http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: TEJINDER SINGH SANDHU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/04/1978

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) DESAI, D.A. PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1326            1978 SCR  (3) 716  1978 SCC  (3)  18

ACT: Seniority and Promotion, claim to-Whether a junior in  Class II  service, who by a chancy circumstance joined earlier  in the  Class I post and completed his probation in  that  post before  his  seniors, claim seniority in Class  I  post  for further  promotion-Seniority in Class II has to  prevail  in ranking when several officers are appointed to Class I on an ad  hoc  basis and also completed their probation  and  when permanent  vacancies  occur  in  that  cadre  of  Class  I-- Applicability  of Govt.  Memo No. 9448-Agr. 1(1)65/1583  dt. 13-4-66 and Punjab-Agri.  Service Rules, 1947, 10 to 16.

HEADNOTE: The appellant was junior to Respondents 2 and 3 in the Class 11  Punjab  Agricultural  Service.  On August  2,  1965  the appellant  and Respondent No. 3 were promoted on an  ad  hoc basis as Deputy Directors of Agriculture a post borne on the cadre of Class I service.  The appellant took charge of  the post  on  August  4,  1965  being  at  headquarters,   while respondents No. 3 joined on 18-8-65.  Respondent No. 2.  who was  senior to Respondent No. 3 and the appellant could  not be promoted earlier as he was on deputation with the  Punjab Agricultural University and he was promoted on 22-2-67  i.e. after  his  return  to parent  department.   The  appellant, Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 therefore   completed their   probation  on  3-8-1967,  21-2-1969   and   1-3-1968 respectively.  On     14-10-71,    the     Government     of Punjab published a tentative seniority  list  in  which  the appellant  was  shown as junior to respondents 2 and  3.  On that  basis  respondents  2 and 3  were  promoted  as  Joint Directors  of  Agriculture  w.e.f.  10-7-1973  and   16-7-73 respectively.   As  his representation for  considering  his claim  for  seniority and promotion by virtue  of  his  long continuous  service  in Class 11 post and also  his  earlier completion  of  probation that the respondents  failed.  the appellant  filed a writ petition in the High Court on  16-8- 1973 contending that the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the  post of Joint Director was illegal being  violative  of Article  16  of  the  Constitution  and  demanding  that  in recognition  of  his  superior claim arising  by  virtue  of seniority,  he should be promoted and confirmed in the  post

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

of  Joint  Director.   The High  Court  dismissed  the  Writ Petition  but granted a certificate of fitness to appeal  to this Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD  : 1. The High Court was right in taking the view  that respondents  2 and 3 were entitled to be appointed as  Joint Directors  of Agriculture in preference to the appellant  on the basis of their seniority. [720D] 2.   Since  all of them were appointed to Class I on  an  ad hoc  basis and since they had all completed their  probation in  Class I post, when permanent vacancies occurred in  that cadre,  their seniority in Class If has to prevail in  their ranking  in Class I. By that criterion, the  appellant  must take his place below Respondents 2 and 3. [719B-C] 3.   (a)  What governs the appellant is not  the  Government Memorandum  dated 13-4-1966, but the rules contained in  the Punjab  Agricultural Service Class 1, Rules, 1947.  Rule  16 provides that seniority of members of the service shall be determined according to the date of confirmation in the  service.   If regard is had to Rules 10 to  16  of  the Rules,  the  appellant  must rank lower  in  seniority  than Respondents 2 and 3. [720B-C] (b)  The circumstance, that the appellant and respondents  2 and  3  took  charge of their respective posts  in  Class  I service on divergent dates is purely 717 fortuitous and cannot affect their seniority.  The appellant was junior to respondents 2 and 3 in Class III as well as in Class 11 service of the PEPSU State.  He was also junior  to them  in  class  11  service  of  the  Punjab  Govt.,  after reorganisation  of  states.  Having been  appointed  to  the higher  post on the same date as respondent 3 and on ad  hoc basis,  the appellant cannot be permitted to take  advantage of a chancy circumstance that being geographically close  to the headquarters, he was able to take charge of the post  of promotion  on  the very day on which he  was  appointed,  an opportunity  which a quirk of posting denied  to  respondent No. 3. In fact in Class 1, there were only two vacancies  in August 1965 and if respondent No. 2 were available for being posted  as  Deputy Director, it is he and respondent  3  who would  have filled the two vacancies.  The  appellant  being junior  to  them would not have been appointed as  a  Deputy Director even on an ad hoc basis. [718H, 719D-G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 713 of 1975. From the Judgment and Order dated 31-5-74 of the Punjab  and Haryana High Court in C. W. No. 2675/73. Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Appellant. O. P. Sharma for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J.-The appellant, Tejinder Singh Sandhu,  and respondents  2  and 3 were serving initially  as  Class  III Officers but were recruited directly as Class 11 Officers in the erstwhile.  State of Patiala and the East Punjab States’ Union,  (’Pepsu’).  After the reorganisation of  Punjab  and Pepsu,  they  were  absorbed  in  the  Punjab   Agricultural Service,  Class  11.   In the seniority  list  of  Class  11 Officers,   respondent  2  was  shown  at  serial  No.   30, respondent  3 at serial No. 39 and the appellant  at  serial No. 40.  On August 2, 1965, appellant and respondent 3  were promoted   on  an  ad-hoc  basis  as  Deputy  Directors   of Agriculture,  a post borne on the cadre of Class I  Service.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

