http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: A.K. BHATNAGAR AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1990

BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) PUNCHHI, M.M. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 638  1991 SCC  (1) 544  JT 1990 (4)   610        1990 SCALE  (2)949

ACT:      Central    Information   Service    Rules,    1959--Rule 5--Direct Recruits---Inter seniority--Fixation of.

HEADNOTE:     Respondent no. 1 in the Civil Appeal of 1985, moved  the High  Court in a writ to consider his case for promotion  to Grade  II and Grade I of the Central Information Service  in the existing vacancies arising subsequent to 1964 by  taking into consideration the period of his ad hoc service from the year  1964, and challenging the direction in the  Government order requiring the regularised employees to be placed below the  regular recruits upto 1970 on the basis of that  year’s examination. The Union Government opposed the claim.     The Single Judge held that the officiating service would not be ignored once regularisation was made and directed the period  of  ad  hoc service to be taken  into  account.  The Division Bench affirmed the decision.     The  appellant in the C.A. of 1985 challenged  the  High Court’s  decision, and the appellants in the two  Civil  Ap- peals  challenged  the judgments of CAT which  followed  the High  Court’s decision. The writ petition under  Article  32 was by 29 employees whose services were regularised.     Dismissing  the  Writ Petition and  allowing  the  Civil Appeals, this Court,     HELD: 1. Seniority is an incidence of service and  where the  service rules prescribe the method of its  computation, it  is squarely governed by such rules. In the absence of  a provision  ordinarily  the length of service is  taken  into account.  A dispute of such nature normally  arises  between recruits  from  two sources, namely  direct  and  promotees. [642C-D] 2. Reliance on the ratio of cases where disputes of inter se senio- 639 rity  between direct recruits and promotees on the basis  of officers  of  one category manning the posts meant  for  the other  category should not have been relied upon for  deter- mining  a dispute of the nature that arose in  these  cases. Since  rules are clear and the Government action was  within the  purview  of the rules, judicial  interference  was  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

called for. [642 G-H]     3. When there is a definite rule dealing with  seniority and  they  had subjected themselves to that  process,  their seniority in terms of the rules had to be regulated  accord- ing to the merits of the respective lists in the years  when the examinations were held. [643D]     4.  The Union and the State Governments once  frame  the rules,  their action, in respect of matters covered  by  the rules, should be regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise  of powers conferred under the proviso  to  Article 309  of  the Constitution are solemn  rules  having  binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does create problem  and dislocation. Very often  Government  themselves get  trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions  in excess of what is provided in the rules. Court takes serious view of these lapses and hopes anti-trusts that the  Govern- ment both at the Centre and in the States would take note of this  position and refrain from acting in a manner not  con- templated by their own rules. [643F-G]

JUDGMENT: