Holding

Ad hoc promotions made in violation of the recruitment rules cannot be counted for seniority, and retrospective regularisation cannot confer seniority unless expressly provided by a rule, leaving the determination of inter‑se seniority to the competent authority of the State.

Summary

The case concerned whether ad‑hoc promotions of Section Officers to Assistant Engineer in the Manipur PWD, made without following the recruitment rules, could be regularised retrospectively to grant seniority over direct recruits. The promotees argued that their services had been regularised with retrospective effect and thus entitled to seniority, while the direct recruits contended that such promotions violated the rules and could not count for seniority. The Court held that where promotion is given only in exigency and not in accordance with the rules, the period cannot be counted towards seniority, and retrospective regularisation does not automatically confer seniority unless a specific rule permits it. In the absence of any rule governing inter‑se seniority, the State must evolve its own policy, and the competent authority was directed to determine seniority in accordance with the principles laid down. The appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether ad‑hoc promotions made in violation of recruitment rules can be regularised with retrospective effect for the purpose of granting seniority.
Whether retrospective regularisation alone confers seniority between promotees and direct recruits.
Whether any rule exists governing inter‑se seniority in the absence of specific statutory provisions.

Subjects

service lawseniorityad hoc promotionregularisationinter se seniorityrecruitment rulespublic works departmentretrospective effectquota

Judgment

A R.K. MOBISANA SINGH
v.
KH. TEMBA SINGH & ORS.

DECEMBER 12, 2007
•,
B
[S.B SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Service Law-Seniority-Inter se seniority, direct recruits vis a
vis promotees'-Ad hoc promotions granted to employees against
c vacancies in promotee quota-Regularization with retrospective
effect-Grant of-Held: When promotion is given only in exigency of
situation without following the Rules, period cannot be counted
towards seniority-Retrospective regularization could be granted only
when such Rule exists-Retrospective regularization though could
D confer other service benefits but cannot be ofany help for reckoning
seniority with retrospective effect-On facts, State being a competent y

authority to determine inter se seniority of parties in view of the
principles enunciated by this Court.

E The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was
whether the ad hoc promotions granted to the employees from the post
of Section Officer (Grade-n to the post of Assistant Engineer in the
Public Works Department of the State Government against vacancies
in promotee quota, could have been directed to be regularized with
F retrospective effect so as to effect the inter se seniority between the
direct recruits and the promotees.
Appellants and the other promotee respondents inter alia
contended that they having been promoted against vacancies arising
G in the year 1985 in the promotee quota and their services having been
regularized with retrospective effect and not by way of stop gap
employment, their seniority should be considered; that the recruitment ,j

rules did not contain any prohibition on grant ofregularisation with
retrospective effect and the same being permissible, the promotees were
H 434
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 435

entitled to seniority with effect from the date from which their services A
were regularized with retrospective effect; and that the Single Judge of
High Court, having directed examination of the matter by a fact finding
body upon proper application of mind and determination of seniority
having regard to the decisions of this court is to be affirmed.
B
Direct recruits contended that the promotees were not entitled to
seniority from the date of their ad hoc promotion· since the ad hoc
promotions were found to have been made in violation of the
Recruitment Rules; that the procedure prescribed for grant of regular
promotion had not been followed; that some of the promotees did not C
fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria prescribed by the rules; that the
orders passed by the High Court directing regularisation with
retrospective effect did not confer on them any consequential seniority;
that some judgment of the High Court giving consequential seniority
were reviewed in favour of the direct recruits; thatthere is no Rule which D
y enables the Government to give seniority with retrospective effect to
the promotees; and that the consequent orders of the Government
regularizing the services specifically stated that the seniority shall be
determined later was not challenged by the promotees.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court E

HELD: 1.1. There did not exist any Rule for determination of inter
se seniority. They were governed by some office memorandums. An
Office Memorandum was issued on 22.12.1959 providing for general
principles for determination ofseniority in the general services. Although F
in terms of the office memorandum, no retrospective effect could be
given to the order of regularisation passed in favour of the promotees,
as in absence of any seniority Rules operating in the field, the State
was required to evolve a policy. It for its own reason did not do so.
(Paras 27 and 37) (455-H; 456-A; 463-D-E] G
1.2. The office memorandum of 1959 was applicable in a case of
l-
this nature. In some of the cases, promotion might have been given
without following the Rules. When promotion is given only in the
exigency of situation without following the Rules, the period cannot be
counted towards seniority. [Para 38) (463-F] H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (~ddl.) S.C.R.

