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

PETITIONER: H.L. RANDEV AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/11/1990

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. SAWANT, P.B. SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 527  1991 SCC  Supl.  (1)  47  JT 1990 (4)   368        1990 SCALE  (2)940

ACT:     Punjab  Superior  Judicial Service  Rules,  1963:  Rules 2(2), 8 and 12--Fixation of seniority--Promotees and  direct recruits--Direct  recruits appointed to vacancies  in  their quota--Their   seniority   to   commence   from   date    of appointment--Not on completion of probation.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants  in this case were promotees  while  re- spondents  2 to 12 were direct recruits, both  belonging  to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. Pursuant to the direc- tions given by this Court in B.S. Yadav’s case (1981) 1  SCR 1024,  the High Court prepared a provisional seniority  list and invited objections to the same. Since no objections were received, the seniority list was finalised.     The appellants filed an application before this  Hon’ble Court  for direction to the High Court to fix the  seniority correctly  as  per the decision in B.S. Yadav’s  case.  This Court  rejected the application, holding that it was  wholly misconceived as it purported to challenge the seniority list on  the ground that there was non-compliance of  the  direc- tions  of this Court. This Court gave liberty to the  appel- lants  to  move the High Court, and the appellants  flied  a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the seniori- ty list. The High Court dismissed the same in limine.     Aggrieved,  the appellants preferred the present  appeal contending inter alia that the seniority of respondents  who were  appointed  prior to the 1976 amendment 10  the  Punjab Superior  Service  Rules, 1963, could have  been  determined only from the date of their confirmation; that the probation of  direct recruits being two years, their  seniority  would count  from  the date they complete probation and  not  from their  dates of appointment; that the benefit of  continuous officiation under the amended Rules was denied to the appel- lants, although they were also appointed prior to the amend- ment of the Rules. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 528     HELD:  1.1 Under the definition of the "cadre  post"  as per  Rule 2 of the Punjab Superior Judicial  Service  Rules, 1963 prior to its amendment in 1976, the temporary posts did

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

not  form part of the cadre. They became part of  the  cadre only  after the amendment. There was a quota of  recruitment between the promotees and directed recruits. Admittedly. the appellants were not appointed in their quota. Hence till the amendment  of  December 31, 1976, the  appellants  were  not members  of the service and they were also not appointed  to the posts according to Rules. The appellants became  members of  the  service only after their appointment in  the  cadre posts  after  31st December, 1976.  Hence,  their  seniority under the amended Rules could not have been counted from any date  anterior  to such appointments. As against  this,  the respondent-direct recruits were appointed in the cadre posts according  to their quota. Under the amended  RuleS,  there- fore,  their seniority was rightly counted from the date  Of their appointment. [531G-H; 532A]     1.2  The seniority list prepared by the ‘High  Court  is also not in conflict with the direction given by this Court. Both  the appellants and respondent-direct recruits were  to be  confirmed with effect from the dates on which  vacancies became  available  to them in their respective  quotas.  Al- though  direct  recruits completed  their  probation  period later, they were from the inception appointed in the  vacan- cies which were available to them in their quota. [532E-F]     B.S.  Yadav and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana  and  Ors. etc., [1981] 1 SCR 1024, referred to.     2.  ‘The  argument  that even if the  seniority  of  the appellants  is to be reckoned from 1st January, 1977,  i.e., the  date  immediately after coming into  operation  of  the amended  Rules,  some of the appellants  would  have  become senior to the direct recruits who were confirmed much later, is  deceptive,  for while it seeks the  application  of  the amended Rules to the appellants, it denies their application to the direct recruits. If according .to amended Rules,  the continuous officiation in service is to be counted only from the date of appointment in the cadre post, then the direct . recruits  having  been appointed in the  cadre  post,  their seniority  will have also to be counted from their  date  of appointment.  So counted they will be senior to  the  appel- lants. [532C-E]

JUDGMENT: