Holding

Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 overrides Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules, rendering the second respondent senior and his promotion valid.

Summary

Mohan Karan, an Assistant Architect who was promoted to Executive Officer (RBO) on 7 February 1983, challenged the promotion of the second respondent to Chief Town Planner on the ground that he was senior in the feeding cadre. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that the appellant's post was not a cadre post under the Centralised Services Rules. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the interplay between Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 and Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985. It held that Rule 6, being a general provision with overriding effect, prevails over the special Rule 7, making the second respondent senior because he entered the feeding cadre earlier. Consequently, the promotion of the second respondent was deemed valid and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court order.

Issues considered

The applicability and hierarchy of Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 versus Rule 7 of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985 in determining seniority.
Whether the appellant was senior to the second respondent for the purpose of promotion.
Whether the promotion of the second respondent to Chief Town Planner could be set aside.

Legislation cited

U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973s. 5(2), s. 55, s. 5-A

Subjects

senioritypromotionservice lawU.P. Government Servants Seniority RulesCentralised Services Rulesfeeding cadrestatutory interpretation

Judgment

A MOHAN KARAN
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. ';-.

MARCH 18, 1998

B [K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.]

Service law : Seniority : U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, ""'
1973/U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985-Rules
3,7,28,37/U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991-Rules 3,6,2,4, (/)
c and (g)-Promotion of second respondent as Chief Town Planner, who joined
service in the feeding cadre of Town Planner much earlier to the respondent-
Held: Valid as per Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants' Seniority Rules-
1nter-se Seniority shall be counted on the basis of Seniority in the feeding
cadre-This Rule overrides Rule 7 of the U.P. Development Authorities
Centralised Services Rules-Therefore promotion of the respondent can not
D
be questioned on account of his seniority in the feeding cadre.
~

The appellant joined as Assistant Architect on 7.2. 77 in Planning
Section of Lucknow Development Authority and was subsequently promoted
as Executive Officer (RBO) on 7.2.83. The second respondent was appointed
E as Architect, equivalent to Assistant Town Planner on 29.10.76 and was
promoted as Senior Architect on 16.5.89. He was promoted to the post of
Chief Town Planner on 6.7.92. The appellant challenged his promotion in the
High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ Petition holding that the post
of Executive Officer held by the appellant was not a cadre post in the centralised
services Rules and he was absorbed in a lower grade when the second
F respondent was holding a post in the higher grade. Hence this appeal.
"'"'
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : I. I. Promotion given to the respondent as Chief Town Planner
is justified. Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants' Seniority Rules, 1991
G overrides all other rules made earlier in other services in the State, whereas
Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules has the overriding effect against
Rule 28 of those Rules only. The title of U.P. Government Servants' Seniority
Rules clearly suggests that the seniority among the government servants in
U.P. should be fixed in the light of these Rules. Therefore Rule 6 of the U.P.
H Government Servants' Seniority Rules, 1991 which relates to seniority
328
MOI-IAN KARAN v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI. .l.j 329
where the appointments are by promotion from a single feeding cadre, cannot A
be ignored as it has overriding effect over Rule 7 of the U.P. Development
Authorities Centralised Services Rules. Hence, applying Rule 6 of the U.P.
Government Servants' Seniority Rules, the second respondent must be deemed
to be senior in view of the admitted fact that he entered into the service
(feeding cadre) much earlier then the appellant. Consequently, the fact that B
the appellant is junior to the second respondent in the cadre of Town Planner
cannot be disputed. Therefore, further promotion given to the second
respondent as Chief Town Planner cannot be faulted. 1336-G-H; 337-A-HI

Ashoka Marketing Ltd & Anr. v. P.N.B. & Ors., 1199014 SCC 406 and
R.K. Sethi and Anr. v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Ors., 119971 10 C
sec 616, referred to.
Bennion : Statuto1J' Interpretation PP 433-34, referred to.

1.2. If the appellant has earned his right for promotion dehors claiming
seniority over the second respondent, the right should be decided independently D
without reference to this judgment. 1337-Gl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 389 of
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.92 of the Allahabad High Court E
in W.P. No. 3849of1992.

K.C. Jain for E.C. Agrawala for the Appellant.

Dr. K.S. Chauhan for R.B. Misra for the Respondent.
F
Devendra Singh for the Respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. VEN KATASW AMI, J. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the
promotion given to the second respondent herein as chief Town planner. G
Bareilly, as per the order dated 6/7.7.92, moved the Allahabad High Court,
Lucknow Bench, with a prayer for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to quash the
selection of the second respondent as Chief Town Planner (Mukhya Nagar
Niyojak) and also for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the first
respondent to consider his case for the post of Chief Town Planner and to
promote him to the said post with consequential benefits. H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] 2 S.C.R.

A Short facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 3849/92 before
the High Court are the following:-

On the coming into force of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973, the 'Development Authorities' were constituted for the declared
development areas. One such Development Authority constituted in September,
B 1974 was the Lucknow Development Authority. The said Authority had the
power to appoint officers and employees for the performance of functions
entrusted to it under Section 5(2) of the 1973 Act. A proposal for creation of
certain posts in the planning Section of the Lucknow Development Authority
was moved for consideration on 3.3.76. Pursuant to that, in the meeting held
C on 15. I0.76, the Vice Chainnan of the Lucknow Development Authority intimated
about the creation of posts in the Planning Section inter alia Assistant
Architect and Executive Officer (RBO). By a letter of appointment dated
29.12.76, the appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Architect in
the pay scale of 550-1200, which was revised by the Pay Commission to 850-
1720, w.e.f. 1.7.79. The appellant joined the service as Assistant Architect on
D 7.2.77. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis as Executive
Officer (RBO) on 7.2.83 in the pay scale of 800-1450, which was subsequently
revised as 1250-2050 with effect from a date prior to 7.2.83. However, the
appellant was reverted to the original post of Assistant Architect by an order
dated 2.4.83. This order of reversion was challenged by the appellant before
E the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High court in Writ Petition No. 1929/
83 on 14.4.83. The High Court finally heard and disposed of the Writ Petition
on 22.7.87 accepting the case of the appellant and consequently quashing the
order of reversion and directing the Authorities to restore the appellant to
the post of Executive Officer (RBO) with all consequential benefits. In the
meanwhile, the 1973 Act was amended on 22.10.84 by inserting Section 5-A,
F which enabled the creation of 'Development Authorities Centralised Services'.
Later on, the U .P. Development Authorities Centralised Services Rules, 1985
were framed under Section 5-A read with Section 55 of 1973 Act. These Rules
came into force on and from 25.6.85. According to Rule 3, certain posts in the
cadre of service of 'Town Planning and Architectural' were enumerated. for
G our purpose, the following four posts need a reference:-
I. Mukhya Nagar Niyojak 1780-2300

2. Nagar Niyojak 1250-2050 ~

3. Sahayak Nagar Niyojak 850-1720

H 4. Vastuvid/Statistical Assistant 570-1100
MOHAN KARAN v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI. J.] 331
As contemplated under the Centralised Services Rules, the appellant A
was absorbed as Assistant Town Planner/Assistant Architect which post the
appellant was holding when he was reverted in the pay scale of 850-1720 by
an order dated 14.5.87. This order of absorption was passed when the matter
was pending before the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of only
on 22.7.87, as noticed above, allowing the appellant's case. The judgment of B
the Allahabad High Court was given effect to by the Authorities by making
an entry in the service Book of the appellant on 13.6.1991 to the effect that
the appellant stood promoted to the post of Architect w.ef 7.2.83 in the pay
scale of Rs.1250-2050.

(emphasis supplied) C
However, the Authorities, without noticing the judgment dated 22. 7 .87
of the Allahabad High <:ourt, gave promotion to the appellant to the pose of
Town Planner on 29.7.87 in the pay scale of 1250-2050. It must be noted that
as per the Allahabad High Court judgment, which was given effect to
subsequently on 13.6.91, the appellant was holding the post of Architect in D
the pay scale of 1250-2050 w.e.f. 7.2.83.

As against the above history of the appellant, let us now look into the
service record of the second respondent. The second respondent was
appointed as Architect, equivalent to Assistant Town Planner, on 29.10.76 in E
the pay scale of 850-1720. However, the second respondent was promoted as
Senior Architect in the pay scale of 1250-2050 only on 16.5.84, whereas the
appellant was promoted as Executive officer (RBO) in the pay scale of 1250-
2050 w.e:f. 7.2.83, i.e., much earlier to the promotion of the second respondent
to the post of Senior Architect in the pay scale of 1250-2050. Further promotion F
)- will be to the post of Chief Town Planner. For this, the second respondent
was preferred and given appointment on 6.7 .1992. Hence, the appellant moved
the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, for the relief mentioned above by
filing W.P. 3849/92.

The High Court was of the view that the post .of Executive Officer (RBO) G
held by the appellant was not a cadre post in the Centralised Services Rules
and he was absorbed in a lower grade when the second respondent was
holding a post in the higher grade. Even though, the High Court noticed the
judgment allowing the writ Petition No. 1929/83 and which enabled the appellant
to draw salary in the pay scale of 1250-2050 from 7.2.83, held that he was H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A promoted in the pay scale of 1250-2050 only on 13.6.91 whrn the entry was
made on that date in the Service Book of the appellant. The High Court herein
again failed to notice that the entry made on 13 .6.91 expressly gave effect to
the promotional order w.e.f. 7.2.83. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition of the appellant.
B
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the present appeal by
special leave has been preferred by the appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant elaborately argued the case
C of the appellant by bringing to our notice, in detail, the facts as well as the
relevant Rules. According to the learned counsel, the criteria for determining
the seniority between the appellant and the second respondent must be on
the basis of Rule 7 of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralised Services
Rules, 1985 and not on the basis of Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants
Seniority Rules, 1991 or Rule 28 of the Centralised Services Rules. According
D to the learned Counsel, Rule 7 of the Centralised Services rules is a special
~

one which excludes all other general rules. In this connection he, placed
reliance on the well-known Latin Maxim: 'generalia specialibus non derogant'.
In substance that maxim means the special excludes the general. According
to the learned counsel, Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules being special
E one excludes Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules a
general one. In support of that, he placed reliance on a judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing Ltd & Anr., etc. v: P.N.B. & Ors.,
etc. [1990] 4 SCC 406. He also contended that the scope of Rule 3 of the
Centralised Services Rules had not been properly interpreted by the High
F Court when it held that in the absence of express enumeration of the post of
Executive Officer (RBO) in the Centralised Services Rules, the appellant cannot
claim the services rendered in that post notwithstanding the scale of pay
drawn by him for the purpose of further promotion. A proper reading of Rule
3, read with the Note-! and also Rule 7, will clearly indicate, according to the
G counsel, that the post held in various Development Authorities with different
nomenclature will have to be co-related to the post enumerated under the
Centralised Services Rules with reference to the scale of pay attached to the ,"-..

·particular post and not on the basis of enumeration/nomenclature in the
Centralised Services Rules. Likewise, the learned counsel contended that the
H High Court has made certain factual errors, which led to the judgment being
MOHAN KARAN v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 333
rendered against the appellant. For instance, the High Court made a mistake A
~ in thinking that the appellant was promoted to the post of Town Planner only
on 13.6.91 whereas factually he was promoted to the post of Executive Officer
(RBO), which is the post equivalent in the cadre of Town Planner, on and from
7.2.83. Similarly, the High Court also went wrong in mentioning that the
appellant was promoted in the pay scale of 570-1100 when his original B
appointment itself was in the pay scale of 850-1720. In the light of these
submissions, learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the High Court
is liable to be set aside and the reliefs sought by the appellant should be
granted.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contending contra,
c
submitted that the interpretation of the High court on Rule 3, read with Note-
! under Rule 3 and also Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules, was the
.correct one and so far as the position of seniority is concerned, it must be
reckoned on the basis of Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority
Rules, 1991 and not on the basis of ,Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules. D
Rules 28 and 37 of the Centralised Services Rules also, according to the
learned counsel, support the view taken by the High Court. Learned counsel
for the respondents, therefore, submitted that the judgment of the High Court
does not call for any interference.