A 1.3.'Ifthey had been given regularisation with retrospective effect,
the same by itself may not be a ground to apply the said order ipsofacto
for determining the inter se seniority. Seniority although is not a
. fundamental right but a civil right. Such a right of the direct recruits could
not have been taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing
B to them. It was obligatory on the part of the official respondents to take
into consideration thatthe retrospective regularization could be.granted
only when there exists such a Rule. If Rules were not followed at the
time of grant of promotion, question of grant of regularization with
retrospective effect w.ould'not arise. Retrospective regularization
C whether in terms of the directions of the High Court or otherwise, thus,
although could confer other service benefits to the officer concerned,
· but the same cannot be held to be of any assistance for reckoning
seniority with retrospective effect. It was for the DPC to recommend in
regard thereto. In some of the cases, evidently the procedure has not
D been followed. Therefore, the question of their acquiring seniority over
y
the direct recruits does not arise.
[Paras 39,40,41 and42] (463-F-H; 464-A-C]
1.4. The ma~er requires a closer scrutiny by the State itself. As
the function relating to determination of inter se seniority is that of the
E State, the constitution of a committee, as proposed by the Single Judge
of High Court is not approved. However, it would be open to the State
to do so, ifit so desires. Therefore, the competent authority of the State
is directed to determine the inter se seniority of the parties in view of
the principles enunciated by this Court and apply the same to the fact
F .of each case. [Para 43] [464-D-E)
Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., (1990] 2 SCC 715; Sura} Prakash Gupta v. State
ofJ & Kand Ors., (2000]7 SCC 561; K Siva Redlfyv. State ofA.P., [1988)
Supp. SCC 225; Ramendra Singh v. Jagdish Prasad, (1984] Supp SCC
G 142; MK Shanmugam andAnr. Y. Union ofIndia and Ors., (2000] 4 SCC
476; Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors. v. Samitabhar Chah-aborty and Ors.,
[2001] 5 SCC 581; Md lsrail and Ors. v. State ofWB. and Ors., (2002) 2
SCC 306; D.N Agrawal and Anr. v. State ofMadhya Pradesh and Ors.,
[1990] 2 SCC 553 and Santosh Kumarv. G.R. Chawla, (2003] 10 SCC
H 513, relied on.
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH.TEMBA SINGH 437
[SINHA, J.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5837 of A
2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2004 of the High Court
ofGauhati, Imphal Bench in Writ Appeal No. 392 of2003.
WITH B
C.A. No. 5838 & 5848 of 2007.
A. Sharan, ASG., V.N. Ganpule, Raju Ramachandran and L.N.
Rao, S.K. Bhattacharya, L:K. Paonam, Niraj B. Paonam, Sapam Biswajit
Meitei, Ashok Kumar Singh, Naresh Kumar Gaur, Aparna Bhat, P. C
Ramesh Kumar and Khwairakpam Nobin Singh for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Coll.rt was delivered by
S.1~. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals involving similar questions oflaw and fact were D
taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common
y
judgment. Appellant as also the private respondents hereto have been
working as Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department. The
promotees are diploma holders, or degree holders in Engineering. They
were holding the posts ofS.O. Grade 1, whereas the direct recruits are E
Graduates in Engineering. Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer
and/or promotion thereto, although is governed by the Public Works
Department, Manipur Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mech) Surveyor of Works
Recruitment Rules of 1969, 1975 and 1984 made under the proviso
appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India; there does not exist p
any Rule governing seniority and in particular inter se senioritjr amongst
the direct recruits and the promotees.
3. In terms of the recruitment rules, whereas forty per cent of the
posts are to be filled by direct recruitment from the open market, 60 per
cent of the posts are to be filled up by promotion in the following sub- G
quota:-
L 50% by selection from amongst the Engineering Degree holders
who have rendered a minimum of 3 years regular service as
S.O. Grade I as equivalent Post.
H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A Provided that is sufficient number of Degree holders are not
available, the vacancies may be filled up by Diploma holders
with 8 years regular ser,rice as S.O. Grade-I.
11. 50% by selection from amongst the Engineering Diploma
Holders of3 years course with 8 years regular service as S.O.
B Grade I or non Degree/non Diploma holders with 15 years
outstanding record as S.O. Grade I.
4. Before embarking on the questions involved in these matters, we
may notice the fact of the matter.
C 5. 'The Government ofManipur informed the Manipur Public Service
Commission in regard to existence of 39 vacancies in the posts of Assistant
Engineer (AE) on or about 18.4.1977. A request was made to convene
Departmental Promotion Committee for filling up the said vacant posts.
Some of the promotees, who were either the Graduates in Engineering
D or were diploma holders in Engineering were working as Section Officers
(Grade-I). We would come to their respective dates of appointment a
little later, but, at this stage, it may be noticed that in terms of the
Recruitment Rules, in order to become eligible for promotion, three years'
experience for the Graduates in Engineering and eight years' experience
E for the diploma holders in the posts of Section Officer (Grade-I) was
necessary. They had been promoted on an ad hoc basis without following
the procedure laid down under the Recruitment Rules. On or about
6.3 .1979, the Government of Manipur sent a revised proposal for
appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) by
F promotion on regular basis. However, yet again on 22.6.1981, the
Government ofManipur directed the Commission for convening a regular
Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of promotion to the
post of Assistant Engineer(Civil/Mechanical) in the following terms :
"I am directed to send herewith a requisition in the MPSC Form
G
No. 6 duly filled in for convening a regular DPC for consideration
of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mech.).
Required ACRs and Integrity certificates in respect of the eligible
officers are being sent separately. You are requested kindly to
H
examine the case for convening a DPC at an early date.
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 439
(SINHA, J.]
Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter. A
Yours faithfully
Encl : As above
(R. Marulung)
Under Secretary to the Govt. ofManipur" B
6. Respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineers on an ad hoc
basis. We may notice thatthe contesting respondent in SLP(C) No. 16901
of2006 was promoted as Assistant Engineer on ad hoc basis against a
permanent vacancy. He was appointed as Assistant Engineer on officiating C
basis with effect from the date of joining of the post on the
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on
18.7.1985 and 20.7.1985 in the 1985 vacancies, which was followed
by an order dated 06.09.1986 regularizing his services from 20.09.1985.
7. Indisputably, a seniority list was published on 31.1.2000. D
y
8. Ten writ petitions were filed by the promotees before the High
Court raising a grievance that in the said seniority list, although they were
shown as Assistant Engineers, having been appointed against the vacant
posts in the promotee quota under clear vacancies which were available
in 1981 itself, they were appointed on ad hoc basis. According to them, E
although they were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on ad hoc
basis in or about 1981, they had been shown as junior to direct recruits
who were appointed in 1986.
9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court noticed that in some of F
the cases, regularization with retrospective effect had been directed to be
given. It took note of the contention of the writ petitioners that they fulfilled
the eligibility criteria for promotion, but since at the relevant time, the
Commission became defunct, they were promoted on ad hoc basis against
the available vacancies made for the promotees. The learned Single Judge G
recorded that the counsel appearing on behalf of the State was not in a
position to inform the court in regard to the vacancy position as was
obtaining then and furthermore the statements made in the writ application
