Holding

The proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) is valid, and the respondent must retain the year of allotment 1977; the Tribunal’s order and the later government order fixing 1971 are set aside.

Summary

The respondent, S.N. Dubey, a non‑State Civil Service officer appointed to the Indian Administrative Service in 1981, was assigned the year 1977 as his "year of allotment" for seniority purposes under the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. He challenged this assignment, and the Central Administrative Tribunal directed that his year of allotment be fixed as 1971, holding the proviso unconstitutional. The Union of India appealed, and the Supreme Court earlier upheld the validity of the proviso. In the present appeal, the Court examined whether the proviso is valid and whether the respondent’s year of allotment can be altered to 1971. It held that the proviso is constitutionally sound, that a non‑State officer’s seniority cannot be placed ahead of a State officer with longer state service, and that the Tribunal’s order and the subsequent government order fixing 1971 are erroneous. Consequently, the respondent’s year of allotment remains 1977, the Tribunal’s decision is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the IAS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.
Whether the respondent’s year of allotment can be fixed earlier than 1977 (i.e., 1971) despite the proviso.
Whether the Tribunal’s order quashing the 1977 allotment and the subsequent government order are maintainable.
Whether the writ petition can be treated as a review petition of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment.

Subjects

IAS senioritynon‑State Civil Service officeryear of allotmentRule 3(3)(c)seniority rulesCentral Administrative Tribunalreview petitionconstitutional validity

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
S.N. DUBEY AND ORS ..

AUGUST 13, 1998

B [S.C AGRAWAL, M. SRINIVASAN, AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.]

Service Law :

Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 :
c Rule 3(3) (c), proviso-Non State Civil Service Officer-Selected in the
year 1981 to Indian Administrative Service under Rule 8(2) of the Indian
Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules-On the basis of proviso to Rule
3(3) (c) of Seniority Rules, assigned 1977 as year of allottment for ftxing
inter-se seniority in the service since junior most officer promoted from state
D Civil Service, whose, length of service being longer than that of non state
civil service officer, was allotted 1977-Claim by officer for ftxing seniority
w.ej 1971-Held proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) does not suffer from any infirmity
Officer has been rightly assigned 1977 as the year of allotment in accordance •
with proviso to Rule 3(3)(c).
E
The contesting respondent Joined as Assistant Professor of Civil
Engineering, a class II service of Government ofBihar on 13.8.1968. He had
worked on various posts under the government of Bihar and by Notification.
Dated 12.5.81 he was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service as a
non-State Civil Service officer in accordance with Rule 8(2) of the Indian
F Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules. He was assigned 1977 as the
year of allotment for the purposes of determining his seniority in the Service,
as per Government of India letter dated 11.4.86. It was Stated therein view
that in of the proviso to Rule 3(3) (c), the year of allotment of the respondent
cannot be determined earlier than 1977 since, the length of service of the
G junior most officer of the State Civil Service who was appointed to the
Service in 1977, before the respondent is more than the service of the
respondent in the State.

After rejection of a representation, the respondent filed an application
before the Tribunal contending that the year of allotment for seniority should
H have been 1971 instead of 1977. The application was allowed in terms of its
1166
U.0.1. v. S.N. DUBEY 1167

earlier judgment in the case of K.R. Nambiar v. VO/, wherein it was held that A
· 'proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the seniority Rules was unconstitutional and void.
The Tribunal, accordingly, directed the Central Government to fix 1971 as
the year of allotment of the respondent.

In the Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgments of the Tribunal
in the cases of KR Nambiar and the respondent, this Court, by Order dated B
8.4.91 upheld the validity of Rule 3(3)(c) of the seniority Rules though the
direction of the Tribunal in respect of the respondent and KR Nambiar were
not disturbed. A review Petition was filed wherein it was pointed out that the
relief granted to the respondent could not be sustained since it was contrary
to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules, which had been upheld by this Court. C
The review petition was however, dismissed.

Since the revision of year of allotment of the respondent adversely
affected the seniority of some officers, they filed a writ petition in this Court.
It was contended that the writ petition might be treated as a review petition
of judgment dated 8.4.91 of this Court D
The writ petition was treated as a review petition. The civil appeal of
the respondent was taken up for hearing wherein the writ petitioners were
impleaded as parties. In this civil appeal the only issue for determination was
the year of allotment of the respondent, a non-State Civil Service officer.
E
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the decisions of this
Court upholding proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules need to be
reconsidered since in the matter of inter-se seniority a non-State Civil
Service Officer and a State Civil Service Officer cannot be compared, and
seniority of a non-State Civil Service officer cannot be dependent upon that F
of a State Civil Service officer. Under Rule 8(2) of Recruitment Rules, only
a person of outstanding ability and merit, serving as a gazetted officer in
connection with affairs of the State, and who is not a member of the State
Civil Service, can be appointed to the Service by selection.

