Supreme Court of India
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1231
- Decided
- 12 November 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
A seniority list that has remained unchallenged for a reasonable period (typically three to four years) cannot be disturbed, and letters from government departments are not executive instructions; therefore, the appeals were allowed in part and the High Court’s directions were partially set aside.
Summary
The case concerned a dispute between Sub‑Inspectors (General) and Sub‑Inspectors (Stenographers) of the Odisha Police regarding inter‑se seniority and promotion. The appellants argued that the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court wrongly relied on letters from the Home Department and Law Ministry as executive instructions to alter the long‑standing seniority order. The Supreme Court held that such letters are merely opinions and cannot be treated as binding executive instructions, and that seniority and eligibility for promotion are distinct concepts. It further ruled that once a seniority list has remained unchallenged for a reasonable period (generally three to four years), any later challenge must be justified by a satisfactory explanation of delay, otherwise it is barred by laches. Applying this principle, the Court found the Tribunal should have dismissed earlier applications on the ground of delay and set aside the High Court’s directions that conflicted with the settled seniority list. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in part, with the High Court’s order partially set aside and the Tribunal’s direction to prepare a combined list based on training dates left untouched.
Issues considered
- Whether letters issued by the Home Department and Law Ministry constitute executive instructions for fixing inter‑se seniority.
- Whether seniority can be challenged after a prolonged delay and what period is reasonable.
- Whether the doctrine of contemporanea expositio applies to interpret the seniority rules in the absence of statutory provisions.
- Whether seniority and eligibility for promotion are interchangeable concepts.
- Whether the Administrative Tribunal erred in relying on its earlier judgment in Parsuram Sahu’s case.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. 226
Subjects
inter‑se seniorityservice lawdelaylachesexecutive instructioncontemporanea expositiopromotion eligibilityadministrative tribunalseniority list
Judgment
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 866
A SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
• (Civil Appeal Nos. 7537-7541 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 12, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Service Law- Seniority- lnter-se seniority-Between Sub- r
i
Inspectors (General) Sl(g) and Sub-Inspectors (Stenographers)
Sl(St)-.Sl(g) challenging seniOrity of Sl(St) over them -
C Challenge made after 8-9 years from the date of appointment
- Tribunal relying on ·a judgment passed by it in a similar case
- The judgment relied on was passed on the basis of letters
from Government departments - Writ petition before High
· Court- Partly allowed - On appeal, held: Challenge barred by
delayllaches - Reliance upon the said judgment was
D misconceived - The judgment to be treated as judgment in
personem - The said case filed at a belated stage - In absence
· of Rules or Executive Instructions, Tribunal could not have
determined the inter-:se seniority - Letters cannot be treated
as executive instructions and hence cannot be relied upon
E Delay/Laches - Delay in challenging seniority -
Entertainability of the challenge - Held: Seniority can be
challenged within a reasonable period - Challenge beyond
such period needs to be explained - Court exercising public
law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims, .Al,
F where right of third party is affected. '
lnterpreta1ion of Statutes - Interpretation of Rules and
Executive Instructions - Administrative interpretation thereof
~ Provides guidelines for interpreting them - They may be
·. accepted, if not violative of the Rules - However, the court is ;
I
G not bound to, accept the mistaken construction of the statute.
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of 'Contemporanea ..
L.-;
expositio'- Applicability of f -.....
*'.. ~-
In a case (Parasu.ram's case) involving inter-se seniority .
··~
H 866
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE 867
OF ORISSA & ORS.
between the cadre of Sub-Inspectors (General) [Sl(g)] and A
Sub-Inspectors (Stenographers) [Sl(St)], Administrative
Tribunal directed the department to consider seniority of
I the applicant-Sl(g), over two officers-Sl(St) keeping in view
t the letter issued by the Home Department and the law
Deptt. of the State, according to which, seniority of the 8
Sl(St) would be determined after their entry into General
Wing after passing the Training Course.
Appellants-Sl(g) in the present cases, filed
applications before Administrative Tribunal. The
applications were disposed of, relying on the decision in C
Parsuram's case. Aggrieved by the judgments passed by
the Tribunal, Sl(St) filed writ petitions. High Court partly'
allowed the writ petitions. It directed to reconsider the.
case of promotion of Sl(g) to the post of Inspectors, and if·
it was found that they had been placed below Sl(St), they ·
should be granted promotion (if they fulfilled minimum D
eligibility criteria) from the date their counterparts in the
other wing had been promoted. However, directions
issued by the Tribunal to prepare the gradation list of Sl(St)
and Sl(g) in accordance with the dates of passing out of
the Sub-Inspector training course, was quashed. Hence . E
the present appeals. ·
Appellants contended that courts below could not
have relied on the letters written by Home Department and
by Ministry of Law, as they were merely opinions and
r could not be treated as Executive Instructions; that in F
absence of statutory rules for determining the inter-se
seniority, long-standing practice for determination of such
-
seniority, could not be disturbed at a belated stage, while
.