in regard to promotion in excess of quota or grant of promotion in absence
of availability of any vacancy having not been controverted, the same H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A should be accepted to be correct. It was furthennore noticed that the
minutes of the Review Committee were not made available to the Court
and, therefore, it arrived at a conclusion that the Review Committee failed
to discharge its duties, as a result whereof the impugned seniority list failed
to demonstrate the correct seniority position drawn in accordance with
B law.
10. The learned Single Judge therefore, directed for preparation of ~
a fresh seniority list. It was also directed that a Monitoring Committee be
constituted to ascertain the availability of vacancies with reference to the
years of appointment of the various promotees vis-a-vis, the direct recniits
C and to examine whether any of them encroached upon the quota meant
for others. It was furthermore directed that in view of the failure on the ·
part of the State Government to place the correct factual position to
conduct a basic fact finding exercise in regard to availability of vacancies
in respect of the quotas, if any, at the relevant point of time.
D-
It was directed :
"32. The Committee is to undertake the exercise having followed
the following guidelines
a. The respective date of initial promotion on ad hoc basis of
E the petitioners be treated as substantive appointment· as
Assistant Engineer.
b. The Co~ttee is to ascettain the availability of vacancy with
·1'.eference to the year of appointment of the petitioners already
done on ad hoc basis and also the appointment of private
F
respondents and to examine whether any of them encroached
the quota meant for others.
c. The promotees and direct recruitees shall be fitted against the
available vacancies within their respective quotas.
G d. In case, any excess promotion/direct appointment are found .
to be there, h~ or they should be adjusted against the vacancy
made available subsequently..
e. In considering the availability of vacancy the Committee must
H
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 441.
(SINHA, J.]
count the vacancy simplicitor be it temporary vacancy or A
substantive vacancy in the post of Assistant Engineer.
£ After exhausting the fitment exercise the intra seniority viz., the
seniority of the promotee themselves and the seniority of the
direct recruitees themselves should be prepared separately.
B
g. Thereafter, having maintained ratio of3:2 interse seniority list
is to be prepared, first 3 promotees would be listed thereafter
2 direct recruitees would be listed followed by 3 promotees
2 direct and so on. In case in any year it is found that only
some promotions are made out, no direct recruitment, the c
promotees should be shown enbloc senior vis-a-vis in case
any particular year it is found that the only direct recruitments
· were made and no promotion, the direct recruitees be shown
enbloc senior.
·h To remove any co~sion and doubt a draft inter se seniority D
y be published first inviting claims and objections and personal
hearing of the obje.ctor/claimant if any, be allowed and,
thereafter, the final inter se seniority list be published. The said
exercise must be completed within a period of3 months from
this day. E
·11. Eleven Writ Appeals were filed theteagainst; ten by the direct
recruits and one by the State of Manipur which was marked as Writ
Appeal No. 384 of2003. It appears that the writ appeals came up before
two Division Benches of the High Court in two batches. The judgffient in
the first batch was rendered by a· Division Bench on 31.3 .2004 in terms F
whereof the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. The
.Division Bench in those cases held that having regard to the fac.t that the
orders of the High Court granting retrnspective regularization to the
promotees having nof been challenged either by the direct recruits or by
the State Government had attained finality. In the aforementioned premis.e, G
· it Was-directed :
"l 0. From the af<?resaid, it is apparent to us, that for whatever
reasons the orders passed by the High Court in the matter of
regularization of the services of the promotee officers covered under H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A the writ appeals, were not challenged by the State Government
and has attained finality. The appellants also choose not to file
appeals against those orders moved applications for review of those
no to file applications for review of those orders as has been done
in other cases. In the aforesaid circumstances, the promotee
B officers shall be taken to be regularly promoted from the date they
have been regularized in the post of Assistant Engineers. In the
matter of seniority, without there being any impediment under Rules,
the seniority shall be counted in all circumstances from the date of
regular appointment on the posts."
c 12. Indisputably, the review petitions filed thereagainst were
dismissed.
13. However, the four remaining appeals came up for consideration
before another Division Bench, (although the senior Judge in both the
D batches of Writ Appeals was common). In the second judgment which
was pronounced on 24.8.2004, the Division Bench while allowing the v
appeal in part, upholding the final seniority list, found the directions of the
learned Single Judge in regard to constitution of three member Monitoring
Committee to make necessary corrections in the final list dated 31.1.2000
E in accordance with law and more particularly following the general
guidelines for promotion of 1982 and for determining seniority of 1959
and a proposition "A" of the decision of this Court in the case of direct
recruitment; to be improper. Both the aforementioned judgments of the
Division Bench are now under challenge before us at the instance of the
F direct recruits and the post 1985 vacancies promotees respectively.
14. The question herein which arises for our consideration is as to
whether the ad hoc promotions granted to the employees from the post
of Section Officer (Grade-I) to the post of Assistant Engineer in the P.W.D.
of Government ofManipur could have been directed to be regularized
G with retrospective effect so as to effect the inter se seniority between the
direct recruits and the promotees. Two seniority lists were published; one
in the year 1987 and another in 2000.
15. There are ten direct recruits before us. The details of their services
are as under:-
H
"A. Direct Recruits 2000 List 87 List
1. TembaSingh Degree Direct Appointed At serial
holder Recruit in 1985 no.33
2. Rabindra Kumar --do-- --do-- --do-- At serial
Singh no.38
3. Ch. Biren Singh --do-- --do-- --do-- At serial
no.39
4. G.Lungalin --do-- --do-- Appointed At serial At serial
5.1.83 no.83 no.30
5. L. Ingochouba --do-- --do-- Appointed At serial
Singh in 1985 no.48
6. M. Thaimon --do-- --do-- Appointed At serial At serial
Singh in 1980 no.45 no.8
7. Ksh. Birendra --do-- --do-- --do-- At serial At serial
Singh no.49 no. 10
8. Kh. Irabot Singh --do-- --do-- --do-- At serial At serial
no.55 no. 13
9. Th. Tharnbalngou --do-- --do-- --do-- At serial At serial
Singh no.63 no. 17
10. Pradeep Mukherjee --do--· --do-- Appointed At serial At serial
15.1.81" no. 77 no.26 tw
16. There are five promotee Assistant Engineers whose seniority has been detennined by the High Court,
the details whereof are as under:-
SL. Name of the Date of Date of Ad hoc Date of Details of the Government orders of
No. promo tee appointment appointment regular/officiat- High Court regularization/Remarks
ing appointment Order by which
regularized
I. Ch. Tiken 26. 7.1980 15.10.1981 AE 20.9.1985 Retrospective Government order
Singh Section on regular AE on regular regularization regularizing the
(Contesting Officer basis on basis on from 26. 7.1983 services \V.e.f.
Respondent Grade I recommendation recommendation under the 26. 7.1983 explicitly
No. I in DOB 1.9.57 of DPC ofDPC relevant R.R. indicates seniority to
SLP Arising vide order dated be determined later
out of W.A. 5.4.1989 in C.R.
No. 393/03) No. 392 of 1988
At serial no.
37 in the No order as to
seniority list retrospective 13
seniority 0
0
2. I. Lokendra 26.6.1980 15.10.1981 20.09.1985 Retrospective Government order .:::!
Singh regularization regularizing the
(Contesting Section AE on ad hoc AEon from 26.6.1983 services w.e.f.
Respondent Officer basis Officiating vide order dated 26.6.1983 explicitly
No. 1 in Grade I basis on 5.6.1990 in C.R. indicates seniority to
SLP Arising DOB 1.3.53. recommendation No. 160ofl990 be determined later
out ofW.A. of DPC
No. 255/01) No order as to
retrospective