On facts regarding the dates of appointment and promotion, there is no E
controversy.

·We have considered the rival submission. As noticed earlier, the facts
are not in dispute, in particular, the fact that the appellant was promoted as
.~ Executive Officer (RBO) on 7.2.83 in the pay scale of 1250-2050, cannot be F
disputed in the light of the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
1929/83 .. It is also an admitted fact that the initial appointment of the second
respondent was earlier to that of the appellant. However, while the appellant
'
was promoted to a post in the pay scale of 1250-2050, the second respondent
was promoted to an analogous post in the same _pay scale only on 16.5.84 G
. In that situation, how the seniority between the two has to be settled is the
only question before us. For deciding this, it is necessary to set out the
relevant portion of the Rules. They are as follows:-

Rule 3 of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralise Services Rules,
1m: H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A PART II·· CADRE AND STRENGTH

"Rule 3( l) There shall be the following categories of the posts in the
cadre of the service and they shall consist of the posts mentioned agairtst
them:

B
Service Posts included in the Scales of Pay
service in Rs.

2 3
c I. to III Omitted
N. Town planning I. Mukhya Nagar Niyojak 1780-2300
& Architectural 2. Nagar Niyojak 1250-2050
3. Sahayak Nagar Niyojak 850-1.720
D 4. Vastuvid/Statistical Assistant 570- llOO
5. to 10 Omitted

V.toVIII Omitted

E NOTE-The under noted posts, as specified above, shall include the
post or posts mentioned against them as also the posts carrying identical
scales of pay in the same or equivalent cadre.

(Emphasis Supplied)

F
E.Jw. &J.W included
(!) to (8) Omitted

(9) Mukhya Nagar Niyojak Vastuvid Niyojak
G (10) Sahayak Nagar Niyojak Vastuvid (Rs. 850-1720)/
Sahayak Vastuvid/Land Scape
VastuvidNastuvid Niyojak/
Research Officer.

I-I (l 1) to (22) Omitted
MOHAN KARAN v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 335

Note-(2) The post or posts specified above but not existing in any A
Development Authority on the date of enforcement of these rules, shall not
-<
mean to have been created or come into existence by virtue of the provisions
of this rule."

"Rule 7 (l) Notwithstanding anything in rule 28 the seniority of such
B
officers and other employees who are finally absorbed in the service under
,,,. sub-section (2) of section 5-A of the Act shall be determined on the criterion
of continuous length of service including the services rended in a Development
Authority, Nagar Mahapalika, Nagarpalika or Improvement Trust on similar
posts".
c
"Rule 28( I) : Except as hereinafter provided, the seniority of persons in
any category of post, shall be determined from the date of order of appointment
and if two or more persons are appointed together, by the order in which their
names are arranged in the appointment order:
D
..J.. Provided that if more than one order of appointment are issued in
respect of any one selection the seniority shall be as mentioned in the
combined order of appointment issued under sub-rule (3) of rule 25.

Rule 28 (3): The seniority inter se of persons appointed by promotion
shall be the same as it was in the cadre from which they were promoted.
E

"Rule 37(2): In regard to the matters not covered by these rules or by
special orders, the members of service shall be governed by the rules,
regulations and orders applicable generally to U.P. Government servants
! serving in connection wit the affairs of the State. F

Relevant Rules of the UP. Government Servants Seniority Rules 1991

Rule 2: These rules shall apply to .all Government servants in respect
of whose recruitment and conditions of service, rules may be or have been G
made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

Rule 3: These rule shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any other service rules made heretobefore.