'
the Sl(St) had further been given two promotions and that
was not challenged; and that High Court erred in not taking
into consideration the distinction between eligibility for G
promotion and seniority.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Seniority and eligibility for promotion are
two different concepts altogether, In absence of any ·
statutory rules, the executive instructions for fixing the H:
. .
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL:) S.C.R.
A inter se seniorify of two wings of the Sub-Inspectors could
have been issued by the State Government. Admittedly, no
such executive instruction has ever been issued. The
letters issue~ by the Government Departments, being
\ merely opinion of the Departments could not be conferred
·.f3\ .· ~~~~~~~~ho:Ar~~:~ti~~:·~~·~tructions ..~~ara~ ·~~~·~nd 1. ~~ .c~r9~
1.2. The juclgm~nt of the Tribunal treating opinion of
the Law Ministry and Home Department as statutory Rules/
Executive Instructions is not worth acceptance. Mere
opinion given by various departments of the Government
C cannot be termed as Executive instructions. [Para 13] [878-
F-H]
Sant Ram vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910;
Union of.India vs. H.R. Patankar and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1587,
· relied 011. :: .'' .
0
· 2.1. Once:th~ seniority had been fixed and it" remains·
in existenc.e for,:a reasonable period, any challenge to the
same· should not be entertained. 3-4 years is a reasonable
period for challenging.the seniority and in case someone·
agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has
E to explain the delay and laches in approaching the
adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory
explanation. [Para.29) [884-E-F]
2.2. 'Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the
dispute .or ·challenge the validity of the order after its
F conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right
as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person
approaching the court is guilty of delay and laches. The
Court exe:rcising public law jurisdiction does not
encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third
G 'parties crystallises in the interr~gnum. [Para 28] [884-B]
2.3. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the case of
Parsuram Sahu only on the ground of delay ancl laches, as
the applicant approached the Tribunal at the verge of his
retirement and after getting two promotions while the other
H partie~ have got three promotions. In the said case, the
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA .& ORS. v. STATE OF 869
ORISSA & ORS.
~
private respondents have not considered it proper to A
,r contest the case because both of them were likely to
superannuate just thereafter on attaining the age of
retirement. The said judgment and order has not been
challenged by anybody and it attained finality but that
remained the judgment in personem. More so, there is
B
nothing on record to show as to whether the said applicant
could ever get any relief from the State Government. [Para
30) [884-G-H; 885-A-B]
\<
I
2.4. The C.A. filed by one of the SI (g) in the present
case had similar facts as in Pursuram Sahu's case. While
deciding the said application, the Tribunal itself had taken
c
note of the facts that promotions had been made 8-9 years
ago prior to issuance of the combined gradation list in
1999. The said application ought to have been rejected by
the Tribunal only on the ground of delay and !aches. The
High Court has also not dealt with this issue, however, it D
, +- goes to the root of the cause. Such an inordinate delay
cannot be ignored particularly when the issue of delay has
been pressed in service before this Court. [Para 30] [885-
A-CJ
2.5. The applicants in CA No.203 of 2001 claimed to E
have been appointed in 1993. Their names should have
definitely been included in the final gradation list
circulated in June 1997. However, there is no explanation
by them as to how it could not be challenged before the
t Tribunal and under what circumstance~ the gradation list -F
issued in 1999 was challenged in 2001. If the seniority list
is to be challenged within 3-4 years of its issuance CA
No.203/2001 should. have been dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches, without entering into the merits of the
case. [Para 31) [885-F-G]
2.6. The judgment and order of the High Court arising G
out of the judgment passed in CA No. 203/2001, is set aside
)
only to the extent of the last part of the order, namely, "if it
is found that promotion of a Sub-Inspector was not
considered before consideration of Sub-Inspector placed
below him in the seniority list, his promotion shall be H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A considered with effect from the date of promotion of his x
junior in case he had fulfilled minimum eligibility criteria for \
promotion at the time of consideration of his junior". [Para
~
34] (886-E-F]
2.7·;;The issue before the High Court was regarding the
B principle of seniority for preparation of a combined
gradation list of Sls(St) and Sls(g). The High Court failed
to decide the said issue, rather directed preparation of a
combined list in conformity with eligibility criterion. [Para '
~-
32] [885-H; 886-A] "
c R. Prabha Devi and Ors. vs. Government of India and Ors.
AIR 1988 SC 902; Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar and Ors.
vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259; R.S.
Makashi vs. J.M. Men-on and Ors. AIR 1982 SC 101; K.R.
Mudga/ and ,Ors. vs. R.P. Singh and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 2086;
B.S: Bajwa vs~State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1510;
D . Dayaram Asanand vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1984
SC 850; P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR --+ .
1975 SC 2271; Smt. Sudama Devi vs. Commissioner and Ors.
(1983) 2 SCC 1; State of U.P. vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and Anr.