<
At serial no. seniority.
60 in the
seniority list The Hon'ble
High Court
relied on order
passed in CR.
No. 392 of 1988

3. L. 23.11.1976 9.7.1979 20.9.1985 Retrospective Government order
Surchandra regularization regularizing tlie
Singh Section AE on ad hoc AE on regular from date he services w.e.f.
(Contesting Officer basis basis on became eligible 23.11.1979 explicitly
Respondent Grade I recommendation vide order dated indicates seniority to
No. I in DOB 1.3.50 ofDPC 13.9.1991 in be determined later .....
~
..:.....,
SLP Arising C.R. No. 399 of
out of.W.A. 1991 •-l
No. 387/03 trl
& W.A. No. No order as to ~
retrospective tl:i
384/03)
At serial no. seniority. >
CZl
The High Court ......
32 in the
seniority list relied on order
z
0
passed in CR. :::r:
No. 160 of 1991.
The High Court
in its order
recorded that he
0

was not eligible
for promotion to
A.E.
4. W. Chaoba 06.01.1972 30.10.1976 20.9.1985 Retrospective Government order
Singh AE on regular regularization regularizing the
(Contesting Section AE on ad hoc basis on from 30. 10.1976 services w.e.f.
Respondent Officer basis recommendation vide order dated 30.10.1976 explicitly
No. 2 in Grade I ofDPC 17.12.1991 in indicates seniority to
SLP Arising C.R. No. 639 of be determined later.
out ofW.A. DOB 1.3.49 1991.
No. 385/03) No order as to
retrospective
At serial no. seniority.
56 of the
seniority list The High Court
relied on order
passed in C.R.
No. 132/1990
wherein the
High Court had
granted
regularization
along with
seniority. This
order was
challenged in a
review oetition
•

by the Direct ::::0
Recruits and the ~
order has been
modified to be :s::
0
extent that the
seniority will be
determined
->z
IJ:I
C /l

according to
rules. >
......... C/l
5. S. Tejamani 23.11.1976 9.7.1979 20.9.1985 Retrospective Government order .Zo
... z
C/l ......

Singh Section AE on Ad hoc AE on regular regularization regularizing the
::r: ::r:
">~
(Contesting Officer basis basis on vide order dated services w.e.f.
Respondent Grade I recommendation 18.12.1991 in 9. 7.1979 explicitly
.
.......
No. l in l.ll.47 ofDPC C.R. No. 639 of indicates seniority to ......... ~
SLP Arising 1991. be determined later
::r:
.....,
out ofW.A. tTl
No. 386/03)
At serial no.
No order as to
retrospective
:s::
IJ:I
35 of the seniority >
C/l
seniority list ......
The High Court zQ
relied on order ::r:
passed in C.R.
' No. 132/1990
wherein the high
court had """'
"""'
-.J

0
0
granted
regularization
along with
seniority. This
order was
challenged in a
review petition
by the Direct
Recruits and the
order has been
modified to the
extent that the
seniority will be
determined
according to '

. rules .
28.10.1971 30.10.1976 20.9.1985 Retrospective Government order
6. Th.
Rupachandra AE on regular regularization regularizing the
Section AE on Ad hoc basis on from vide order services w.e.f.
Singh
Officer basis recommendation dated 23.1.1992 30.10.1976 explicitly
(Contesting
Grade I ofDPC in C.R. No. indicates seniority to
Respondent
No. 1 in SLP DOB 2372 of 1990 be determined later.
Arising out 1.11.48 No order as to
ofW.A. No. retrospective
385/03) At seniority
serial no. 59 of
the seniority list
•

17. There are four promotees whose claim to seniority has been rejected by the High Court.

SL. Name of the Date of Date of Ad hoc Date of High Court. Violations
No. promotee appointment appointment regular/officiating order by which
appointment regularized
I. R.K. 25. 7.1980 6.5.1983 20.9.1985 Retrospective - Admittedly the
Mobisana Section AE on ad hoc AEon regularization promotion was dehors
(Degree Officer basis officiating w.e.f. 26.7.1983 the R.R.s ; there was
holder) Grade I basis on under the no selection process
(Petitioner (DOB recommendation relevant R.R. conducted by the
in SLP(C) 1.3.56) ofDPC vide order dated DPC
No. 20724 3.3.2000 in - Became eligible for·
of 2005) W.P.(C) No. 188 promotion only after
of 2000 three years from· the
At serial no. date of appointment
64 in the High Court i.e. on 25. 7.1983 but
seniority list order was promoted on ad
specifically hoc basis on6.5.1983,
states his much earlier to his
regularisation eligibility date.
shall be counted
for the purpose
of retrial or
pensionary
benefits and
oeniority to be
determined

0
according to
rules.

Government
order
regularizing the
services
explicitly
indicates it is for
retrial and
pensionary
benefits.
Seniority to be
determined later
2. M. 25.7.1980 26.7.1983 20.09.1985 - Admittedly the
Hemantaku- Section AE on ad hoc AE on regular promotion was dehors
mar Officer basis basis on the R.R.s.; there was
(Degree Grade I recommendation no selection process
holder) (DOB ofDPC conducted by the DPC
(Petitioner 1.3.53)
in SLP(C)
No. 20725
of 2005) At
serial
number 45
in senioritv

f
'·

list :::0
3. Th. 25.7.1980 6.5.1983 -Admittedly the ~
Shantikumar Section A.E. on Ad promotion wasdehors ~
0
Singh
(Degree
holder)
Officer
Grade I
hoc basis the R.R.s; there was
no selection process
conducted by the
DPC
->z
t:l:1
[ /}

- Became eligible for
promotion only after
three years from the
~

zZ
[/}

::r::Q
-
>
[/}

date of appointment .> ::r::~
i.e. on 25. 7.1983 but :--< ~
~

was promoted on ad ::r::
hoc basis on 6.5.1983, .....,
much earlier to his tT:1
eligibility date ~
t:l:1
- Admittedly the >
4. Mongjam
Budhi
Singh
(Diploma
14.11.1969
Section
Officer
Grade I
25.2.1981
A.E. on Ad
hoc basis
promotion was dehors
the R.R.s; there was
no selection process
-z
[/}

Q
::r::
Holder) conducted by the
DPC

. .!:>-
.
.....
Vl
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A 18. Out of the aforementioned four persons, only R.K. Mobisana
and N. Hemantakumar both of whom are degree holders are before us,
but the other two promotees namely Th. Shantikumar Singh and Mongjam
Budhi Singh have not filed any special leave petition.
19. Submissions of the aforementioned two appellants whose writ
B
petitions have been dismissed and the other promotee respondents before
us are as under :
(i) They having been promoted against vacancies arising in the
year 1985 in the promotee quota and their services having
.c been regularized with retrospective effect and not by way of
stop gap employment, their seniority should be considered in
the light of the proposition 'B' contained in the judgment of
this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'
Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [1990] 2
n sec 715J. )'

