http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SUBE SINGH BAHMANI AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/09/1999

BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, S.P.Kurdukar, K.Venkataswami

JUDGMENT:

M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

     Leave granted in special leave petitions.  These three appeals  arise out of the dispute between general candidates and  reserved  candidates  in  Haryana in  regard  to  their seniority.   The appellants are the reserved candidates.  In Haryana,  it  is important to note that the  Government  had issued  a Circular on 9.2.79 that on promotion at the roster point,  the  reserved  candidates   would  not  count  their seniority.   This  was reiterated by an  elaborate  Circular dated 10.1.97 recently issued after Ajit Singh [1996 (2) SCC 715]  (hereinafter  called Ajit Singh No.1) was  decided  by this  Court  on  1.3.1996.  Before us,  the  learned  senior counsel  for  the  State  of   Haryana,  Sri  Rajeev  Dhawan submitted  that  the  said Circulars correctly  reflect  the legal  position.  Today, we have delivered judgment in IAs 1 to  3 filed by the State of Punjab in C.As.3792-94/89 ( Ajit Singh’s case).  We shall describe it as Ajit Singh No.2.  We agree  that the above Circulars correctly reflect the  legal position.   There  are three Civil appeals before  us.   The first  of these appeals is Sube Singh Bahmani Vs.  State  of Haryana ( Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.  16648/96). This  appeal is filed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana  High  Court in C.W.P.  5533 of 1996 dated  10.7.96. The  second  one Gian Singh and Ors.  Vs.  State of  Haryana (Civil  appeal  arising out of SLP(C) No.23107/96)  is  also against  the judgment dated 10.7.96 in C.W.P.  5397/96.  The appellants belong to the reserved category.  The third Civil appeal  arising  out of SLP(C) 4945/97 Kamal Kanta and  Anr. Vs.   State of Haryana is filed against the judgment of  the same  High  Court  dated 16.1.97 in  C.W.P.   4592/96.   The appellants are again reserved candidates.  We shall refer to the relevant rules in each of these three cases.

     In  Sube  Singh  Bahmani’s  case,  the  Rules  are  as follows.    The  posts  belong  to  the   Punjab   Financial Commission  Officers  governed by ( Group B) Service  Rules, 1986 which consists of Superintendent and equivalent post in Class  II.   Below  that, the post of Clerk,  Assistant  and Deputy  Superintendent  which  are   Class  III  posts,  are governed by the Punjab Financial Commission Class III Rules, 1957.   In the former, Rule 9(3) provides that the promotion shall  be  based on seniority-cum-merit but that  no  person

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

shall  be  entitled  to  claim promotion  on  the  basis  of seniority  alone.   Rule 11 states that seniority  shall  be determined on the basis of continuous length of service.  In the  latter,  i.e.   1957 Rules, Rule 7(2) states  that  all appointments,  whether  by  promotion or transfer  shall  be strictly by selection while Rule 11(c) states that seniority shall  be determined in accordance with the seniority in the appointment  from which they are promoted but in the case of Assistant,  their seniority shall be determined in the order they  are promoted, as such.  Admittedly, there is roster to implement  reservation for promotion at Class III Level from the post of Clerk to the post of Assistant and from the post of  Assistant to the post of Deputy Superintendent.   Beyond that  there  is no reservation in Class II or Class I  post. In  Gian Singh’s case and in Kamal Kanta’s case, the parties belong  to  the  Haryana  Civil  Secretariat  Service.   The appellants  are  reserved  candidates.    The  parties   are governed  by  the Punjab Civil Secretariat  (State  Service, Class III ) Rules, 1952 as adopted/amended in Haryana ( vide notification   dated  15.3.78  etc).    Rule  6  deals  with recruitment  including  by way of promotion to the posts  of Assistant  and  Deputy Superintendents.  Rule 6(3)  requires promotion  by  way of ’selection’.  Clause 9(c) states  that seniority  in  respect  of those who are promoted  shall  be determined  according  to the seniority in the  appointments from  which  members are promoted.In the Class  II  service, i.e.   Superintendents etc.  they are governed by the Punjab Civil  Secretariat  ( State Service Class II) Rules, 1963  ( adopted  by Haryana by notification dated 25.9.68).  Rule  8 of  the  Rules deals with recruitment by promotion and  Sub- clause  (3)  states that promotion shall be on the basis  of seniority-cum-merit and no person shall be entitled to claim promotion  on  the  basis of seniority  alone.   Rule  10(1) states  that  seniority shall be reckoned from the  date  of continuous  appointment.  There is roster promotion in Class III  and  not in Class II.  At the level of Under  Secretary and  above,  they  are governed by the  Haryana  Secretariat Service(Group-A) Rules, 1979.  Admittedly, there is a roster for  reserved  candidates  so  far as Class  III  posts  are concerned  but not to Class II or Class I posts.  Under  all these  rules the seniority rule of continuous officiation is linked  up with the promotion rule and cannot be delinked as explained in Ajit Singh No.2 and applied to the cases of the roster point promotees.

