Holding

The note in the Recruitment Rules provides only eligibility for promotion to Superintendent Grade I and does not affect seniority; seniority is determined by length of service.

Summary

The petitioners, who were already serving as Superintendents Grade II, challenged the promotion of former Secretarial Assistants (respondents 2‑13) to Superintendent Grade I. They argued that the note in Schedule VII, Column II of the 1981 Recruitment Rules, which allowed the Assistants’ service between 1 January 1973 and 31 July 1981 to be counted for the five‑year service requirement, improperly gave them seniority over the petitioners. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside those promotions, holding that the note conferred seniority. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the note merely confers eligibility for promotion, not seniority, and that seniority must be determined by the ordinary rule of length of service. Consequently, the promotions of the respondents were lawful and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the note in Schedule VII, Column II of the 1981 Recruitment Rules is intended to grant seniority for promotion purposes.
Whether service rendered by Assistants between 1 January 1973 and 31 July 1981 can be counted towards seniority in the Superintendent Grade II cadre.
Whether the promotion of former Assistants to Superintendent Grade I before existing Superintendents Grade II violates seniority principles.
Application of general service jurisprudence and the rule of length of service in determining seniority.

Subjects

promotionseniorityservice jurisprudenceeligibilityRecruitment Ruleslength of serviceadministrative law

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA

v.

B. JAYARAMAN AND ORS.

MAY 13,1993
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAY AL, JJ .]

Government of Pondiclterry (Group 'C'-Non Gazetted Ministerial Posts)
Recruitment Rules, 1981 : Schedule Vll Column II- Recruitment to the post of
Superintendent Grade I by promotion from among the Superintendent Grade II
who have completed five years of service in that post-Note and Proviso
c thereunder-Purpose and scope-Whether only for the purpose ofgiving eligibil-
ity to the erstwhile secretaria!Assistants working as·superintendents Grade IIfor
consideration for promotion from the cadre of Superintendent Grade II to the
cadre of Superintendent Grade I

Service Jurisprudence-Nonna/ Rule oflength ofservice-Applicability of
D
The petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal had been
working as Superintendents Grade II in the Secretariat of the Government of
Pondicherry prior to the promotion of respondents Nos. 2. to 13 (before the
Tribunal), the erstwhile Secretariat Assistants as Superintendents Grade II.
Respondent Nos 2 to 13 were further promoted as Superintendents Grade I
E
before the petitioners on the basis of tentative Seniority list wherein the feeder
service rendered by the Assistants between 1.l.1973and 31.7.1981 had been
included for computing the seniority in the Grade of Superintendent Grade
II.

F The petitioners before the Tribunal aggrieved by the grant of benefit of
service rendered during the period 1.1.1973 to 31.7.1981 by those who were
-
working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of
Superintendent Grade II challenged the promotion of respondent Nos 2to13
there in who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to St;aperintendents
Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them
G inspite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superin-
tendents Grade II prior to the promotion of the erstwhile Assistant as
Superintendents Grade It

It was contended by the petitioners before the Tribunal that from
l.8.1981 respondents Nos. 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distincdy
712
U.O.I. v. B. JAYARAMAN 713

lower scale of pay as compared to them could not be promoted to the post of A
Superintendents Grade I before the petitioners. The Tribunal allowed toe
applications and set aside the promotions of respondents No. 2to13 before it.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union oflndia had preferred
the present appeals.
B
Agreeing with the reasonings and conclusions of the Tribunal & dis-
missing the appeals, this Court,

HELD : The note in Column II is only for purposes of giving eligibility
to the erstwhilEAssistants working as Superintendents Grade II for purposes c
of being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and
not for the purpose of seniority at all. The note merely allows the erstwhile
Assistants, who were promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade II to
include their service rendered as Assistants after 1.1.1973 to 31.7.1981 for
purposes ofcounting the period of five years service as Superintendent Grade
II. This note is for no purpose other than for giving them eligibility for D
consideration for promotion from the cadre of superintendent Grade II to the
cadre of Superintendent Grade I. (718- A)

2. On general principles of service Jurisprudentee the Assistants having
been promoted to the Grade of Superintendents Grade II after those already
E
working as Superintendents Grade II would natUrally rank junior to them.
There is no rule of seniority vis-a-vis for promotes to Superintendent Grade
II with effect from 1st August, 1981 for calculating seniority and normal rule
of service Jurisprudence· of'length of service will apply. (718-D)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4604 to 4609 Of F
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8. 1989 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 145 to 150/87.
G

- A.S. Nambiar, P.K. Manohar and Shanti Vasudevan for the Appellant.

