persons
E
] recruited by absorption from the same date. The general principle, as
noticed by the Court, is that if the post held in the parent department and
the post held on deputation were analogous, the persons holding such posts
would be entitled to the benefits of Official Memorandum dated 3.10.1989.
The Court did not distinguish any of its earlier decisions mentioned
hereinabove. F

The reliance of the respondents on A.K Bhatnagar & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors., JT (1990) 4 SC 610 is of no help to them in any way. The
Court in that case held that :

"The law is clear that seniority is an incidence of service and where G
the service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is
squarely governed by such rules. In the absence of a provision
ordinarily the length of service is taken into account. A dispute of
this nature normally arises between recruits from two sources,
namely, direct and promotees. In this group of cases, however, we H
.•
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A are concerned with the inter se seniority between direct recruits
alone. The note to schedule VIII indicated that the inter se seniority
of recruits of one year wou 1.d be on the basis of merit."

To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. H.R.
Patankar & Ors:, AIR (1984) SC 1587.
B
We are of the considered opinion that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 is the
relevant rule relating to the determination of the seniority of the officers
recruited to the service under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. The seniority of such
recruited officers is required to be determined with reference to the dates
c of their regular appointment to the posts. The proviso to Sub-rule (2) shall
cover the case of such officers whose seniority cannot be determined under ~

Sub-rule (2) as is the present case of the persons appointed/recruited on
the same date. In such a case the seniority of the officers recruited from
the same source has to be determined by giving them the benefit of the
D equivalent post held by them in their parent departments. Sub-rule (2) and
its proviso is based upon the general principle of service jurisprudence. It
is not correct to say that the rules do .not provide any method of determin-
ing the seniority .of the persons recruited to the service and that in the
absence of there being specific rule, resort be had to the Official Memoran-
dum relied upon by the respondents. Seniority is a relevant term having
E reference to the class, category and the grade to which the reference is
made. Length of service is a recognised method of determining the
seniority. Such length of service shall have reference to the class, category
or grade which the parties were holding at the relevant time. It, therefore,
follows that total length of service is not relevant for determining the
F seniority but length of service to a particular class, category or grade is
relevant consideration for the purposes of counting the period with respect
to length of service for the purposes of determining the seniority. In other
words the period of holding of the equivalent post in the parent department
would be the relevant period to be taken note of for the purposes of
determining the seniority under Rule 5(2) and its proviso. Any other
G interpretation would be against the settled rules of service jurisprudence
and is likely to create many anomalies resulting in failure of justice and
defeating the acquired rights of the civil servants based upon their length
of service. A perusal of the Rules does not, in any way, show and rightly
-~
so that the rule making authority had ever intended to take away the benefit
H of the length of service of a person in his parent department before his
M. RAMACHANDRAN v. GOVIND BALLABH [SETHI, J.] 51

deputation and absorption in the service. A
We arc of the opinion that the Tribunal has taken a very casual
approach while passing the order impugned in this appeal and completely
ignored the basic principles of service jurisprudence as confirmed and
applied by this Court by way of pronouncements in various cases, some of
which have been noted hereinabove. We are of, the view that all the B
employees recruited in the service under Rule 5(1) are entitled to the
benefit of the service on equivalent post in their parent departments.

Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the order im-
pugned is set aside. The official-respondents are directed to finalise the
seniority list of all the employees recruited in the service under Rule 5(1) c
of the Rules strictly applying the provisions of Sub-rule (2) and its proviso
keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. All orders passed
consequent upon the order of the Tribunal impugned herein shall be
deemed to be non-est and not given effect to. Fresh seniority list be
finalised at the earliest and if possible within a period of three months from D
today. Till the finalisation of the seniority list, the parties shall be permitted
to hold the posts presently held by them.

No costs.

S.V.K. Appeal allowed.