Rule 4: In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject H
·• /

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS____ (1998] 2 S.C.R.

A or context, the expression-
(t): "service" means the service in which the seniority of the member of
the service has to be determined;

(g): "service rules" means the rules made under the proviso to Article
B 309 of the Constitution, and where ihere are no such rules, the excutive
instructions.• issued by, the Government regulating the recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed to the relevant service;

Rule 6: Where according to the service rules, appointments are to be
C made only by promotion from a single feeding cadre, the, seniority inter se of
persons so appointed shall be the same as it was in the feeding cadre."

Undoubtedly, en a persual of the judgment of the High Court , we are
convinced that the High Court has committed certain factual and legal errors.
D None the Jes~, in our view, the co~clusion reached by the High Court has to
be sustained for the reasons, which are given below.

As per Rule 2, the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991
apply to all government servants in respect of whose recruitment and
conditions of service, rules are made or to be made by the Governor under
E the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 4 (t)) defines "service"
to mean the service in which the seniority of the member of the service has
to be determined. "Service rules" are defined in Rule 4(g) to mean the rules
made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and where there
are no such rules, the executive instructions issued by the Government,
F regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed, to
the relevant service, The more important rule, namely, Rule 3 reads as follows:-

"These rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other service rules made heretobefore."
G We have already extracted Rule 6 of these Rules, which relates to
seniority where the appointments by promotion only from a single feeding
cadre. But for Rule 3 above mentioned, we would have accepted the contentions - _'.\,
of learned counsel for the appellant and upset the judgment of the High
Court. Rule 3, in our view, overrides all other rules made earlier in other
H services in the State, whereas Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules has
MOHAN KARAN v. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.) 337

the overriding effect against Rule 28 of those Rules only. Further, the title of A
1991 Rules clearly suggests that the seniority among the Government servants
in U.P. should be fixed in the light of these Rules. Therefore, we are inclined
to hold that Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991
cannot be ignored as it has overriding effect on Rule 7 of the Centralised
Services Rules. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, B
no doubt, has laid down the law in para 50 of the Ashoka Marketing Ltd. case
(supra), which is as follows:-
"One such principle of statutory interpretation which is applied is
contained in the latin maxim: leges posteriors prioress conterarias
abrogant (later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws). This principle is C
subject to the exception embodied in the maxim: generalia specialibus
non derogant (a general provision does not derogate from a special
one). This means that where the literal meaning of the general enactment
covers a situation of which specific provision is made by another
enactment contained in the earlier Act, it is presumed that the situation
was intended to continue to be dealt with by the specific provision D
rather than later general one (Bennion, Statutory Interpretation pp.
433-34)."
We do not think that the ratio laid down in the above mentioned
judgment can be applied to the facts of this case as the U.P. Government E
Servant Seniority Rules prevail for the purpose of deciding seniority over
Rule 7 of the Centralised Services Rules. Learned counsel also cited another
judgment of this court in R.K Sethi & Anr. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission
& Ors., [ 1997] I 0 SCC 616, to support the claim of the appellant that in any
event if a junior employee (meaning thereby the second respondent) is given
promotion without considering his senior (meaning thereby the appellant), the F
senior employee can claim the right to be considered for such promotion from
the date the junior was promoted. We do no think that we need go into this
question as on facts and applying the Rule 6 of the U .P. Government Servants
Seniority Rules, the second respondent must be deemed to be senior in view
of the admitted fact that he entered into the service (feeding cadre) much G
earlier to that of the appellant. We, however make it clear that if the appellant
~ has earned his right for promotion dehors claiming seniority over the second
respondent, that right should be decided independently without reference to
this judgment. If Rule 6 of the U.P. Government Servants S~niority Rules is
applied, the appellant is junior to the second respondent in the cadre of Town H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A planner cannot be disputed. If so, further promotion given to the second
respondent as Chief Town Planner cannot be faulted.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the High Court
is sustained though for different reasons. There will be no order as to costs.

B H.K. Appeal dismissed.

><, __