R. Venkataramni, V.G. Pragasani and S.M. Garg for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C

A YOGESHWAR DAY ALJ. These six appeals have been filed against the
decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 22nd
August, 1989 while disposing. of Original Application Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987.
Those were filed in seriatem by B. Jayaraman; A. Kanakasena Rao; M.
Venkatachalam; A. Sherfudeen; K. Viswanathan and P. Madhavan Adiyodi. The
respondents in all these six matters before the Tribunal were the same-namely,
B respondent No. I was Union of India whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 13 were the
erstwhile Secretarial As~istants promoted as Superintendents Grade II and further
promoted as Superintendents Grade I in the Secre!tariat of the Government of
Pondicherry and governed by the Government of Pondicherry (Group 'C - Non-
Gazetted Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules').
c
The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respon-
dents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superin-
tendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them
inspite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents
D Grade II prior to the promotion of the erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents
Grade II. The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be
based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent No.1 had included the feeder
servicerenderedbytheAssistants between 1.1. 1973 and3 l.7.1981 forcomputing
the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II. The plea of.the petitioners
before the Tribunal was that from 1.8.1981 respondents 2 to 13 who were
E Assistants and were in a distinctly lower scale of pay as compared to the
applicants, they could not be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I before
the petitioners. The Tribunal allowed the applications, O.A. Nos. 145 to 150 of
1987 and held :-

''It appears to us that there has been some confusion between a
F
liberal provision which has been deliberately made for conferring
eligibility for consideratio.p for promotion to the next higher post
with reckoning of the period of service rendered in the post of
Assistant for the purpose of counting seniority in the post of
Superintendent. Grade II. The tentative seniority lists based on
G which promotions of respondents 2 to 13 have been made as
Superintendents. Grade I are based on the application of an errone-
ous principle of determining seniority which is not backed up any
statutory provision. That has led to a situation where persons
promoted to a higher grade of Superintendent Grade II before the
Assistants and in which posts they were also confirmed, being r
H
U.0.1. v. B. JAYARAMAN [DAYAL. J.]
715

placed below respondents 2 onwards." A

The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13
before it contained. in various orders of the Government of Pondichery dated
7.8.1986; 20.8.1986; 1.9. 1986 and 17.11.1986. Respondent No.I was further
directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade II on the
basis of the length of service rendered in that grade and thereafter, all the eligible B
persons may be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and
that should include persons like respondents 2 to 13 before it who would get the
benefit of service rendered by them as Assistant between 1.1.1973 to 31.11.1981
for determining the period of eligibility and not for the purpose of seniority in the
cadre of Superintendent Grade II. ·
c
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the
present appeals.

It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of
benefit of service rendered during the period 1.1. 1973 to 31. 7. 1981 by those who D
were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of
Superintendent Grade II.

For appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective
parties were may give a statement showing the dates of appointments in various
E
grades and ranking assigned in respect of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13
in O.A. Nos. 145 to 150 of 1987 before the Tribunal:-

Name of Date of Appointment
the Asstt. Supdt.(NS) Supdt. Supdt. Supdt. Supdt.
official Gr.II Gr.I GR.II Gr. I F

PETITIONERS
B. Jayaraman 2.8.73 1.8.81 13.10.86 104 189
G
(Applicant in
0.A. 145/87)
A. Kanakasena 10.12.73 1.8.81 17.11.86 113 197
Rao (Applicant
in 0.A.146/87)
M. Venkatachal 2.8. 73 1.8.81 13.10.86 103 188 H
716 Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 3 S.C.R.

A am (Applicant
in O.A. 147/87)
A. Sherfudeen 30.8.78 1.8.81 7.9.87 140 Not
(Applicant in Assigned
O.A. 148/87)
K. Vishwanathan 7.4.77 1.8.81 20.3.87 126 207
B (Applicant in
0.A. 149/87)
P.Madhavan 10.2.76 1.8.81 17.12.86 119 201