(ii) The recruitment rules having not contained any prohibition on
grant of regularisation with retrospective effect and in any event
the same being permissible inter alia, in terms of the decision
of this Court in Sura} Prakash Gupta and Ors. v. State of
E J&K and Ors., [2000] 7 SCC 561, the first judgment of the
High Court should not be interfered therewith. The promotees
were therefore, entitled to seniority with effect from 26.7.1983
i.e. from the date from which their services were regularized
with retrospective effect by orders passed in their favour by
F the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench from time to time.
(rii) So far as the second judgment of the Gauhati High Court is
concerned, the same does not lay down the correct law being
contrary to and inconsistent with the principles laid down by
G this Court in Direct Recruit (supra), State of West Bengal v.
Aghore Nath Dey, [1993] 3 SCC 371 and Sura} Prakash
(supra).
(iv) The learned Single Judge, in any event, having directed
examination of the matter by a fact finding body upon proper
H
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 453
[SINHA, J.]
application of mind and determination of seniority having regard A
to the decisions of this Court, the same deserves to be
affinned.
20. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the direct
recruits, on the other hand, would submit that the promotees were not
B
entitled to seniority from the date of their ad hoc promotion for the
_1 following reasons;
(i) Ad hoc promotions were found to have been made in violation
of the Recruitment Rules.
(ii) The procedure prescribed for grant of regular promotion had C
not been followed.
(1ii) Some of the promotees did not fulfil the requisite eligibility
criteria prescribed by the rules.
(iv) The orders passed by the High Court directing regularisation D
with retrospective effect did not confer on them any
consequential seniority.
(v) Some judgment of the High Court giving consequential seniority
were reviewed in favour of the direct recruits.
E
(vi) There is no rule which enables the Government to give seniority
with retrospective effect to the promotees.
(vii) The Direct Recruits cannot be foand fault with for non
questioning of the orders of regularization in favour of the
promotees as they, in stricto sensu, did not have the locus F
standi therefor, until the decision to confer consequential
seniority which adversely affected their rights was taken by the
competent authority.
(viii) All High Court orders granting regularization were silent on G
seniority.
(ix) The consequent orders of the Government regularizing the
services specifically stated that the seniority shall be determined
later. This order was not challenged by the promotees.
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A (x) In three cases where the High Court granted seniority, review
petitions were filed by the Direct recruits and the order was
modified stating that the seniority will be determined according
to rules and as these review orders have become final, any
sub mission made contrary thereto should not be permitted to
B be raised.
(xi) Had there been any mention of seniority in any of the High
Court orders referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench,
the Direct recruits could have challenged the same.
C (xii) Their exists no rule which enabled the Government to grant
seniority with retrospective effect.
21. These matters clearly demonstrate as to how complications arise
in the matter of determination of inter se seniority because of absence of
specific rules made in this behalf.
D
22. We may, however, at the outset notice that meeting of the
Departmental Promotion Committee had not been convened in terms of
the extant rules.
23. We have noticed hereinbefore that there are various recruitment
E Rules which are applicable in respect of recruitment or the promotions.
We will take a brief survey of the said Rules which may be held to be
applicable as orders of promotion have been passed on various days.
24. Under the Recruitment Rules, 1969, the method of recruitment
F prescribed for the post of A.E. is:
"--50 % by direct recruitment from the open market and;
--50 % by promotion from amongst the Section Officers (Civil)
who had rendered 2 years of regular service in the grade after
G appointment on regular basis in case of Degree holders and 5 years
service in grade after appointment on regular basis in cases of
Diploma holders."
25. Under the Recruitment Rules, 1975 the method of recruitment
H prescribed is:
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 455
[SINHA, J.]
"-40% of the overall sanctioned strength by direct recruitment. A
-60% of the overall sanctioned strength by promotion. This is to
be filled up in the sub-quota as under:
(!) 50% sub-quota by selection from amongst the 3 years course
Diploma holder (Civil/Mechanical) with 8 years regular service B
as S.O. Grade I or a post declared by the Government to be
equivalent post.
(ii) 40% sub-quota by selection from amongst the graduate
Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) who have rendered 3 years regular
service as S.O. Grade I or in a post declared by the C
Government to be equivalent.
(Iii) I 0% sub-quota by selection from amongst non Graduate, non
Diploma S.O. Grade I who has rendered 12 years continuous
regular service." D
26. Under the Recruitment Rules, 1984, the method of recruitment
prescribed is;
"-40% by Direct recruitment from the open market.
-60% by promotion which is to be filled up under the following E
sub quota:
(!) 50% by selection from amongst the Engineering Degree holders
who have rendered a minimum of 3 years regular service as
S.O. Grade I as equivalent Post. F
Provided that is sufficient number of Degree holders are not
available, the vacancies may be filled up by Diploma holders
with 8 years regular service as S.O. Grade-I.
(ii) 50% by selection from amongst the Engineering Diploma G
Holders of3 years course with 8 years regular service as S.O.
Grade I or non Degree/non Diploma holders with 15 years
outstanding record as S.O. Grade I.
27. However, admittedly there does not exist any rule for
determination of inter se seniority. H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A They were governed by some office memorandums. An Office
Memorandum was issued on 22.12.1959 providing for general principles
for determination of seniority in the general services wherein inter alia it
was stated;
"5. Promotees: (i) The relative seniority of persons promoted to
B
the various grades shall be determined in the order of their selection
for such promotions;
Provided that where persons recruited initially on temporary basis
are confirmed subsequently in an order different from the order of
c merit indicated at the time of their promotion, seniority shall follow
the order of confirmation and not the original order of merit.
(ii) Where promotion to a grade are made from more than one
grade the eligible persons shall be arranged in separate lists in the
order of their relative seniority in their respective grades. Thereafter,
D
the Departmental Promotion Committee shal) select the persons
for promotion from each list upon tl1e prescribed quota and arrange
all the candidates selected from different lists in a consolidated
order of merit which will determine the seniority of the persons on
promotion to the higher grade.
E
Note: If separate quotas for promotion have not already been
prescribed in relevant recruitment rules, the Ministries/Departments
may do so now, in consultation with the Commission wherever
necessary.
F
6. Relative Seniority of Direct: Recruits and promotees. The relative
seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined
according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and
promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies
reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the
G
Recruitment Rules."
28. The legal principles governing determination of inter se seniority
is no longer res-integra. The question came up for consideration before
a Constitution Bench ofthis Comi in the Direct recruit (supra) wherein
H
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 457
[SINHA, J.]
the following criteria were laid down; A
"(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to ruie,
his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment
and not according to the date of his confirmation.
The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment B
is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap
arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into
account for considering the seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure
. laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post
c
uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance
with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
(C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it
is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different D
sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily
be followed strictly.
(D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule,
it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs
E
of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed
continuously for a number of years recause it was impossible to
do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken
down.
\.
(F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions F
relating to the quota, ordinarily a presumption should be raised that
there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota
rule.
(H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and G
is not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference
-.)
is that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative.'.'
29. Inter se seniority between the parties keeping in view the peculiar
fact situation obtaining herein is required to be considered. Before applying
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A the principles laid down therein to the fact of this case, we may notice a
few other decisions of this Court
30. In Sura} Prakash Gupta v. State ofJ& K & Ors., (2000] 7
SCC 561, the Rule which was applicable therein was as under:-
B "53. Then comes the rule of "seniority". Seniority is to be
determined by the "date of first appointment" to such Service, class
or category or grade. It reads as follows:
"24. Seniority- (1) The seniority of a pers~n who is subject
to these Rules has reference to the service, class, category and
c grade with reference to which the question has arisen. Such seniority
shall be determined by the date of first appointment to such service,
class, category or grade, as the case may be.
Note 1. -
D
Interpretation - The words 'date of first appointment' occurring
in the above Rule will mean the date of first substantive
appointment, meaning thereby the date of permanent appointment
or the date of first appointment on probation on a clear vacancy,
confirmation in the latter case being subject to good work and
E
conduct and/or passing of any examination or examinations and/
or tests:
Provided that the inter se seniority of two or more persons
appointed to the same service, class, category or grade
F simultaneously, will, notwithstanding the fact that they may assume
the duties of their appointments on different dates by reason of
being posted to different stations, be determined:
(a) in the case of those promoted by their relative seniority in
G the lower service, class, category or grade;
(b) in the case of those recruited direct (except those who do
not join their duties when vacancies are offered to them) according
to the positions attained by and assigned to them in order of merit
at the time of competitive examinations or on the basis of merit
H
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 459
[SINHA, J.]
and ability and physical fitness etc., in case no such examination is A
held for the purpose of making selections;
(c) as between those promoted and recruited direct, by the
order in which appointments have to be allocated for promotion
and direct recruitment as prescribed by the Rules.
B
j
Note. - * * *
It has to be noticed that the interpretation clause below Rule 24 is
very wide and under that provision, seniority of a promotee
depends on the date of the commencement of probation on a clear C
vacancy. Probation can be commenced in the case of a person
promoted or recruited by transfer from the date of existence of a
clear vacancy in the promotee/transfer quota and depending upon
his eligibility, suitability based on ACRs."
Having regard to the said Rule in mind this Court surveyed the D
precedents one way or the other to hold;
"71. The direct recruits have strongly relied upon the decision in
V. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Govt. ofA.P. 12 But this decision cannot
be of any help to them. In that case Rule 10 and Rule 23 of the E
Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules were
referred to. It was pointed that the promotees' temporary service
under Rule 10 (i.e. service rendered in a post to which the officer
was not appointed according to rules), could not be counted on
facts, because there was no order of retrospective regularisation. F
In fact, this Court accepted that if regularised under Rule 23 of
the A.P. Rules, the temporary appointees could have been
regularised from an anterior date. (This Court then referred to
certain rulings which said that direct recruits could not count ad
hoc service rendered by them before their regular selection.) On G
facts, this Court held that the Government had relaxed the Rule
regarding PSC consultation but had placed the promotees below
the direct recruits and this need not be interfered with. This case
far from supporting the direct recruits, supports the promotees."
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A Holding that decision of K. Siva Reddy v. State ofA.P., [1988]
Supp. SCC 225 and Ramendra Singh v. Jagdish Prasad, [1984] Supp
SCC 142 were not applicable to the fact of that case it was opined;
"75. These rulings cannot be applied to the case of the promotees.
In fact the principle laid down in these cases is consistent with the
B
principles in service jurisprudence so far as the ad hoc service
rendered by direct recruits before the date of their regular selection
l
is concerned. Their service counts only from the date of regular
appointment according to rules and any ad hoc/stopgap service
rendered before regular selection cannot count for seniority."
c
31. 'Ibe Court in paragraph 77 of the judgment noticed the decisions
where promotees were held to be not entitled to seek regularisation of
ad hoc services in certain situations. The Court summarized its finding in
paragraph 79 in the following te1ms;
D
"79. Summarising the position, we therefore hold that the ad hoc/
stopgap service of the promotees cannot be treated as non est
merely because PSC was not consulted in respect of continuance
of the ad hoc/stopgap service beyond six months. Such service is
capable of being regularised under Rule 23 of the J&K (CCA)
E
Rules, 1956 and rectified with retrospective effect from the date
of occurrence of a clear vacancy in the promotion quota, subject
to eligibility, fitness and other relevant factors. There is no "rota"
rule applicable. The "quota" rule has not broken down. Excess
promotees occupying direct recruitment posts have to be pushed
F
down and adjusted in later vacancies within their quota, after due
regularisation. Such service outside the promotee quota cannot
count for seniority. Service of the promotees which is regularised
with retrospective effect from the date of vacancies within the quota
counts for seniority. However, any part of such ad hoc/stopgap
G
or even regular service rendered while occupying the direct
recruitment quota cannot be counted. Seniority of the promotees
or transferees is to be fixed as per quota and from the date of
commencement of probation/regular appointment as stated above.
Seniority of direct recruits is from the date of substantive
H
R.K. MOBISANA SINGHv. KH. TEMBA SINGH 461
[SINHA, J.]
appointment. Seniority has to be worked out between direct A
recruits and promotees for each year. We decide Point 3
accordingly.
Point4
Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in B
quota before their selection"