Allowing the Appeal, this Court. G
HELD: I.I. The proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Indian Administrative
Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 does not suffer from any
infirmity and no ground is made out for reconsideration of the decisions of
this Court upholding the validity of the said proviso. There is nothing unjust
or unreasonable in this provision whereby the seniority of two officers (one H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A belonging to the State Civil Service and the other a non-State Civil Service
officer) who have been appointed to the Service is so fixed that a non-State
Civil Service officer does not become senior to a State Civil Service officer
whose length of service in the State is more than the length of service in
connection with the affairs of the State of a non-State Civil Service officer.
[1176-D]
B
Union of India and Ors. v. G.K. Sangameshwar and Ors., 119931 Supp.
3 sec 697, relied on.

Union of India and Ors. v. K.R Nambiar, (Civil Appeal No. 1784 of .
1991, decided by S.C. on 8.4.1991 ), referred to.
c 1.2. The State Civil Service constitutes the main source for promotion
to the service while appointment of non-State Civil Service officer is limited
to a small proportion. A non-State Civil Service officer would not be having
the same degree of administrative exposure as a State Civil Service officer.
In view of the limited degree of administrative exposure, the experience
D gained by the non-State Civil Service officer cannot be equated with the
experience gained by a State Civil Service officer. Hence, for the purpose of
seniority in the Service, the length of service of a non-State Civil Service
officer cannot be equated with the length of service of a State Civil Service
officer. The proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules proceeds on this
basis, since it provides that a non-State Civil Service officer shall not be
E allotted a year earlier than the year of allotment of a State Civil Service
officer whose length of service is more than the length of service of a non-
State Civil Service officer. Rule 8(2) of the Recruitment Rules which provides
that selection for the service from amongst non-State Civil Service officers
is to be made of a person of outstanding ability and merit only means that
the best among such officers would be selected for the Service.
F [1176-H; 1177-A-DI
2. The Order of the Tribunal quashing the determination of the year ....
of allotment of the respondent as 1977, as per letter of Government oflndia
dated 11.4.86, is set aside. Since the validity of proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the
Seniority Rules is upheld, the respondent has to be assigned the year of
G allotment in accordance with the said provision. The respondent has not
shown that if the proviso is applied, the respondent could be assigned a year
of allotment earlier than 1977. The determination of 1977 as the year of
allotment of the respondent under letters of the Government of India was in
accordance with the proviso. (1177-F-G)

H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1755 of
U.0.1. v. S.N. DUBEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 1169
1991. A
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.90 of the Administrative
Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 424 of 1988.

Ranjit Kuamr for the Appellants.
B
Harish N. Salve, P.P. Malhotra, S.K. Verma, Manoj Prasad, (B.B. Singh)
Adv. (NP), S. Wasim A.Qadri, Ms. Smitha Inna, P. Parmeshwaran, Anil Katiyar,
and Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.

.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
S.C. AGRA WAL, J. : The question that falls for consideration in this
appeal relates to assignment of year of allotment for the purpose of fixation
of seniority in the Indian Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as
'the Service') to Shripati Narain Dubey, the contesting respondent (hereinafter
referred to as 'the respondent'). The respondent was appointed as an Assistant
Professor of Civil Engineering in the Department of Industries and Technical D
Education, a Class II service of the Government of Bihar, in July 1968 and he
joined the said post on August 13, 1968. He was confirmed on the said post
vide notification No. 5036 dated December 13, 1969. He was promoted as
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering on May 21, 1975. He worked in the
various posts under the Government of Bihar and vide notification No. 37 E
dated May I, 1976 he was appointed as Assistant Director in the Bureau of
Public Enterprises. By order dated September 3, 1977 the post of Assistant
Director was upgraded to that of Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy Director.
Subsequently by notification dated October 30, 1978 the post of Deputy
Secretary-cum-Deputy Director of the Bureau of Enterprises was redesignated
as Joint Secretary-cum-Joint Director. The respondent was appointed to the F
Service by Notification dated May 12, 1981. He was assigned 1977 as the
year of allotment. In this regard, letter dated April 11, 1986 was addressed
by the Under Secretary from the Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, to the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna, wherein it was
stated that the matter of determination of the year of allotment of the respondent G
has been examined in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 (3 )(c) of the Indian Administrative
Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Seniority Rules') and that the year of allotment of the respondent cannot be
determined earlier than 1977 since, as per the information furnished by the
State Government, Shri Yadu Nath Jha is the junior most officer of the State H
- ..,