c
Adiyodi(Appli-
cant in 0.A.
150/87)
RESPONDENTS
V. Dhandapani 6.11.64 Not 26.5.82 7.8.86 182 174
-
(R.2) appointed
K.C. Kumaran 8.112.64 -do- 14.5.82 7.8.86 184 176
(R.3)
G.Ranganathan 11.3.65 -do- 13.1.82 7.8.86 186 177
(R.4)
D
S.Pushparaj 25.5.65 -do- 13.1.82 7.8.86 187 178
(R.5)
K.meenakshi 9.5.67 -do- 9.7.83 7.8.86 208 179
(R.6)
G.Radha 19.5.67 -do- 12.1.82 7.8.86 188 180
Krishnan
E (R.7)
S.Sethuraman 23.11.68 -do- 12.1.82 20.8.86 190 183
(R.8)
S. Felixraj 7.4.69 -do- 12.1.82 22.8.86 191 184
(R.9)
S.Kuppusamy 14.4.69 -do- 12.1.82 1.9.86 193 185
F (R.10)
R.Chandra- 29.1.70 -do- 22.8.83 l.9.86 212 186
sekaran(R.11)
J .Pandurangan 9.3.74 Not 21.6.82 17.11.86 195 198
(R.12) appointed
S.Sundarasan Nov. 1964 -do- 30.9.86 17.11.86 183 175
G
The scales of pay for various period for the posts of Assistant, Superinten-
dent Grade II and Superintendent Grade I may also be noticed :-

NAME OF THE POSTS SCALE OF PAY
Pre-revised Revised On &from
H
.__
U.O.I. v. B. JA YARAMAN [DAYAL, J.] 717

(prior to
1973)
(w.e.f.
1.1.73)
. 1.8.1981 A

Assistant 210-425 425-700 425-700
Superintendent 325-475 550-750
Grade II (who have 550-750
. (Supdt. (N.S.) passed Hr. B
Accounts
Test).

-- 270-435
(for others)
425-700
(for others)
Superintendent 350-550 550-900 550-900
c
Grade I

It may be noticed that most of the respondents before the Tribunal were
working in the grade of 425-700 when they were promoted to the post of
Superintendent Grade II in the pay scale of 550-750. It is thus clear that on general
principles of service jurisprudence the Assistants having been promoted to the D
grade of Suprerintendent Grade II after. those already working Superintendent
Grade II would naturally rank junior to them. The confusion in the Government
appears to have been created in view of note and the provision occurring in
Schedule VII of the Rules relating to the recruitment to the post of Superintendent
Grade I. In column 11 thereof the recruitment is provided by 'Promotion' from
among the Superintendent Grade II who have completed five years of service in E
the said post. There is a note and the proviso to the following effect in column II

"Note- For computing the five years service, the service rendered in
the post of Superintendent (Non-Secretariat) and the service ren- F
dered after 1st January 1973 and upto 3 lstJuly 1981 in the post of
Assistant shall be taken into account :

Provided that the Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) in service as
on 31st December 1972 Shall en bloc be Seniors to Assistants in
service on that date and the Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) and G
Assistants appointed on or afterlst January 1973 and upto 31st July
1981 shall rank inter se with reference to their dates of appointment
in the respective posts."

It is clear that the note merely allows the erstwhile Assistants, who were
H
A
718 SUPREME couR:r REPORTS (1993] 3 S.C.R.

promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade II, for purposes of counting the
-
period of five years service as Superintendent Grade II, to include their service
rendered as Assistants after 1.1. 1973 to 31. 7.1981. This note is for no purpose
other than for giving them eligibility for consideration for promotion from the
cadre of Superintendent Grade II to the cadre of Superintendent Gr~de I. The
. proviso again is very clear when it says that Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) in
B service as on 31st December, 1972 shall enbloc be seniors to Assistants in service
on that date and the Superintendents (Non-Secretariat) and Assistants appointed
on or after lst January, 1973 and upto 31st July, 1981 shall rank inter se with
reference to the dates of appointment in their respective posts. All the Superinten-
dents in Grade II who were appointed after 31st July, 1981 would naturally rank
in the seniority on the basis of respective dates of appointment as Superintendent
c Grade
-
II.

We are thus in complete agreement with the reasonings and conclusion of the
Tribunal and it is declared that the note in column 11 is only for purposes of giving
eligibility to the erstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade II for
D purposes of being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade
I and not for the purpose of seniority at all. There is no rule of seniority viz-a-viz
for promotes to Superintendent Grade II with effect from 1st August, 1981 for
calculating seniority and normal rule of service jurisprudence of length of service
will apply.

E With these observations the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as
to costs.

G.S. Appeal dismissed.