(1998) 8 SCC 685; Northern Indian Glass Industries vs.
E Jaswant Singh and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 335; Dinkar Anna Patil
& Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1999 SC 152; KA. Abdul
Majeed vs. State of Kera/a and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 292;
Aflatoon and Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors. AIR 1974
SC 2077; State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan and Ors. AIR 1975
SC 2190;Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and Anr. vs Shah -~
F Hyder Beig and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 671'; lnder Jit Gupta vs.
Union of India and Ors.(2001) 6 SCC 637; Shiv Dass vs.
Union of India and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1330; Regional ManAger,
A.P.SRTC vs. N..Satyanarayana and Ors. (2008) 1 ecc 210;
City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu
G Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 1_68, relied on.
Tilokchand Motichand vs. H.B. Munshi AIR 1970 SC 898; p
R. N. Bose vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1970 SC 470; State . . )c_
of MadhyaPradeshandAnr. vs. Bhaila/Bhaietc. etc., AIR 1964
SC 1006; Malcom Lawrance Cecil D'Souza vs'. Union of India
I
H
~
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF 871
ORISSA & ORS.
and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1269, referred to. A
,."'--
3.1. Administrative interpretation may provide the
guidelines for interpreting the Rule or Executive
Instruction and may be accepted unless it is found in
.violation o.f the Rules itself. The Court may not be bound
to accept the mistaken construction of the statutes by B
those who had been dealing- with the workin_g ·of the
Statute. [Para 12] [878-C-D]
~
~ 3.2. In view of denial by the State, of the facts that after
receiving the opinion of the Law Ministry as weir as of the
Home Ministry, the practice was changed and also in c
absence of any finding of fact recorded by either of the
courts below, it is not safe to ·give due weightage to the
doctrine of 'contemporanea expositio' in the facts and
circumstances of the case. [Para 12] [878-E]
K.P. Varghese vs. Income-ta~ Officer, Ernakulam and Anr. b
AIR 1981 SC 1922; Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-/ and
.. + Anr. vs. Mis. Parle Export (P) Ltd. AIR 1989 SC 644; Indian
Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Cuttack vs. The Collector of
Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar AIR 1991 SC 1028; N. Suresh
Nathan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 564;
M.B. Joshi and Ors. vs. Satish Kumar Pandey and Ors. AIR Ei
1993 SC 267; Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. and Ors vs. Delhi
Stock ExchE!Qgil-Association Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049; State of
Tamil Nadu vs. Mahi Traders AIR 1989 SC 1167; Mis. Punjab
Traders vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 2300; Mis.
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1993 F
SC 2288, referred to.
Case Law Reference :
AIR 1981 SC 1922 Referred to. Para 8
AIR 1989 SC 644 Referred to. Para 8
AIR 1991 SC 1028 Referred to. Para 8 G
.., AIR 1992 SC 564 Referred to . Para 9
j AIR 1993 SC 267 Referred to. Para 9
AIR 1979 SC 1049 Referred to. Para 10
AIR 1989 SC 1167 Referred to. Para 10
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (AODL.) S.C.R.
A AIR 1990 SC 2300 Referred to. Para 11
~
AIR 1993 SC 2288 Referred to. Para 11 ' . -·
AIR 1967 SC 1910 Relied on. Para 13
AIR 1984 SC 1587 Relied on. Para 13
AIR 1988 SC 902 Relied on. Para 14
~
B AIR 1974 SC 259 Relied on. Para 16
AIR 1970 SC 898 Referred to. Para 16
AIR 1970 SC 470 Referred to. Para 17
AIR 1982 SC 101 Relied on. Para 18 -:!-
AIR 1964 SC 1006 Referred to. Para 18 "
c AIR 1986 SC 2086 Relied on. Para 19
AIR 1975 SC 1269 Referred to. Para 20
AIR 1999 SC 1510 Relied on. Para 21
AIR 1984 SC 850 Relied on. Para 22
AIR 1915 SC 2271 Relied on. Para 23
D (1983) 2 sec 1 ·Relied on. Para 25
(1998) 8 sec 685 Relied on. Para 25 ...
(2003) 1 sec 335 Relied on. Para 25 ...
AIR 1999 SC 152 Relied on. Para 26
(2001) 6 sec 292 Relied on. Para 27
E AIR 1974 SC 2077 Relied on. Para 28
AIR 1975 SC 2190 Relied on. Para 28
AIR 2000 SC 671 Relied on. r'ara 28
(2001) 6 sec 637 Relied on. Para 28
AIR 2007 SC 1330 Relied on.· Para 28
~
F (2008) 1 sec 21 o Relied on. Para 28
(2009) 1 sec 168 Relied on. Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7537-7541 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 07.02.2008 of the High
G Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP (C) Nos. 426, 1233, 2878, 3424
& 5637 of 2006.
,,,
P.P. Rao, Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, P.P. Nayak, l
for the Appellants.
L.N. Rao, (Radha Shyam Jena, Shibashish Misra, Arunav ·
Patnaik, Deeptakirti Verma, Milind Kumar, for the Respot)dents.
H
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE 873
OF ORISSA & ORS.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .A
r"' DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted in all the matters.
2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment
and order dated 7 .2.2008 passed in writ petition nos.426, 1233,
2878, 3424 and 5637 of 2006 by the High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack by which the High Court has partly allowed all the writ 8
petitions quashing certain directions issued by the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'),
however, directed to reconsider the case of promotion of Sub-
~
,; Inspectors (General) (hereinafter called 'Sis (g)') to the post of
Inspectors, in case it is found that the Sis (g) had been placed
below the Sub-Inspectors (Steno) (hereinafter called Sis (St),
c
they should be granted promotion from the date their
counterparts in the other wing had been promoted, in case, they
fulfilled minimum eligibility criteria for promotion at the time of .·
consideration of their respective juniors. Such an exercise was
directed to be completed within a period of six months. However, D
the writ petitions have been allowed to the extent that the direction
+-
issued by the Tribunal to prepare the gradation list of Sis (St) and
Sls(g) in accordance with the dates of passing out of the Sub-
Inspector training course, has been quashed.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals E
are that most of the officers appellants/respondents involved in
all these five appeals, had been appointed in 1972-73 onwards
as Sis (g) and Sis (St). The eligibility for appointment had been
different for both the wings. An additional qualification of
/, stenography was required forthe post of SI (St). After selection,
candidates who were appointed as Sis (St) were given direct F
appointment and after five years, thereof, they were sent for
training and after successful completion of training, they could
become Sls(g) and could be considered for further promotion
as Inspectors. So far as the Sis (g) were concerned after their
selection they were sent for training in Police Training College G
.and after completion thereof, they were appointed on probation
... for 2 years. Most of the officers belonging to both groups had
i been promoted as Inspectors, Deputy Superintendent of Police
and Superintendent of Police and by now retired after attaining
the age of superannuation. There are claims and counter-claims
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A regarding issuance of their inter-se seniority lists in 1979, and
in the year 1992. However, it remains undisputed that after
considering the objections received by the Department, a final
inter-se seniority Hstwas issued in 1997 and again in 1999. One
SI (g) Parsuram Sahu, appointed in 1968 filed representation
before the State Govt. to fix his seniority over and above two
8
· officers belonging to the group of Sis (St) and as no order was
passed he approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.316/2000-
Parsuram Sahu vs. Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Govt. of Orissa & Ors. with a prayer for direction to recast the
gradation list published in June 1997 and to place him over and
C above the respondent nos.4 and 5 therein. The said application
was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated
27.4.2005 (Annexure-P/4) with a direction to consider the
representation of Shri Parsuram Sahu keeping in mind the letter
issued by the Home Department dated 3.2.1987 according to
D which, the seniority of the Sis (St) would be determined after their
entry into General wing after passing the Training Course. The
other O.A. No.23/2000- Sudhir Chandra Ray vs. State of Orissa
& Ors. was decided vide judgment and order dated 8.12.2005
placing reliance upon the judgment in Parsuram Sahu's case and
similar direction was issued. Same remained the fate of OA
E No.203/2001 - Sushanta Kumar Biswal & Ors. vs. State of
Orissa & Ors. filed by officers appointed in 1993 as Sis (g) as
the said Application was also disposed of by the Tribunal relying
upon its earlier judgments in Parsuram Sahu and Sudhir Chandra
Ray's cases. Being aggrieved, Writ Petition No.624 of 2006 was
F filed by Sis (St) in the High Court challenging the judgment and
order in OA No.203 of 2001, and four other writ petitions against
the judgment and order in OA No.23 of 2000. All the said
petitions have been disposed of by the High Court by a common
judgment and order impugned herein. Hence, these appeals.
G 4. Shri P.P. Rao, Ld. Senior Counsel appearfng for the
appellants has submitted that there could be no justification for
the Tribunal/High Court to place reliance upon the letters, one
written by the Home Department dated 3.2.1987 and the other
by Ministry of Law dated 14.2.1990 as the said letters were
merely an op·inion of the Departments and could not be treated
H as bei~g Executive instructions. In fact, no executive instruction
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE 875
OF ORISSA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
had ever been issued taking into consideration the said letters. A
',"'- In absence of any statutory rules for determining their inter-se
seniority, the general principle of determination of seniority i.e.