1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A Civil Service who was appointed in the Service before and in comparison to
the length of service of the respondent in the State in a Gazetted post, Shri •
Yadu Nath Jha had served in the State Civil Service for a longer period and
hence, as per the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules, the year of
allotment of the respondent could not be determined earlier than 1977. The
representation submitted by the respondent against the said determination of
B 1977 as the year of allotment was rejected by the Government of India,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home
Affairs, by letter dated July 14, 1987. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
decision whereby 1977 was determined as the year of allotment for the purpose
of fixation of his seniority in the Service, the respondent moved the Central
C Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, i>atna, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal'), by filing 0.A.No. 424of1988, wherein he claimed that the year of
allotment should have been determined as 1971 and not 1977. The said
application of the respondent was allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated
September 17, 1990. The Tribunal quashed the orders dated April 11, 1986 as
well as July 14, 1987 and directed the Union of India to fix 1971 as the year
D of allotment of the respondent and place him below Shri Dev Das Chhotray
the junior most direct recruit of the year 1971. In the said judgment the
Tribunal, following its earlier judgment in K. V Nambiar v. Union of India &
Ors., decided by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal, held that the proviso
to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules was unconstitutional and void. In
E Special Leave Petitions Nos. 8773 of 1990 and 3127 of 1991 filed by the Union
of India against the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of K.V. Nambiar
and the respondent this Court, by order dated April 8, 1991, granted special
leave to appeal and passed the following order :-

"Special leave granted.
F
Heard counsel.

We are inclined to take the view that the Central Administrative
Tribunal should not have struck down Rule 3(3)(c) of the Indian
Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rule, 1954, merely on
the basis that the two instances which had come before it for
G
consideration were not being adequately answered under the Rules.
These Rules have been in force for almost 36 years and the challenge
that has now come for consideration was the rare instance where
under the Rules, it became difficult to deal with the matter. Union
of India has in its affidavit indicated that exceptional situations as
H arising in the case of the two respondents should be answered under
{

P-

U.0.1. v. S.N. DUBEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.) 1171

the residual Rules and if not covered under the Rules, under the A
administrative powers and for that purpose the Rules should not have
been struck down. Counsel for Union of India has told us during the
course of hearing of the appeals that the relief granted by the Central
Administrative Tribunal so far as the two officers are concerned may
be sustained in terms of the directions of the Tribunal but the further B
direction that the Rule referred to above is struck down may be set
aside. Counsel for the respondents have no objections to the
submission of the appellant being accepted .
•
We are inclined to accept the submission and while vacating the
decision of the Tribunal on the question of the vires of the Rules, we C
sustain the reliefs granted by the Tribunal in terms. Both the appeal
are partly allowed. No costs."