     All  these three appeals will therefore be governed by our  decision on Points 1 to 3 in Ajit Singh No.II in regard to  seniority  and our decision on Point 4 in that  case  in regard  to the prospectivity of R.K.Sabharwal [1995 (2)  SCC 745] and Ajit Singh No.1 [1996 (2) SCC 715].  The respective cut  off  dates of each of these decisions as  explained  in Ajit  Singh  No.2  will  apply.  We shall now  take  up  the special  factual  points arising in these three cases.   (A) Sube   Singh   Bahmani   (Civil   Appeal  arising   out   of SLP(C)No.16648/96:

     There  is  one  important  aspect of  the  case  which deserves  notice.   It is the claim of the  sole  appellant, Sube   Singh   Bahmani  that  he   has  been   promoted   as Dy.Superintendent(see  p.192)  on  15.5.86  subject  to  the result  of Chander Pal vs.  State of Haryana since  disposed of by judgment reported in [1997 (10) SCC 474].  He contends that  he has also been promoted as Superintendent on  6.1.88 and  that  respondents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 have been  promoted  as Deputy   Superintendents  on   16.11.88,  20.9.89,  11.8.92,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

8.11.95  and  8.12.95, much after his further  promotion  as Superintendent  on  6.1.1988 and that the other  respondents have not even reached the level of Deputy Superintendents by that date.

     But  as per the counter filed by the State of  Haryana in this Court dated 14.1.97 (see p.209 of paper book), it is clear  that  on  account  of some dispute  raised  by  other reserved candidates (like Sri Ravi Prakash), the date 6.1.88 of  promotion  of the appellant as Superintendent  has  been altered  by  the  government as 10.4.89 (vide  Govt.   Order dated  19.2.90)(p.145).   That, in our view, makes  all  the difference.  That will mean that the 2nd respondent (Darshan Singh) (1st writ petitioner) (general candidate) has reached the level of Dy.Superintendent on 16.11.88 before Sube Singh Bahmani  was  promoted as Superintendent on 10.4.89.  It  is true,  the  fact  that Sube Singh Bahmani  was  promoted  as Superintendent  before  1.3.96 would require his  not  being reverted.   But Darshan Singh, the 2nd respondent has become Dy.Superintendent  on 16.11.88, long before Ajit Singh  No.1 and  as stated by us in Ajit singh No.II, it does not matter whether  the  general  candidate reaches the  level  of  Dy. Superintendent  before  or after Ajit Singh  No.1.   Darshan Singh  has to be considered senior to Sube Singh Bahmani  at the  level  of  Dy.Superintendent.   Of course,  so  far  as respondents  Nos.   3  to 6  and  other  respondents(general candidates)  are concerned, we are of the view that they can have  no  claim against Sube Singh Bahmani as none  of  them reached  the  level  of  Dy.Superintendent  before  10.4.89. Thus,  if 2nd respondent, Darshan Singh (general candidate), in  spite of his seniority at the level of Dy.Superintendent was not considered for promotion as Superintendent when Sube Singh  Bahmani  was promoted as Superintendent, it  will  be necessary  to consider his case vis-a-vis Sube Singh Bahmani for  fixing  up  their inter-se- seniority at the  lever  of Superintendent.   We  direct   accordingly.   However,  this appeal  will  succeed as against other  private  respondents (i.e.   other than respondent 2), subject of course, to  the principle  relating  to prospectivity of Sabharwal and  Ajit Singh  No.1,  as  explained in Ajit Singh No.  II,  and  the respective cut off dates as stated therein will apply.