to reckon the period from the initial appointment i.e. continuous
period/length of service should have been taken into
consideration. The long standing practice followed by the State
B
Authorities that Sis (St) would rank senior to Sls(g) could not be
disturbed at such a belated stage, as it had been given effect to
all throughout this period. More so, as the first part of the order
passed by the Tribunal, namely, to prepare the gradation list of
:! Sis (St) and Sls(g) in accordance with the dates of passing the
course from the training college, has been set aside by the High c
Court and has not been challenged by anybody, has attained
finality and therefore, the direction given against the present
appellants regarding the eligibility qua the seniority is liable to
be quashed. The High Court erred in not taking note of distinction
betWeen eligibility for promotion and seniority. More so, the two D
Original Applications have been decided by the Tribunal merely
.. I- by placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Parsuram Sahu
(supra) which could not have been entertained at such a belated
stage. Hence, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
5. On the contrary, Shri L.N. Rao, Ld. Senior Counsel
E
appearing for the Sis (St) has submitted that the High Court has
issued direction only to give effect to the statutory rules,
particularly, Rule 650 of the Orissa Police Manual Rules
(hereinafter called 'the Rules') which provides that eligibility of
Sub-Inspectors for promotion to the rank of Inspectors have to
(
be determined as. per Rule 650(a)(ii) which provides for F
minimum 10 years continuous service after passing of the
training course. Sis( St) are appointed in terms of Rule 683 read
with annexure 42 to the Rules. Nature of job of Sls(St) is entirely
different from the duties of Sls(g). The Sls(St) basically perform
Secretarial duties; Sis( St) are required to go through the training
B
course and then appointed on probation as Sls(g). Rules also
require confirmation as Sls(g). Thus, it cannot be termed as in
) continuation of their previous appointment as Sls(St). Period of
service rendered as Sl(s) can be treated' only as a qualifying
service and cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.
Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. The H
;
~
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A appeals are liable to be dismissed.
6. Shri Radhey Shyam Jena, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
State has fairly conceded that the rules for determining the inter-
se seniority have not yet been framed. Earlier Sls(St) had been
treated senior to Sls(g) for a long period but after receiving the
B opinion from the Ministry of Law, such a practice has been
abandoned. What the Tribunal and the High Court have taken
into consideration were merely opinions of the Government
Departments and not the executive instructions. The cases
require to be decided in correct perspective.
i.
7. We have considered the rival submissions canvassed on
c behalf of the parties and perused the record. The basic judgment
involved herein is, in the case of Parsuram Sahu by the Tribunal
and it may be pertinent to mention here that the said judgment
had not been challenged by any person either before the High
Court or before this Court and thus attained finality. Therefore, it
D becomes necessary for this Court to examine the correctness
of that judgment and effect thereof, as the other judgments have
-It
been delivered by the Tribunal merely by placing reliance upon
it. The admitted facts involved therein reveal that one Pursuram
Sahu SI (g) joined the Police Services in 1968. He was promoted
to the rank of Inspector in 1986 and to the rank of D.S.P. in 1998.
E
In his O.A. before the Tribunal, he impleaded only two private
persons, namely, Shri Bijaya Brata Kundu and Shri Paresh Ch.
Mohanty who had been working as Superintendents of Police
in the year 2000. The said private respondents had been
appointed as Sis (St) on 25.1.1966 and 23.2.1966 respectively.
F The said respondents did not enter appearance nor contested
the case. Therefore, questions do arise as to whether in absence
of any statutory rule for determining their seniority as Sis, the
Tribunal could disturb the uninterrupted practice in the State to
place Sl(St) above Sl(g) while preparing their inter se seniority
G and Wl!~ther the application could be entertained by the Tribunal
at such a belated stage, particularly, when promotions of the
respondents therein to the posts of Inspector, D.S.P. or
Superintendent of Police had never been challenged. _(
8. The question of application of the doctrine of
contemporanea expositio has been considered by this Court
H
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF 877
ORISSA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
taking into account the factual matrix of the case. In K.P. A
,(_ Varghese vs. Income-tax Officer, Emakulam & Anr. AIR 1981
.:r
SC 1922, this Court applied the rule of contemporanea expositio
as the Court found it a well established rule of interpretation of a
statute by reference to the exposition it has received from
contemporary authority. However, the Court added the words of
B
caution that such a rule must give way where the language of the
statute is plain and unambiguous.
Similarly, in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-/ & Anr.
vs. Mis. Parle Export (P) Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 644, this Court,
f observed that the words used in the provision should be'
understood in the same way in which they have been understood c
in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by
the people who ordinarily deal with them. In Indian Metals and
..
f
Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack vs. The Collector of Central Excise,
Bhubaneshwar, AIR 1991 SC 1028, the Court has applied the ,
same rule of interpretation by holding that contemporanea D
expositio by the administrative authority is a very useful and
.._
relevant guide to the interpretation of the expression used in a
...
statutory instrument.
9. In N. Suresh Nathan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR
1992 SC 564; and M.B. Joshi & Ors. vs. Satish Kumar Pandey
E
& Ors. AIR 1993 SC 267, this Court observed that construction
in consonance with long-standing practice prevailing in the
concerned department is to be preferred.
10. In Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. & Ors-vs. Delhi Stock
Exchange Association Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049; and State of
>'t
r. Tamil Nadu vs. Mahi Traders, AIR 1989 SC 1167, this Court F
' observed that the principle of contemporanea expositio, i.e.
interpreting a document by reference to the exposition it has
received from Competent Authority can be in1voked though the
~
same will not always be decisive of the question of construction.
The administrative construction, i.e. the contemporaneous G
construction placed by administrative or executive officers
... responsible for executiof.1 of the Act/Rules etc. generally should
l be clearly wrong before it is over-turned. Such a construction
commonly referred to as practical construction although not
controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight and
,, H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A is highly persuasive. However, it may be disregarded for cogent
reasons. \
11. The executive interpretation placed by those who are
charged with executing the statute, though not binding, is
nevertheless entitled to considerable weight as highly
B persuasive. However, the application of the doctrine in respect
of modern Statutes has been doubted by this Court (vide Mis.
Punjab Traders vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1990 SC
2300 and Mis. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. Collecto:- of Central
Excise Al R 1993 SC 2288. ~-
12. In View of the above, one may reach the conclusion that
c administrative interpretation may provide the guidelines for
interpreting the Rule or executive instruction and may be
accepted uniess it is found in violation of the Rules itself. The
D
Court may not be bound to accept the mistaken constructjon of
the statutes by those who had been dealing with the working of ...
the Statute.
In instant Appeals, this fact has been me11tioned at several -+·
places by the present appellants but has not been considered ...
either by the Tribunal or by the High Court. Shri Jena, Ld.
Counsel for the State has denied the facts submitting that after
E receiving the opinion of the Law Ministry as well as of the Home
Ministry, the practice was changed. In absence of any finding
of fact recorded by either of the Courts below, it is not safe to
give due weightage to this doctrine in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
...
F 13. More so, the judgment of the Tribunal treating opinion ...(
of the Law Ministry and Home Department as statutory rules/ 1"
Executive instructions is not worth acceptance. In Sant R'am vs.
State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910, a Constitution Bench
of this Court has held that statutory rules cannot be amended
by Executive instructions but "if the rules are-silent" on any
G particular point, Government can fill up the gaps by issuing
executive instructions, in conformity with the existing rules.
Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India v. H. R.
Patankar & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1587. However, mere opinion
s
given by various departments of the Government cannot be
H termed as Executive instructions.
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF 879
ORISSA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
14. One must not loose sight that seniority and eligibility for A
~ ./' promotion are two different concepts altogether. Explaining the
difference between the two, this Court in R. Prabha Devi & Ors.
vs. Government of India & Ors. Al R 1988 SC 902 held as under
-
"15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules B
laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher
post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down
by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who
is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the
eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for
promotion to the higher post merely on. the basis of his c
seniority ...... When qualifications for appointment to a post
in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be
satisfied before a person can be considered for
,... appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle
a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he D
fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules.
... + A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to
the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be
considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only
amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted
for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion E
to the next higher post.
When certain length of service in a particular cadre
can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a
person possesses that qualification, he cannot be
t F
considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which
lays down that a senior in service would automatically be
eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh
experience .."
- 15. Thus, in view of the above we are of the opinion that in
absence of any statutory rules, the executive instructions for fixing G
the inter se seniority of two wings of the Sub-Inspectors could
have been issued by the State Government. Admittedly, no such
)
executive instruction has ever been issued. The letters issued
by the Government Departments, being merely opinion of the
Departments could not be conferrea status of the executive
H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (AbDL.) S.C.R.
A instructions.
16. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the >-.,.... '
long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res
integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra
Shanker Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR
B 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of de'lay in challenging the
promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority
at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to
disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority,
rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the \
intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after
c accrual of the cause of complaint. While deciding the said case,
this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly
in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898,
wherein it has been observed that the principle, on which the
Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground
D of !aches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others
by reason of delay ,in filing the writ petition should not be allowed
to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for + ...
delay. The Court further ~bserved as under:-
"A party claiming fundamental rights must move the Court
before others' rights come out into existence. The action of
E
·the Courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights
emerge by reason of delay on the part of person moving the
court."
17. This Court also placed reliance upon its earlier judgment
of the Constitution Bench inR.N. Bose v. Union of India & .Ors. ~
-4
F AIR 1970 SC 470, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights
which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be
entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and
promotion effected a long time ago would not be defeated
G after the number of years."
18. In R.S. Makashi vs. l.M. Menon & Ors, AIR 1982 SC
101, this Court considered all aspects of I limitation, delay and _[
laches in filing th~ writ petition in respect of inter se seniority of
the employees. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in State
H of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bhailal 8hai etc. etc., AIR 1964
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE 881
OF ORISSA & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
SC 1006, wherein it has been observed that the maximum period A
),
... .; fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a
suit in a Civil Court must be brought, may ordinarily be taken to
be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitu~ion can be measured. The Court
observed as under:-
B
"We must administer justice in accordance with law and
principle of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be
unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have
,,,·~ accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit
back and consider that his appointment and promotion
effected a long time ago would not be set-aside after the c
lapse of a number of years ..... The petitioners have not
furnished any valid explanation whatever for the inordinate
delay on their part in approaching the Court with the
•
I
challenge against the seniority principles· laid down in the
Government Resolution of 196. We would accordingly hold D
that the challenge raised by the petitioners againstthe
-t, +
--- seniority principles laid down in the Government Resoh,Jtion
of March 2, 1968 ought to have been rejected by the High
Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition,
in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said.
Government resolution, should have been dismissed." E
{Emphasis added)
19. The issue of challenging the seniority list, which
co.ntinued to be. in existence for a long time, wa$ again
i considered by this Court in K.R. Mudgal & Ors. v. R.P. Singh &
,.. Ors. AIR 1986 SC 2086. The Court held as under:- F
"A government servant who is appointed to any post
---t ordinarily should at least after a period of 3-4 years of his
appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached
.l to his post peacefully and without any sense of
insecurity ....... .. Satisfactory service conditions postulate G
that there shall be no sense_.. of uncertainty· amongst the
... Government servants created by writ petitions filed after
l
several years as in this case. It is essential that any one
who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him,
should approach the Court as early as possible otherwise
H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A in addition to creation of sense of insecurity in the mind of
Government servants, there shall also be administrative _)-t.-,
complication and difficulties .... In these circumstances we
consider that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the
preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents ·~
to the writ petition on the ground of laches." (Emphasis
B
added)
20. While deciding the case, this Court placed reliance upon
its earlier judgment in Malcom Lawrance Cecil D'Souza v. Union
of/ndia & Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1269, wherein it had been observed '\
as under:·
c "Although security of service cannot be used as a shield
against the administrative action for lapse of a public
servant, by and large one of the essential requirement of
contentment and efficiency in public service is a feeling of
security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security in
D all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to
ensure that matters like one's position in a seniority list
after having been settled for once should not be liable to
+ ...
be re-opened after lapse of many years in the instance of
a party who has itself intervening party chosen-to keep quiet.
Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely
E
to resort in administrative complications and difficulties. It
would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness
and efficiency of service that such matters should be giv~n
a quietus after lapse of some time." (Emphasis added)
21. In B.S. Bajwa vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1999 SC ~
F 1510, this Court while deciding the similar issue re-iterated the
same view, observing as under:-
~
"It is well settled that in service matters, the question of
seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after
G
the lapse of reasonable period because that results in
disturbing the settled position which is qot justifiable: There
was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a
'
grievance. This along was sufficient to decline interference I
under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition". (Emphasis
added)
I
H 22. In Dayaram Asanand vs. State of Maharashtra. & Ors.
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE 883
OF ORISSA & ORS. [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
AIR 1984 SC 850, while re-iterating the similar view this Court A
,..~ held that in absence of satisfactory explanation for inordina~e
delay of 8-9 years in questioning under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the validity of the seniority and promotion assigned
to other employee could not be entertained.
23. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR B
1975 SC 2271, this Court considered the case where the petition
was filed after lapse of 14 years challenging the promotioi
However, this Court held that aggrieved person must approac
J the Court expeditiously for relief and it is not permissible to put
forward stale claim. The Court observed as under:-
"A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over c
his head should approach the Court at least within 6 months
or at the most a year of such promotion."
24. The Court further observed that it was not that there was
any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers
under Article 226 nor was it that there could never be a case D
~
where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after certain length
.... of time. It would be a sound and wise exercise of jurisdiction for
the-courts to refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under
Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it
expeditiously for relief and who standby and allow things to E
happen and then approach toe Court to put forward stale claim
arict try to unsettle settled matters.
- ,_ 25. A similar view_has been re-iterated by this Court in Smt
Sudama Devi vs. Commissioner & Ors. ( 1983) 2 SCC 1; State
l of U.P:vs. Raj Bahadur Singh & Anr. (1998) 8 SCC 685; and
Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors.
F
(2003) 1 sec 335.
2'6. In Dinkar Anna Patil & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1999 SC 152, ·this Court held that delay and laches in
challenging the seniority is always fatal, but in case the party
satisfies the Court regarding delay, the case may be considered .. G
27. In KA. Abdul Majeed vs. State of Kera/a & Ors. (2001)
). 6 SCC 292, this Court held that seniority assigned to any,
employee could not be challenged after a lapse of seven years
on the ground that his initial appointment had been irregular,
though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A therein had correctly been fixed.
28. It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to
-\_,
raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its
· conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as
one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person ~
B approaching the Court is guilty of delay and the laches. The Court
exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation
of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallises in the
interregnum. (vide Af/atoon & Ors. vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors.
AIR.1974 SC 2077; State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan & Ors., ~'.
AIR 1975 SC 2190; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. vs.
c Shah Hyder Beig & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 671; lnder Jit Gupta vs.