Civil Appeal No. I 755 of 199 I arises out of Special Leave Petition filed
against the judgment of the Tribunal dated September 17, 1990 in O.A. No. D
424 of 1988 filed by the respondent. The Union of India filed a Review Petition
for the review of the said order dated April 8, 1991 passed by this Court. In
. the said Review Petition it was pointed that in the case of the respondent the
seniority has been fixed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3(3 )(c) of
the Seniority Rules, and that the relief granted by the Tribunal could be
sustained in so far as K.V. Nambiar was concerned but the said relief could E
not be sustained in the case of the respondent. The Review Petition filed by
the Union of India was dismissed by this Court by order dated July 31, 1991.
Thereafter the Central Government passed an order dated August 19, 1991
whereby the year of allotment of the respondent was revised from 1977 to
1971 and it was directed that for the purpose of inter se seniority he would p
be placed below Shri D.D. Chhotray (RR 71) in the gradation list of the !AS
officers borne on the cadre of Bihar. The said order dated August 19, 1991
adversely affected the seniority of the officers who had been assigned years
of allotment between 1971to1977. Mukesh Nandan Prasad and Ashok Kumar
were appointed to the Service by direct recruitment and had been signed as G
1972 and 1974 as the years of allotment respectively. As a result of order
dated August 19, 1991 whereby his year of allotment was revised from 1977
to 1971 the respondent became senior to both these officers. The said officers
filed a Writ Petition (W.P. (c) No. 290 of 1992) in this Court wherein they
challenged the validity of the order dated August 19, 1991 regarding the
revision of the year of allotment of the respondent. It was urged that the H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A respondent had been correctly assigned 1977 as the year of allotment on the
basis of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules and since the
validity of the said provision has been upheld by this Court, the year of
allotment of the respondent cannot be altered from 1977 to 1971. On July 21,
1998 the learned counsel for the petitioners in the said Writ Petition submitted
that the Writ Petition may be permitted to be treated as Review Petition for
B review of the judgment of this Court dated April 8, 1991 in Civil Appeals Nos.
1755 and 1784 of 1991 for the reason that the petitioners were not parties in
those proceedings but are adversely affected by the judgment of this Court
dated April 8, 1991 and that the said judgment of this Court came to the .
knowledge of the petitioners only after the order dated August 19, 1991 was
C passed on the basis of the said judgment and that soon thereafter the
petitioners had filed the Writ Petition in this Court. In view of the said
statement of the learned counsel, this Court, by order dated July 21, 1998,
directed that the said Writ Petition be treated as Review Petition for review
of the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1755 and 1784 of 1991
and thereafter the said Writ Petition was registered as Review Petition Nos.
D 1391-1392ofI998.

At the time of the hearing of the Review Petition on July 30, 1998 Shri
Ranjit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the petitioners ..
have grievance only against the order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 1755 of 1991 relating to the respondent and they do not have any
E grievance against the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 1991 relating
to K.V. Nambiar and that the Review Petition may, therefore, be treated as
seeking review of the order dated April 8, 1991 passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1755of1991. After hearing Ranjit Kumar, the learned counsel for
the petitioners in the Review Petition, and Shri H.N. Salve, the learned senior
F counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court, by order dated July 30,
1998, allowed the Review Petition and the order dated April 8, 1991 to the
extent it related to Civil Appeal No. 1755of1991 was set aside. Civil Appeal
No. 1755 of 1991 was thereafter taken up for hearing and the petitioners,
Mukesh Nandan Prasad and Ashok Kumar, were ordered to be impleaded as
parties in the said appeal.
G
We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri P.P. Malhotra, the learned
senior counsel for the Union of India in support of the appeal and Shri H.N.
Salve, the leaned counsel for the respondent.

Under Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules,
H 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules') recruitment to the
U.0.1. v. S.N. DUBEY [S.C. AGRA WAL, J.] 1173
Service can be made (i) by competitive examination; (ii) by selection of A
persons among the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service
Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union; (iii) by promotion
of substantive member ofa State Civil Service; and (iv) by selection in special
cases from among persons who hold in a substantive capacity gazetted posts
in connection with the affairs of a State and who are not members of a State B
Civil Service. Sub-rule(!) of Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules deals with
recruitment to the Service by promotion from amongst the substantive members
of a State Civil Service and sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 deals with recruitment by
selection of a person of outstanding ability and merit serving in connection
with the affairs of the State who is not a member of the State Civil Service
of that State but who holds a gazetted post in a substantive capacity. Seniority C
in the service is determined on the basis of year of allotment. Rule 3(1) of the
Seniority Rules lays down that every officer shall be assigned a year of
allotment in accordance with the provisions of the said Rule. Sub-Rule (2) of
Rule 3 deals with assigning the year of allotment to an officer in the Service
at the commencement of the Seniority Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 relates to D
assigning of year of allotment to an officer appointed to the Service after the
commencement of the Seniority Rules. Clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3
deals with assigning the year of allotment to an officer appointed to the
Service after the commencement of the Rules where the officer is appointed
to the Service by promotion in accordance with sub-rule ( 1) of Rule 8 of the
Recruitment Rules, while clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 relates to assigning E
the year of allotment to a non-State Civil Service officer who is appointed to
the Service by selection in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the
Recruitment Rules. In the present case we are concerned with assigning of
year of allotment to the respondent, a non-State Civil Service Officer, who was
appointed to the Service by selection in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule F
8 of the Recruitment Rules. The determination of the year of allotment of the
respondent is governed by Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules which, at the
relevant time, provided as under :-

"(3) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service after
the commencement of these rules, shall be- G
(c) where the officer is appointed to the Service by selection in
accordance with sub-rule (2) of rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules such
year as may be determined ad hoc by the Central Government on the
recommendations of the State Government concerned and in
consultation with the Commission : H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A Provided that he shall. not be allotted a year earlier than the year
of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service in accordance with
sub-rule (I) of rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, whose length of
service in the State Civil Service is more than the length of continuous
service of the former in connection with the affairs of the State."