     This  Appeal is disposed of accordingly.  .pa (B) Gian Singh’s  case  :  Civil Appeal arising out of CWP.   5397/96 (SLP 23107/96) The three appellants are reserved candidates. The  respondents 6 to 9 are also reserved candidates.  All 7 of  them  were impleaded as respondents 2 to 8 in  the  writ petition.   The respondents 2 to 4 were the writ petitioners (general  candidates).   The  writ   petition  was   allowed following  Ajit  Singh  No.I.  In order  to  appreciate  the factual  issues  arising  in the case, we have to  note  the following  relevant  dates.   We have analysed  the  various dates  of appointments/promotions as disclosed from PP.  60, 77,  108-109  of  the  paper book and  the  printed  Tabular statement  filed in the case.  It will be sufficient to note the  following dates.  (It is convenient to adopt the  array of parties as in the CWP).

     __________________________________________________________________ Writ  petitioners:   General  clerk   Asst.   Deputy  Supdt. Dy./Under candidates Supdt.  Secry (as on 1996) .ls1

     (1)Balwant  Kr.Gupta 1.3.58 -- 6.5.85 -- 6.9.91  Under Secretary (WP 1) (R2 in CA)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

     (2)S.B.Bhatia  19.1.59  --  13.3.87 --  18.6.93  Under Secretary (WP 2)(R3 in CA)

     (3)R.D.  Gupta, Supdt.  7.4.60 -- 30.4.90 3.4.91 --

     (WP3)(R4 in CA)

     (4)H.C.Chhabra,  Supdt.   4.11.60 -- 7.1.91 8.7.91  -- (WP4)(R5 in CA)

     Respondents in W.P.:

     Reserved candidates

     (1)Sagar  Mal,Dy.Secy.  16.11.60 -- -- -- 23.1.87  (R2 in WP)(R6 in CA)

     (2)Chanan  Ram,Dy.Secy.14.5.65 -- -- -- 5.3.90 (R3  in WP)(R7 in CA)

     (3)Baldev  Singh,  8.12.59  -- --  --  11.2.91  Deputy Secretary (R4 in WP)(R8 in CA)

     (4)Gian Singh, 15.6.71 30.10.73 17.6.83 11.2.85 7.3.91 Under Secretary (R5 in WP) (Appt.  1 in CA)

     (5)Sammat Singh, -do- 9.8.71 -- -- -- -- (R6 in WP)(R9 in CA)

     (6)Sadhu  Singh, Supdt.  9.8.71 2.5.77 21.3.90  3.4.91 -- (R7 in WP) (appt 2 in CA)

     (7)B.L.Grover, Supdt.  12.8.71 28.7.77 23.11.90 8.7.91 --     (R7     in     WP)       (Appt.      3     in     CA) __________________________________________________________________

     (It   appears  from  CC.133/97,   that   the   general candidates  were  further  promoted  as  Under-Secretary  on 19.2.97  before the reserved candidates Sadhu Singh and B.L. Grover  were so promoted).  The paper book further discloses that  when the reserved candidate Gian Singh was promoted as Assistant  under  the  roster,  he   moved  over  33  clerks (general)  and  when he was promoted as Dy.   Superintendent again  as per roster, he moved over 157 Assistants(general); similarly  Sadhu Singh moved over 13 clerks(general) and 158 Assistants(general);   likewise  B.L.Grover   moved  over  7 clerks(general) and 163 Assistants (general) at these stages and   that   is   how  they   reached  the  level   of   Dy. Superintendent.    It  will  be   noticed  that  when   Gian Singh(reserved)  became  Superintendent on 11.2.85, none  of the  general candidates(writ petitioners) reached the  level of  Dy.Supdt.   before  that date.   Thus  writ  petitioners (general  candidates) can have no claim against Gian  Singh. Obviously, other reserved candidates who were senior to Gian singh  viz.  Sagar Mal, Chanan Ram and Baldev Singh who were Dy.Superintendents  must  have become  Superintendents  even before  Gian  Singh  i.e.   before  11.2.85  and  thus  writ petitioners  (  general candidates ) can have no claim  even against them.

     However, so far as the reserved candidates Sadhu Singh and B.L.Grover are concerned, by the time they were promoted as  Superintendents  on  3.4.91 and 8.7.91, all the  4  writ petitioners  became  Dy.    Superintendents.   Sammat  Singh appears  to  be in like position.  Writ petitioners 1  to  4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

reached  the level of Dy.Superintendent on 6.5.85,  13.3.87, 30.4.90  and  7.1.91.   The   four  writ  petitioners  have, therefore,  a rightful claim for seniority over Sadhu singh, B.L.Grover    and   Sammat   singh    at   the   level    of Dy.superintendent.   In  that  event,   even  if  the  above reserved   candidates   have  been   earlier   promoted   as Dy.Superintendents,  they  have to be treated as juniors  to the 4 writ petitioners at that level.  True, promotions made before  1.3.96  when Ajit Singh No.1 was decided will  stand and  there will be no reversions.  But the seniority of  the general  candidates at the level of Dy.Superintendents is to be  fixed  as stated above.  If the seniority of these  four general  candidates has not been taken into account when the reserved  candidates  were promoted as  Superintendents  and above,  the  same has to be reviewed.  The promotion to  and the  seniority  at  the level of  Superintendent  and  Under Secretary   between   the   4  writ   petitioners   (general candidates)  and  Sadhu Singh, B.L.Grover and  Sammat  Singh has,  therefore,  to be reviewed because their case  is  not like  the case of Gian Singh.  Ajit Singh No.II will have to be  implemented.  Points 1 to 3 as decided there will govern seniority and Point 4 there will govern the prospectivity of Sabharwal  and  the prospectivity of Ajit Singh  No.1.   The respective cut off dates have to be adhered to.  This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

     (C)  Kamal  Kanta’s case (Civil Appeal arising out  of SLP(C)  No.4945/97):  The facts of the case are that the two appellants,  Ms.   Kamal  Kanta  and Sri  Girdhari  Lal  are reserved  candidates  while respondents 2 to 8  are  general candidates.   The  writ  petition was filed by  the  general candidates  Shyam  Sunder and others and was allowed by  the High  Court.   The  promotions  from the post  of  Clerk  to Assistant  and Assistant to Dy.  Superintendent were by  way of  a  roster so far as the appellants were concerned.   The two  appellants  were  promoted as Dy.   Superintendents  on 23.6.95  and 23.11.95 respectively while respondents 2 to 5, (general  candidates) who were senior to them as Assistants, were  all  promoted  as Dy.Superintendents on  8.2.96.   Now Ms.Kamal   Kanta   was  promoted    as   Superintendent   on 18.3.96(p.58)  subject to Chander Pal (later decided as 1997 (10)  SCC 474) but by that date the respondents 2 to 5  were also  promoted  as Dy.Superintendents.  Respondents 2  to  5 have  to  be  treated  as seniors to her  at  the  level  of Dy.Superintendent.  No doubt, Ms.Kamal Kanta was promoted as Superintendent  on  18.3.96 and the respondents 2 to 5  were promoted  later as Superintendents on 27.6.96, 27.6.96  (see p.65),  8.10.96(p.67)  and 11.12.96 respectively.  She  will not  be reverted.  But the seniority at the level of  Deputy Superintendents  has  to be refixed and if the case  of  the senior   general   candidates  at   the  level   of   Deputy Superintendent  was  not taken into account while  promoting the reserved candidate as Superintendent, the said promotion will  have to be reviewed and seniority has to be refixed at the  level of Superintendent also.  Seniority is to be fixed as  per  what is stated in Points 1 to 3 of Ajit Singh  No.1 and  ’prospectivity’  of  Sabharwal and Ajit Singh  No.1  as stated in Point 4 of Ajit Singh No.II will be followed.  The respective  cut  off dates of Sabbarwal and Ajit Singh  No.1 have to be adhered to.

     In  the  result,  we  hold   that  the  promotion  and seniority  of Kamal Kanta as Superintendent be reviewed vis- a-vis  respondents 2 to 5 as stated above.  (The paper  book reveals  that a provisional list was prepared on 28.3.97 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

a  show  cause notice dated 31.3.97 had been  issued).   We, however,  make it clear that on the above facts, respondents 6  to 8 (general candidates) can have no claim against Kamal Kanta  in  as  much  as  they   did  not  get  promotion  as Dy.Superintendents  before Ms.  Kamal Kanta was promoted  as Superintendent.   The appeal is disposed of accordingly.  We direct  accordingly.  All the three appeals are disposed  of accordingly.

     (D)  CC.133/97  and IA.3/97 in SLP(C) No.23107/96  The CC.133/97  is filed by reserved candidates for taking action for  contempt  of the order of this Court dated  9.12.96  in Gian  Singh’s  case  (to which they are parties)  while  the State  of Haryana has filed IA.3/97 for clarification as  it feels  that there are two conflicting orders of this  Court, one  dated  9.12.96 and the other one is Chandra  Pal  [1997 (10)   SCC  474]  dated   4.12.1996.   The  petitioners   in C.C.133/97  are the reserved candidates Sadhu Singh and B.L. Grover.   They  are, as already noted in Gian Singh’s  case, petitioners  2  and 3 in the SLP(C) No.  23107/96.  We  have held  in  the appeal arising out of SLP(C)23107/96  of  Gian Singh that the general candidates ( Writ petitioners Balwant Kumar  Gupta,  S.B.   Bhatia,  R.D.  Gupta  and  Hari  Chand Chhabra)  have a valid claim of seniority against these  two reserved  candidates  i.e.   Sadhu singh and  B.L.   Grover, though not against the other reserved candidate, Gian Singh. We  have  also  directed that though Sadhu  Singh  and  B.L. Grover  might have been promoted as Superintendents  earlier on  the  basis of their actual dates of promotion as  Deputy Superintendent,  that  was  not  correct  and  a  review  of seniority  has  to  take place in respect of  promotion  and seniority  to  the  level of Superintendents.  All  that  is protected  is  that  there  are to be  no  reversions.   But seniority  has  been  re-fixed  at   the  level  of   Deputy Superintendent  on the basis of Ajit Singh No.II, as  stated above.  It is obvious that the promotion to and seniority in the  category of Superintendent and above will also have  to be  refixed  as between the four writ petitioners and  Sadhu Singh  and B.L.Grover.  Their case is not like that of  Gian Singh.   This aspect has been considered above while dealing with   the  case  of  Gian   Singh  (C.A.   arising  out  of SLP(C).23107/96)

     The  petitioners  Sadhu Singh and B.L.   Grover  have, however, submitted in the CC.133 of 1997 that the status quo order  dated 9.12.96 in Gian Singh’s SLP(C) No.23107/96  has been violated by promoting the general candidates on 19.2.97 to  the  level of Under Secretary.  On the other  hand,  the State  of  Haryana in its IA.3/99 points out that  there  is conflict  between the status quo order dated 4.12.96  passed in  Gian  Singh  and the direction given in Chandra  Pal  on 4.12.96.   Our  judgment in Ajit Singh No.2 delivered  today lays  down the manner in which seniority has to be  decided. Chander  Pal  dated 4.12.96 has also been explained but  the ’prospectivity’  of Sabharwal and Ajit Singh No.1 will be as stated  in  detail by us under Point 4 in Ajit Singh  No.II. There can be no difficulty in implementing the same.

     Coming  to the status quo order dated 9.12.96, it does not present any difficulty because while it continues status quo,  it  also  states  that any promotion  given  shall  be subject  to  the  result of the SLP.23107/96.  It  reads  as follows:

     "Status quo to continue.  However, any promotion given

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

to  any  one shall be subject to the result of this  Special Leave petition."

     Now  that  the  Civil  Appeal arising  out  of  SLP(C) 23107/96  in  Gian Singh’s case ( to which Sadhu  Singh  and B.L.   Grover  are parties) is disposed of  after  re-fixing seniority at level of Deputy Superintendent and by directing a   review   of  the  promotions   made  to  the   post   of Superintendent  and Under Secretary, as per Ajit Singh NO.2, there  can be no difficulty in the way of the State.  We  do not also think that any contempt has been committed when the promotion  orders  were passed on 19.2.97 for that was  done bona fide in implementation of the order of this Court dated 4.12.96.   The  C.P.133/97 and the IA.3/97 are  disposed  of accordingly.

     All  the  matters  are disposed of  as  stated  above. There will be no order as to costs.