Union of India & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 637; Shiv Dass vs. Union
of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330; Regional Manager,
A.P.SRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana & Ors. (2008) 1SCC210; and
City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu \
D Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors. (2009) 1 S~C 168).
29. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition
that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it
remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to
+
-·
the same should not be entertained. In KR. Mudgal (supra), this
E Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list
whfch remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should
not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for
challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue
of seniority beyond this perio<;i, he has to explain the delay and
laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing J
F satisfactory explanation.
\".----
30. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the case of '
Parsuram Sahu (supra) only on the ground of delay and the
laches, as the applicant approached the Tribunal at the verge of
his retirement and after getting two promotions while the other
G parties have got three promotions. In the said case, the private
respondents have not considered it proper to contest the case
because both of them were likely to superannuate just thereafter
on attaining the age of retirement. Undoubtedly, the said
judgment and order has not been challenged by anybody and it
attained finality but that remained the judgment in personem.
H
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE 885
OF ORISSA & ORS. [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
More so, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the A
,,.2'- said applicant Parsuram Sahu could ever get any relief from the
State Government. The O.A. filed by Shri Sudhir Chandra Ray,
had similar facts as in Pursuram Sahu's case. While deciding
the said application the Tribunal itself had taken note of the facts
that promotions had been made 8-9 years ago prior to issuance
B
of the combined gradation list in 1999. It is evident from the
impugned judgment that Shri Sudhir Chandra Ray joined as Sl(g)
on 4.1.1973. He was promoted to the rank of Inspector with effect
from 12.3.1991. We are of the considered opinion that the said
~
+ application ought to have been rejected by th·e Tribunal only on
the ground of delay and laches. The High Court has also not dealt c
with this issue, however, it goes to the root of the cause. Such
an inordinate delay cannot be ignored particularly when the issue
; of delay has been pressed in service hefore this Court.
31. The appellants have specifically pleaded that a seniority
list was issued in 1979. Subsequently, another seniority list wµs D
issued in 1992. A tentative seniority list was circulated in 1996,
.._ and after considering the objections by the State Authorities, a
... final seniority list was issued in June 1997. Again the seniority
list was circulated in 1999. Though there had been dispute
regarding issuance of the said seniority lists, however, the High
E
Court in its judgment has taken note of the seniority list of 1979.
Circulation of gradation list in June 1997 cannot be disputed/
doubted for the simple reason that in Pursuram Sahu's case only
this gradation list was under challenge. The applicants in OA
No.203 of 2001 claimed to have been appointed in 1993. Their
l names should have definitely been included in the final gradation F
list circulated in June 1997. However, there is no explanation by
them as to how it could not be challenged before the Tribunal and
under what circumstances the gradation list issued in 1999 was
challenged in 2001. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that, if
the seniority list is to be challenged within 3-4 years of its
G
issuance, we fail to understand as to why even OA No.203/2001
could not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches,
...
) without entering into the merits of the case.
32. The issue before the High Court was regarding the
principle of seniority for preparation of 2 combined gradation list
H
\=
Jr-
)
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A of Sis (St) and Sls(g). However, the High Court failed to decide
the said issue rather directed preparation of a combined list in ~ ..
conformity with eligibility criterion.
33. The other original application filed in Sudhir Chandra
Ray's case was liable to be dismissed only on the ground of
B delay and laches and we dismiss the same. The High Court has
set aside the direction issued l?Y the Tribunal directing the State
Authorities to prepare the gradation list of Sl(St) and Sl(g) in
accordance with the dates of passing out of the Sub-Inspector
training cours_e. This part of the order has not been challenged
by anybody and thus, this part of the order has attained finality,
c therefore, the said part of the order does not require any
\: -
interference in either of these appeals. So far as the appeals
arising out of writ petition nos.1233/06, 2878/06, 3424/06 and
5637/06 are concerned, stand allowed to that extent and the r.-
remaining part of the direction contained in paragraph 9 of the
D judgment stand set aside.
34. So far as the appeal arising out of writ petition no.426/ ....
06 which has arisen from the judgment and order of the Tribunal ....;
in OA No.203/2001 is concerned, the relevant facts thereof, have
not been taken into consideration either by the Tribunal or by the
E High Court and the matter has. been decided making reference
to the facts of other connected cases. Thus, in view of the abov~.
we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in Writ
Petition No.426/06 only to the extent of the last part of the order,
namely, "if it is found that promotion of a Sub-Inspector was not
considered before consideration of Sub-Inspector placed below
F him in the seniority list, his promotion shall be considered with
effect from the date of promotion of his junior in case he had
fulfilled minimum eligibility criteria fo·r promotion at the time of
consideration of his junior". The first part of the order -:0ntained
in paragraph 9 as already explained hereinabove has attained
G finality, thus, does not require any interference. The High Court
is requested to decide the case to that extent only taking into
consideration the law as explained hereinabove including the
issue of delay and the facts involved in that case expeditiously. j
35. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No cost.
H K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "inter‑se seniority"Sign in to search