B The Government of India had issued a circular/letter dated June 6, 1978,
with regard to fixation of seniority under Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules
of non-State Civil Service Officers recruited to the Service by selection. In
paragraph I of the said circular/letter it was stated :- .
"I am directed to say that in this Department's letter No. 14014/83/76-
c AIS (I) dated the February 15, 1977 on the above-mentioned subject
it is laid down that the seniority of a non-State Civil Service Officer
appointed to IAS by selection shall be determined in consultation
with UPSC on the analogy of Rule 3(3)(b) of the IAS (Regulation of
Seniority) Rules, 1954 subject to the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Said
D rules."

In accordance with paragraph I of circular/letter dated June 6, 1978 the
seniority of a non-State Civil Service officer appointed to the Service by
selection was required to be determined in consultation with UPSC on the
analogy of Rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules subject to proviso to Rule
E 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules. The respondent has to be allotted the year of
allotment by applying the provisions laid down in Rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority
Rules and the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the said Rules.

The letters of the Government of India dated April 11, 1986 and July 14,
1987, whereby the respondent was allotted 1977 as the year of allotment, are
F based on Rule 3(3)(b) read with proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules.
The letter dated April 11, 1986 proceeds on the basis that as per the information
furnished by the State Government the post of Associate Professor (Civil
Engineering) in the pay scale of 1200-1900 under the State Government held
by the respondent till May 22, 197 5 can be considered as equivalent to senior
G scale of pay of the Service and hence the relevant date for determination of
his seniority in equivalence to Rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules could be
May 22, 1975 and Shri Dev Das Chhotray (RR: 71) is the junior most regular
recruitment officer who was appointed in the sehior scale of pay of the
Service with effect form December 20, 1974, i.e., on a date prior to May 22,
1975, the respondent would have been entitled to be given the seniority of
H the year 1971 in the Bihar Cadre of the Service as per Rule 3(3)(c) of the
U.0.1. v. S.N. DUBEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 1175
Seniority Rules but, as per the infonnation furnished by the State Government, A
Shri Yadu Nath Jha (State Civil Service : 1977) is the junior most officer of the
State Civil Service who was appointed in the Service before and in comparison
to the length of service of the respondent in the State in a gazetted post, he
has served in the State Civil Service for a longer period and hence as per the
proviso to Rule 3(3 ){c) of the Seniority Rules, the year of allotment of the B
respondent cannot be detennined earlier than 1977, the year of allotment of
Shri Yadu Nath Jha. It would thus appear that the year 1977 was assigned as
the year of allotment to the respondent in accordance with the proviso to Rule
3(3)(c). The said order has been quashed by the Tribunal by it~ judgment
dated September 17, 1990 on the ground that the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) had C
been held to be unconstitutional and void by the Tribunal in the case ofK.V.
Nambiar. Thus, the only ground on which the Tribunal has proceeded to
quash the orders assigning 1977 as the year of allotment to the respondent
was that the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) could not be applied since it had been
held to be unconstitutional and void in the case K.V. Nambiar. The said view
of the Tribunal regarding the validity of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) was not
D
accepted by this Court in its order dated April 8, 1991 in the appeal filed by
the Union of India against the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of K.V.
Nambiar. In the said order this Court has observed : -

"We are inclined to take the view that the Central Administrative E
Tribunal should not have struck down Rule 3(3)(c) of the Indian
Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rule, 1954, merely on
the basis that the two instances which had come before it for
consideration were not being adequately answered under the Rules.
These Rules have been in force for almost 36 years and the challenge F
that has now come for consideration was the rare instance where
under the Rules, it became difficult to deal with the matter. Union of
India has in its affidavit indicated that exceptional situations as arising
in the case of the two respondents should be answered under the
residual Rules and if not covered under the Rules, under tl1e G
administrative powers and for that purpose the Rules should not have
been struck down."

This Court, while vacating the decision of the Tribunal on the questiOq.
of the vires of Rule 3{3)(c) of the Seniority Rules, has sustained the relie~
granted by the Tribunal to K.V. Nambiar in view of the statement made by the H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A learned counsel for the Union of India that the said relief may be sustained.
The said decision thus reverses the view of the Tribunal regarding validity
of Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules.