32. In MK. Shanmugam and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[2000] 4 sec 476, direct recruitment and ad hoc appointment was
distinguished stating :
c
" ...If the ad hoc selection is followed by regular selection, then the
benefit of ad hoc service is not admissible if ad hoc appointment
is in violation of the rules. If the ad hoc appointment has been
made as a stopgap arrangement and where there was a procedural
irregularity in making appointments according to rules and that D
irregularity was subsequently rectified, the principle to be applied
in that case was stated once again. There is difficulty in the way of
the appellants to fight out their case for seniority should be
reckoned by reason of the length of the service whether ad hoc
or otherwise inasmuch as they had not been recruited regularly. E
As stated earlier, the appellants were regularly found fit for
promotion only in the year 1977 and ifthat period is reckoned
their cases could not be considered as found by the Tribunal."
It was furthermore observed; F
"It is only in those cases where initially they had been recruited
even though they have been appointed ad hoc the recruitment was
subject to the same process as it had been done in the case of
regular appointment and that the same was not a stopgap
arrangement. That is not the position in the present cases at all. G
Therefore, we are of the view that the conclusions reached by the
Tribunal appear to us to be correct and call for no interference.
However, we make it clear, as noticed earlier, that while amending
the Rules of Recruitment in 1984 all those who are already in
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A service v.111 be borne in mind in adjusting the seniority amongst the
promotees inter se and suitable adjustments could be made and
so far as the direct recruits are concerned, their cases will go by
their quota rule and the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard
~

cannot be taken exception of."
B
33. Sura} Prakash Gupta (supra) has been distinguished by this
Court in Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors v. Samitabhar Chakraborty and (.

Ors., [2001] 5 SCC 581 stating;
"8 ... .The next case relied upon by Mr. Rao is the case of Sura}
c Prakash Gupta v. State of J&K. In the aforesaid case, on
consideration of the relevant rules governing the service conditions
of the Assistant Engineers of the Jammu and Kashmir Government,
the Court had observed that ad hoc or temporary service of a
person, appointed by transfer as an Assistant Engineer or by
D promotion as an Assistant Executive Engineer can be regularized
through the Public Service Commission and Departmental
Promotion Committee from an anterior date in a clear vacancy in
his quota, ifhe is eligible and found suitable for such transfer or
promotion, as the case may be, and his seniority will count from
E that date. The aforesaid conclusion was drawn because of the
provisions of Rule 23 and Rule 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Rules
but in the case in hand, there is no provision, which has been
brought to our notice, which enables the appointing authority to
.
regularise a promotion from an anterior date, though the suitability J

F test is held at a later date. In the absence ofany such provision
in the Rules in question, the ratio of the aforesaid decision,
on interpretation of the relevant rules of the Jammu and
Kashmir Engineering Rules will have no application. (emphasis
supplied)
G
34. To the similar effect is the decision of this Court in Md. /srail i.
and Ors. v. State ofWB. and Ors., [2002] 2 SCC 306, noticing Sura}
Prakash Gupta (supra) and Shanmugam (Supra) wherein it was opined
that those decisions were rendered having regard to the peculiar rules
H which were governing the service conditions of the employees;
R.K. MOBISANA SINGH v. KH. TEMBA SINGH 463
[SINHA, J.]
35. We may furthennore notice that this Court in D.N Agrawal and A
Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 553 has
categorically held that ad hoc promotion without following the Recruitment
Rules would not lead to any right for computation of seniority.
36. In Santosh Kumar v. G.R. Chawla, [2003] 10 SCC 513, this B
Court opined :
"17. lt was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that in view of Rule 4, the appellants are required to be regularised
first and thereafter, newly appointed direct recruits are required to
be appointed/confirmed. This contention has no force. This C
contention has to be negatived in view of the specific finding by
the High Court that direct recruits were appointed either on 16-
9-1982/17-9-1982 and the services of the appellants were
regularised only on 22-9-1982."
D
37. Applying the principles of the aforementioned decisions to the
facts of this case, we are of the opinion that although in tenns of the office
memorandum, no retrospective effect could be given to the order of
regularisation passed in favour of the promotees, as in absence of any
seniority rules operating in the field, the State was required to evolve a E
policy. It for its own reason did not do so.
38. The office memorandum of 1959 was applicable in a case of
this nature. In some of the cases, promotion might have been given without
following the rules. When promotion is given only in the exigency of
situation without following the Rules, the period cannot be counted F
towards seniority.
39. If they had been given regularisation with retrospective effect,
the same by itself may not be a ground to apply the said order ipso facto
for detennining the inter se seniority. Seniority although is not a fundamental G
right but a civil right. Such a right of the direct recruits could not have
been taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing to them.
40. It was obligatory on the part of the official respondents to take
into consideration that the retrospective regulariz.ation could be ~anted
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A only when there exists such a rule. If rules were not followed at the time
of grant of promotion, question of grant of regularization with retrospective
effect would not arise. Retrospective regularization whether in terms of
the directions of the High Court or otherwise, thus, although could confer
other service benefits to the officer concerned, but the same cannot be
B held to be of any assistance for reckoning seniority with retrospective
effect.
41. It was for the DPC to recommend in regard thereto.
42. In some of the cases, evidently the procedure has not been
C followed. Therefore, the question of their acquiring seniority over the direct
recruits does not arise.
43. Ibe matter, therefore, requires a closer scrutiny by the State itself
As the function relating to determination of inter se seniority is that of the
D State, we do not approve constitution of a committee, as has been
· proposed by the learned Single Judge. It would, however, be open to
the State to do so, ifit so desires. The competent authority of the State
is, therefore, directed to determine the inter se seniority of the parties in
view of the principles enunciated hereinbefore and apply the same to the
E fact of each case. Such an exercise should be completed within a period
of three months. These appeals are, therefore, disposed of with the
aforementioned observations and directions with no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeals disposed of.