Supreme Court of India
T. VIJAYAN AND ORS .versusDIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2000 INSC 193
- Decided
- 5 April 2000
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S SAGHIR AHMAD
Holding
Ad‑hoc promotions made under paragraph 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual are valid and the period of such ad‑hoc service must be counted towards seniority, making the promotees senior to the direct recruits.
Summary
The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of direct recruit firemen (appellants) and firemen promoted on an ad‑hoc basis (respondents) in the South Central Railway. The appellants were appointed as First Firemen after completing two years of training, but their appointment letters stipulated that their seniority was subject to the finalisation of a promotion selection that was then pending. The respondents had been promoted on an ad‑hoc basis under paragraph 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual due to service exigencies and later regularised after the selection process was completed. The Court examined whether the ad‑hoc period could be counted towards seniority and whether the provisional seniority list showing respondents senior to the appellants was valid. Relying on paragraph 216 and precedents such as Direct Recruit Class‑II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that ad‑hoc promotions permissible under the rules entitle the promotees to reckon the entire ad‑hoc service for seniority. Consequently, the seniority list was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether ad‑hoc promotions made under paragraph 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual can be counted towards seniority.
- Whether the respondents, promoted on an ad‑hoc basis, are correctly placed senior to the direct recruit appellants in the provisional seniority list.
Subjects
seniorityad‑hoc promotionRailway Establishment Manualservice lawdirect recruitmentpromoteeseniority listrailway service rules
Judgment
~-
• T. VIJAYAN AND ORS . A
v.
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER AND ORS.
APRIL 5, 2000
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B
Service Law :
Railway Establishment Manual: Paragraphs 216 and 302.
Seniority-First Fireman-Direct recruits vis-a-vis Promotees-Ad hoc c
service-Reckoning of-Some employees were promoted as First Firemen on
ad hoc basis in accordance with para 216 and subsequently regularised-
However, some direct recruits were also appointed and regularised as First
Firemen prior thereto-Appointment letters to the direct recruits clearly indi-
cated that their seniority was subject to the finalisation of selection for the D
promotion quota which was already in progress-Provisional seniority list
showed direct recruits below promotees-Validity of-Held: Jn the circum-
stances of the case, promotees entitled to count their entire ad hoc service
towards their seniority-Direct recruits though appointedprior to the promotees
cannot claim seniority over them-Hence, provisional seniority list, valid.
E
Seniority-Ad hoc promotion-In accordance with Rules and subse-
,
,,. quently regularised-Held: Such ad hoc service counts towards seniority.
The appellants-direct recruits were appointed as First Firemen after
two years' training. The letters of appointment issued to the appellants
clearly indicated that their seniority was subject to the finalisation of F
selection for the promotion quota, which was in progress. The respond-
ents-promotees were promoted to the post of First Firemen in accordance
with paragraph 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual o~ ad hoc basis,
due to exigencies of service, prior to the appointment of the appellants.
The ad hoc promotion of the respondents was regularised after the ap· G
pointment of the appellants.
-:"'
A provisional seniority list of First Firemen was published wherein
all the appellants were shown below the respondents. This seniority list
w~s unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants before the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. Hence this appeal. H
971
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A On behalf of the appellants it~ wa~ contended that the appellants
were appointed as First Firemen prior to the regularisation of the re·
spondents and, therefore, the appellants would rank senior to the respond·
ents in terms of paragraph 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual.
The following question arose before this Court :
B
Whether the respondents are entitled to reckon the periOd of ad hoc
service towards their seniority and whether they have been properly shown
as senior to the appellants?
C Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Paragraph 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual
indicates that ad hoc promotion is permissible pending regular selection.
Once ad hoc promotion is found to be permissible under the Rules and the
respondents were promoted on ad hoc basis in the exigencies of service,
D
pending regular selection, which, incidentally, took sufficient time as the
respondents who were on official duty "on line" were not available at one
point or at one time to facilitate the selection, the entire period of ad hoc
service will have to be counted towards their seniority, particularly as all
the respondents were duly selected and their services were also regular-
E ised. The concerned employees including the respondents had already
been alerted for the process of selection. While making direct recruitment
," ..
it was given out to the present appellants that their absorption and senior-
ity was subject, inter alia, to the finalisation of the selection to the post of
First Firemen which was in progress. The appellants were selected and
F were put on two years' training as Apprentices whei;eafter they were
absorbed and were issued separate and individual appointment letters in
which it was clearly mentioned that their seniority was subject to the
finalisation of the selection for promotion to the post of First Fireman
which was in progress. The appellants, in this situation, cannot claim
seniority over the respondents who had already been appointed to the
G
posts of First Fireman on ad hoc basis and were after due selection regu·
Iarised on those posts. [979C-G]
Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of
Maharashtra, {1990) 2 SCC 715; Keshav Dev v; State of U.P.; L.
H Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur, [1999] 8 SCC 287 and Ajit Kumar
T. VIJAYAN v. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 973
Ralh v. State of Orissa, AIR (2000) SC 85, relied on. A
• C.K Antony v. B. Muraleedharan, [1998) 6 SCC 630, held inapplica·
hie.
State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey, [1993) 3 SCC 371, referred
B
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2180-2215 of
1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.96 of the Central Administra- C
tive Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application Nos. 346, 469-482, 485-490 and 492-
506 of 1994.
S.R. Bhat and Ms. Hetu Arora for the Appellants.
D
Ms. K. Amareswari, Ms. Binu Tamta and Ms. Sushma Suri for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The dispute in the present appeals relates to E
the question of inter se senio,rity between direct recruits and promotees on the
post of First Fireman working under the Divisional Railway Manager, South
Central Railway, Hubli, Karnataka.
Recruitment on the post of Fireman "A", as indicated in the Railway F
Establishment Manual, was to be made originally to the extent of 50 per cent
by direct recruitment and remaining 50 per cent by promotion. Subsequently,
the rule of recruitment was altered and it was provided that post of Fireman
"A" would be filled up 100 per cent by promotion.
On 15.11.1985, Railway Recruitment Board advertised 66 posts of G
Apprentice Fireman "A". The appellants applied for the posts and were
ultimately selected by the Railway Recruitment Board. In 1988, they were
appointed as Apprentice Fireman and were placed on two years' training.
After completion of training, they were appointed as First Fireman on
18.7.1990 except appellants 10 and 28 who were absorbed on 20.10.1990 and H
974 [2000] 2 S.C.R.
-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A 21.3.1991 respectively. Another direct recruit who has been arrayed as
respondent No.148 in this appeal, was appointed on 5.9.1990. .~- ......
The process of recruitment to the other 50 per cent of vacancies by
promotion was started sometime in April, 1987 and respondents 4 to 143 who
#.
were working as Fireman "B" were appointed, pending regular selection for
B promotion, on ad hoc basis, between 1987-1990.
It may be mentioned here that pursuant to the recommendation of the
Fourth Pay Commission, the posts of Fireman "A" and Fireman "B" were
merged and designated as First Fireman while the post of Fireman "C" was
c redeJignated as Second Fireman with effect from 1.1.1986 vide Notification
dated 3.11.1987.
In 1990, the appellants after completion of two years' tra1mng were
appointed as First Fireman and were placed on probation. The process· of
selection for promotion on the post of First Fireman continued and as a result
D of that selection, respondents 4 to 143 were promoted and by order dated
18.1.1992, their ad hoc promotion was regularised with effect fro~ 16.12.1991.
On 11th of January, 1993, a provisional seniority list of First Fireman, as on
31.12.1992, was published wherein all the appellants were shown below the
contesting respondents 4 to 143. This seniority list was challenged by the
appellants before the Central Administrative Tribunal but the Tribunal by its
E
impugned judgment dated 13.3.1996 dismissed the petition. The Tribunal
found that the placement of appellants below respondents 4 to 143 was
perfectly valid. It· is this judgment which is challenged before us in this
appeal.
F Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants
were appointed on the post of First Fireman in 1990 while the respondents (._
4 to 143 were regularised on the post of First Fireman by order dated
18.1.1992 and, therefore, the appellants would rank senior to respondents 4
to 143 in terms of para 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual.
G Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that
respondents who were subsequently selected for regular promotion had been
promoted to the post of First Fir-eman in 1987 on ad hoc basis which was
permissible under the Rules and the process of selection for making promotion
on the post of First Fireman consumed sufficiently long time and on being
H ultimately selected for promotion, services of respondents 4 to 143 were
T. VIJAYAN v. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 975
..... regularised. They, it is contended, would be entitled to reckon their seniority A
on the post of First Fireman with effect from the date. of their ad hoc
appointment. The entire period of service for which they worked in ad hoc .
capacity will have to be counted towards seniority as these respondents could\
• legally be promoted to the post of First Fireman in ad hoc capacity. Ad hoc
promotions were permissible under the Railway Establishment Manual and, B
therefore, the promotion of respondents 4 to 143 to the post of First Fireman
being in consonance with the provision of the Railway Establishment Manual
would ensure to the benefit of these respondents for purpose of determination
of their seniority vis-a-vis the direct recruits.
The only question which is involved in these appeals is whether C
respondents 4 to 143 are entitled to reckon the period of ad hoc service
towards their seniority and whether they have been properly shown as senior
• to the present appellants and respondent No. 148 in the seniority list issued
by the Railway Administration.
From.the facts as brought on record, it appears that prior to 1.1.1986, D
recruitment to the post of First Fireman was made in the following manner:
"i. 50% of the vacancies filled by selection procedure from fireman
B studied up to 8th standard and below 45 years of age.
u. 50% by Departmental Examination from all Fireman B and C
E
who are Matriculate and have three years of Railway Service.
iii. If the Departmental examination failed to provide enough
Matriculates for the 50% quota, direct recruitment to be made
through RRB ." F
But, with effect from 1.1.19 86, the post of First Fireman in the scale of
Rs.950-1500 was to be filled up 100 per cent by promotion from amongst
Second Fireman in the scale of Rs.825-1200. The shortfall, if any, was to be
made good by direct recruitment through Railway Recruitment Board. These
instructions were issued through the Railway Board's letter dated 3.11.1987. G
Pending issuance of this letter, the Headquarter Office of the South Central
Railway, Secunderabad, issued instructions in April, 1987, tl1at the vacancies
of First Fireman in the scale of Rs.950-1500 shall be filled up by promoting
Second Fireman in the scale of Rs.825-1200 purely on ad hoc and temporary
basis. H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A On the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, which were
given effect to from 1.1.1986, the cadres of Fireman 'A' and Fireman 'B' were
merged and were re-designated as 'First Fireman' while the post of Fireman
'C' was redesignated as 'Second Fireman'.
The appellants were appointed as Apprentice Fireman and deputed for
B training for a period of two years from 24.6.1988. After completion of two
years' training, the appellants were subjected to suitability test and were
posted as First Fireman in the scale ofRs.950-1500 vide letter dated 18.7.1990
issued by the Divisional Officer of the South Central Railways (Personnel
Branch). This letter, relating to tlie absorption of the appellants on successful
c completion of the prescribed training, contains a note at the foot, that the
·absorption of the Apprentice Fireman on the post of First Fireman was subject
to the conditions, inter alia, that :
"Their absorption and seniority is subject to the outcome of the
Application pending before CAT/Bangalore and finalisation of the
D selection to the post of First Fireman in progress."
The appellants have also filed a copy of letter dated 22.10.1990 relating
to the absorption of an Apprentice Fireman, P.P. Sailendran, and in this letter
also, it is mentioned that his absorption was subject to the condition, inter alia,
E that:
"(i) His absorption and seniority is subject to the outcome of the
Application 430/421190 pending before CAT/Bangalore and finalisa-
tion of the Selection to the post of First Fireman in progress."
F It is not disputed that all the appellants were individually issued similar
letters and in all the letters, the above condition was clearly indicated. In the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents in this Court, it has
been stated, inter alia, as under :
"the petitioners were informed that their absorption and seniority
G would be subject to finalisation of selection to the post of Ist Fireman
by promotion from departmental candidates which was under proc-
ess."
It is also to be noticed that the existing mode of recruitment which
H provided that "50 per cent of the vacancies were to be filled up by selection
T. VIJAYAN v. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 977
from amongst Fireman 'B' and the remaining 50 per cent were to be filled 1A
through departmental examination from amongst Fireman 'B' and 'C' who
were Matriculates and had three years' regular service, while the shortfall, if
- any, was to be made good by direct recruitment", was altered in 1987 by the
Railway Board by its letter dated 3.11.1987 and it was provided that the
vacancies in the grade of First Fireman (Rs. 950-1500) would be filled up cent
B
per cent by promotion of Second Fireman (Rs.925- 1200), without any
restriction as to age or qualification and the shortfall, if any, would be made
good by direct recruitment through Railway Recruitment Board. Pending
issuance of Railway Board's letter dated 3.11.1987, since the posts of
First Firemen were needed to be urgently filled up in the exigencies of
administration, the Headquarters Office of the South Central Railway issued c
instructions in April, 1987 to fill up those vacancies by promoting Second
Fireman on ad hoc and temporary posts. While some of the respondents
had already been appointed on ad hoc basis, the remaining came to be
appointed in that capacity after the issuance of Railway Board's letter dated
3.11.1987 as regular selection was not immediately possible on account of D
non-availability of the respondents who were on duty as First Fireman "on
line". In order to make regular selection on the post of First Fireman, the
Selection Committee had to meet eighteen times on different dates between
31.5.1990 and 14.10.1991. Respondents 4 to 143 were consequently selected
and their appointment on the post of First Fireman was regularised on
18.1.1992 with effect from 16.12.1991. E
Now, para 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual provides as
under:
"216. A. Ad hoc promotion against selection and non-selection
posts :-
(i) Ad hoc promotions should be avoided as far as possible both in
selection and non- selection posts, and where they are found inescap-
able and have to be made in the exigency of service, they should be
resorted to only sparingly and only for a short duration of 3 to 4
G
months. The ad hoc promotion should be ordered only from amongst
senior most suitable staff As a rule a junior should not be promoted
ignoring his senior.
(ii) The following further guidelines should be adhered to while
ordering ad hoc promotions:- H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A (a) In case of non-selection posts which are filled on the basis of
seniority cum suitability while there is no provision for any lengthy
waiting list. The processing involved being not unduly cumbersome
B
or time consuming the post shall be filled after following the
prescribed procedure quickly. When these posts are to be filled by
trade test, this should be conducted systematically. Necessity for
·-
adhoc promotion is thus obviated.
(b) In regard to selection posts, it is essential that all the selection
should be conducted regularly as per extant instructions. While thell!
is no objection to adhoc promotions being made in leave vacancy and
c short duration vacancy, ad hoc promotion against regular promotion
should be made only after obtaining Chief Personnel Officer's
approval. Proposal sent to Chief Personnel Officer for ad hoc
promotion against regular vacancy should indicate detailed justifica-
tion as to why regular selection could not be held. Chief Personnel
D Officer should keep record of having accorded approval to such ad
hoc promotion and review the progress made in filling up these posts
by selected persons every month. Chief Perssonel Officer should also
review selection to all posts afresh, whether such posts are controlled
either at the Divisional level or at extra Divisional level. He should
E also keep the ll!cord ofthe categories where he has to approve ad hoc
promotions and these records should be available to the Board's
Officer on their visit to Railways.
(Board's letter No. E(NG) Il/81/RC-l/1 dated 1.4.1981)
F (c) Notification for adhoc promotions against selection posts should
specifically include a remark to the effect that the person concerned
has not been selected for promotion and that his temporary promotion
gives him no right for regular promotion and that his promotion is
to be treated as provisional. For the purpose of drawing his pay which
G should not be drawn for more than three months without General
-
Manager's specific sanction. The General Manager should issue
provisional sanction for periods exceeding six months at a time and
these powers should be exercised by the General Managers/Addi-
tional General Managers personally or by his senior Dy. General
H Manager.
T. VUAYAN v. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 979
- (Board's letter No. E(NG) l-73-PM-1/222
dated 23.2.1974;
E-55/PM-1/19/3 dated 11.1.1955;
A
E(NG) I-79-PM 1-105 dated 26.4.79 &
E(NG) I-77-PM 1-117 dated 17.10.77)
(iii) In any case no second ad hoc promotion shall be allowed. B
(Board's letter NO. E(NG) 1-85/PM/5-III dated 23.8.1985)"
The above para indicates that ad hoc promotion is permissible pending
regular selection. Once ad hoc promotion is found to be permissible under
the Rules and respondents 4 to 143 were promoted on ad hoc basis in the
c
exigencies of service, pending regular selection, which, incidentally, took
sufficient time as respondents 4 to 143 who were on official duty "on line"
were not available at one point or at one time to facilitate the selection, the
entire period of ad hoc service will have to be counted towards their
seniority, particularly as all the respondents (4 to 143) were duly selected and D
their services were also regularised with effect from 16.12.1991 by order
dated 18.1.1992. The concerned employees, including respondents 4 to 143
had already been alerted for the process of selection which had been started
in 1988. While making direct recruitment against posts which were adver-
tised in 1985, it was given out to the present appellants that their absorption
E
and seniority was subject, inter alia, to the finalisation of the selection to the
post of First Fireman which was in progress. The appellants, as stated earlier,
were selected in 1988 and were put on two years' training as Apprentice
whereafter they were absorbed by order dated 18.7.1990 and were issued
separate and individual appointment letters in which, it was clearly men-
tioned that their seniority was subject to the finalisation of the selection for F
promotion to the post of First Fireman which was in progress. The appellants,
in this situation, cannot claim seniority over respondents 4 to 143 who had
already been appointed to the posts of First Fireman on ad hoc basis and were
after due selection regularised on those posts.
This Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association G
=
& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 715 [1990] 2 SCR
900 has laid down in principles (A) and (B) as under :
"(A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his
seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the abov~
rule is that where. the initial appointment 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
B laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in ·the post
uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with
the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted."
Applying the above principles to the instant case, since respondents 4
to 143 were promoted on ad hoc basis, and that too in a situation where regular
c promotion was not immediately possible and since ad hoc promotion was
permissible in view of Para 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual quoted
above, they are clearly entitled to the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by
them on the post of Fireman 'A' or 'First Fireman' for the purpose of
reckoning their seniority vis-a-vis the appellants.
D
It may be stated here that a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in State of West
Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors., [1993] 3 SCC 371 considered the
principles (A) and (B) as set out above and explained as under :
"There can be no doubt that these two conclusions have to be read
harmoniously and conclusion (B) cannot cover cases which are
E
expressly excluded by conclusion (A). We may, therefore, first refer
to conclusion (A). It is clear from conclusion (A) that to enable
seniority to be counted from the date of initial appointment and not
according to the date of confirmation, the incumbent of the post has
to be initially appointed 'according to rules.' The corollary set out in
F conclusion (A), then is, that 'where the initial appointment is only ad
hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement,
the officiation in such posts cannot be taken into account for
considering the seniority.' Thus, the corollary in conclusion (A)
expressly excludes the category of cases where the initial appointment
G is only ad hoc and not according to rules, being made only as a stop-
gap arrangement. The case of the writ petitioners squarely falls within
this corollary in conclusion (A), which says that the officiation in such
posts cannot be taken into account for counting the seniority.
The conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation,
H wherein the appointments ·are otherwise regular, except for the
T. VIJAYAN v. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 981
deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down b:Y the rules. A
This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely,,
'if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid
down by the 'rules' and the htter expression 'till the regularisation
of his service in accordance with the rules'. We read conclusion (B),
and it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to cover the
B
cases where the initial appointment is made against an existing
--- vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the
appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the
procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suit-
ability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of
regularisation, the appointee being eligible and qualified in every c
manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial appointment
in such cases. Decision about the nature of the appointment, for
determining whether it falls in this category, has to be made on the
basis of the terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions
in the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural require- D
ments laid down by the rule has to be cured at.the first available
opportunity, without any default of the employee and the appointee
must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his
service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is
not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under
the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment E
not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular
appointment, subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the
rules being fulfilled at the earliest."
In Keshav Dev & Am: v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1999] 1 SCC 280 as also
F
Shri L Chandrakishore Singh v. State ofManipur & Ors., [1999] 8 SCC 287 =
IT (1999) 7 SC 576, the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Direct
Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association's case (supra) was followed.
In another decision in Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR
(2000) SC 85 = IT (1999) 8 SC 578, to which one of us (S.Saghir Ahmad, G
J.) was a party, the entire case law was reviewed and it was held that if the
ad hoc promotion had. been made in accordance with the service rules, the
promotees would be entitled to reckon the period of ad hoc service towards
their seniority.
Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a decision H
A
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000} 2 S.C.R.
of this Court in C.K Antony V. B. Muraleedharrm & Ors., [199SJ 6 sec 630. i
-
and has drawn our attention to paragraph 6 on page 638. Having regard to the 1
facts of this case and the Service Rules involved therein, the reliance on that
decision is wholly misplaced as that decision does not answer the problem
involved in the pre§ent'ease which, as pointed out above, is covered by the
decisions ~_lfeady discussed above.
B
The Tribunal has also found that according to the mode of recruitment,
the shortfall, if any, in the post of First Fireman, which could nqt be filled up
by promotion, would be filled up by direct recruitment and, therefore, direct
recruits have to be placed below the promotees in the matter of seniority. This
I c also appears to be reasonable. But since we have already held above that the
promotion of respondents 4 to 143 was made in accordance with the Rules and
they are entitled to reckon the period of ad hoc ~ervice on the post of First
Fireman towards their seniority, we need not delve, into· that question any
further.
D For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these appeals
which are dismissed, but without any order as to c;osts.
v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search