In Union of India & Ors. v. G.K. Sangameshwar & Ors., (1993] Supp.
B 3 sec 697, the question regarding validity of Rule 3(3)(c) and the circular/
letter dated June 6, 1978 came up for consideration before this Court. After
taking note of the order dated April 8, 1981 passed by this Court in appeals
filed by the Union of India in the case of K.V. Nambiar and the respondent
this Court upheld the validity of the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) and has observed:-

C "We find nothing unjust or unreasonable in this provision whereby
the seniority of two officers (one belonging to the State Civil Service
and the other a non-State Civil Service Officer) who have been found
suitable for appointment to the Service is so fixed that a non-State
Civil Service officer does not become senior to a State Civil Service
D officers whose length of service in the State Civil Service is more than
the length of continuous service in connection with the affairs of the
State of the non-State Civil Service officer." [p. 706]

Shri Salve has urged that the said decision in G. K. Sangameshwar &
E Ors. (supra) needs reconsideration and has contended that under Rule 8(2)
of the Recruitment Rules only a person of outstanding ability and merit
serving in connection with the affairs of the State who is not a ll'lember of
the State Civil Service of that State but who holds a gazetted post in a
substantive capacity can be appointed to the Service by selection and, therefore,
in the matter of inter se seniority a non-State Civil Service officer and a State
F Civil Service officer cannot be compared and seniority of a non-State Service
officer cannot be made dependent on the seniority of a State Civil Service
officer. We do not find any merit in this contention. The State Civil Service
is composed of officers who are entrusted with the task of public administration.
The administrative experience gained by them on various posts involving
G general administration enables an officer in the State Civil Service to tackle
the more responsible administrative functions on his promotion to the Service.
A non-State Civil Service officer would not be having the same degree of
administrative exposure as a State Civil Service officer. The State Civil Service
constitutes the main source for promotion to the Service because under the
H Recruitment Rules the two principal modes for recruitment to the Service are
U.0.1. v. S.N. DUBEY [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 1177
(i) by direct recruitment by competitive examination, and (ii) by promotion of A
substantive members of State Civil Service. The appointment of non-State
Civil Service officers is limited to a small proportion (15%) of the posts falling
in the quota reserved for recruitment by promotion and selection. [See : Rule
9(1) 01 the Recruitment Rules]. In view fthe limited degree of administrative
exposure the experience gained by a non-State Civil Service officer cannot be B
equated with the experience gained by a State Civil Service officer. For the
purpose of seniority in the Service the length of service of non-State Civil
Service officer cannot, therefore, be equated with the length of service of a
State Civil Service officer. The proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the Seniority Rules
proceeds on this basis since it provides that a non-State Civil Service officer C
shall not be allotted a year earlier than the year of allotment of a State Civil
Service officer whose length of service in the State Civil Service is more than
the length of continuous service of a non-State Civil Service officer. The
requirement of Rule 8(2) of the Recruitment Rules that selection from
appointment to the Service from amongst non-State Civil Service officers is D
to be made of a person of outstanding ability and merit only means that only
the best among such officers would be selected for appointment to the
• Service. The said provision does not have any bearing on the nature of the
experience gained by such person prior to his appointment to the Service for
the purpose of seniority in the Service. The proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the E
Seniority Rules does not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity and no ground
is made out for reconsideration of the decisions of this Court upholding the
validity of the said proviso.

It must, therefore, be held that the respondent has to be assigned the
year of allotment in accordance with the proviso to Rule 3(3)(c) of the F
Seniority Rules. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able
to show that if the proviso is applied the respondent could be assigned a year
of allotment earlier than the year 1977. The determination of 1977 as the year
of allotment of the respondent under the letters of the Government of India
dated April 11, 1986 and July 14, 1987 was, therefore, in accordance with Rule G
3(3)(c) read with proviso and the Tribunal was in error in quashing the said
orders.

In the circumstancl:'s, the judgment of the Tribunal dated September 17,
1990 in O.A. No. 424 of 1988 filed by the respondent quashing the orders H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] J S.C.R.

A regarding detennination of the year of allotment of the respondent con1<1ined
in the letters dated April 11, 1986 and July 14, 1987 is set aside and the said
0.A. No. 424of1988 is dismissed. The order of the Central Government dated
August 19, 1991 which was passed in compliance with the judgment of the
Tribunal dated September 17, 1990 is also set aside. The Appeal is allowed
B accordingly. No order as to costs.
S.K. Appeal allowed.