The  appellant  took charge of that post on August  4,  1965 while  respondent  3  took charge  fourteen  days  later  on August,18,  1965.   The  adhoc promotions were  made  for  a period   of  three  months  or  until  such  time   as   the appointments could be made on a regular basis. Respondent 2 was working at the material time in the  Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.  The Government of Punjab having  taken  a  decision in October,  1966  to  allow  its officers  who were working on deputation with  the  Ludhiana Agricultural   University  to  rejoin  the  State   Service, respondent  2 returned to the parent Department  on  October 28,  1966.  He was promoted as Deputy Director  of  Agricul- ture, Class 1, on February 22, 1967 on the same basis as the appellant and respondent 3. The  appellant  completed his probation on  August  3,  1967 while  respondents 2 and 3 completed theirs on February  21, 1969 arid March 1, 1968, respectively.  On October 14, 1971, the  Government  of Punjab published a  tentative  seniority list of Class I Officers in which the appellant was shown as junior  to respondents 2 and 3. Acting on the basis  of  the seniority  list, the State Government promoted respondent  2 to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture on July 10, 718 1973 and respondent 3 on.  July 16, 1973.  The appellant had filed  a representation on the publication of the  seniority list  complaining that since he had officiated  continuously in  the Class I post for a longer period than respondents  2 and  3  and  had completed his probation  before,  they  had completed  theirs, he should have been treated as senior  to the  other  two  and was entitled to be  promoted  as  Joint Director  in.  preference to them.  It was implicit  in  the promotion  of  respondents  2 and 3 to  the  post  of  Joint Director that the appellant’s representation was rejected by the Government. On  August 16, 1973 the appellant filed a Writ  Petition  in the  High  Court of Punjab and Haryana contending  that  the promotion  of  respondents  2 and 3 to  the  post  of  Joint Director  was illegal being violative of article 16  of  the Constitution  and  demanding  that  in  recognition  of  his superior  claim arising by virtue of seniority he should  be promoted  and confirmed in the post of Joint  Director.   By its  judgment dated May it, 1974, the High  Court  dismissed the Writ Petition but granted to the appellant a certificate of  fitness to appeal to this Court under article 133(1)  of the Constitution. The narrow question for decision is whether the appellant is entitled to be regarded as senior to respondents 2 and 3  by virtue of his continuous officiation in the Class I post and because  he had completed his probation in that post  before respondents 2 and 3 completed theirs.  Certain facts bearing on this question are undisputed.  Appellant and  respondents 2  and  3 originally belonged to Class III  Service  of  the Pepsu   State.    They  were  later  appointed   by   direct recruitment   as  Class  11  Officers  in  the   Agriculture Department of the State with effect from September 24, 1956, July  13  1956  and  ’May 1,  1956,  respectively.   It  is, therefore, clear and not disputed that in the cadre of Class 11  Officers in the Pepsu Agriculture Department,  appellant was junior to respondents 2 and 3. After the merger of Pepsu with  Punjab they were all absorbed in Class 11  Service  of the Punjab Agriculture Department.  Appellant and respondent 3  were  later  promoted to Class I Service  of  the  Punjab Government  on  the same date that is to say, on  August  2, 1965.   On the date of promotion, appellant happened  to  be working at Chandigarh itself and was therefore able to  take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

charge  of  his new post immediately after the date  of  his appointment  viz.,  August 4, 1965.  Respondent  3,  on  the other  hand, Was working as an Assistant  Horticulturist  at Kulu  and  therefore, he could not take charge of  his  post until he was relieved of the post which he was holding.   He was able to take over as Deputy Director at Hansi on  August 18,  1965, which was 14 days after the appellant  had  taken charge  of his post.  Respondent 2 was promoted as a  Deputy Director  in 1966 but, that was for the reason that lie  was working   on  deputation  with  the  Ludhiana   Agricultural University  and until the Government permitted its  officers working  on deputation with the University to revert to  the State  Service,  respondent  2, though  eligible  for  being appointed  as a Deputy Director, could not be so  appointed. Thus  the circumstance that the appellant and respondents  2 and  3  took  charge of their respective posts  in  Class  I Service  on divergent dates is purely fortuitous and  cannot affect their seniority. 719 All the three were appointed as Class I Officers on a purely ad-hoc  basis.   The  permanent  vacancies  in  that   cadre occurred  in  1971 and it is in reference to  the  State  of affairs obtaining at that point of time that the question of seniority  of the three officers has to be  considered.   On the date on which permanent vacancies occurred in the  Class I  cadre,  the  appellant and respondents 2 and  3  had  all completed  their probationary period  satisfactorily.   They were,  therefore,  eligible  and  perhaps  entitled  to   be confirmed in Class I posts.  But that confirmation had to be made in the order in which they ranked in seniority in their Class  II  posts.  We have no doubt that since all  of  them were appointed to Class I on an ad hoc basis and since  they had  all  completed their probation in Class  I  posts  when permanent vacancies occurred in that cadre, their  seniority in  Class 11 has to prevail in their ranking in Class I.  By that  criterion, there can be no doubt that that the  appel- lant must take his place below respondents 2 and 3. Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the   appellant contends that seniority of officers promoted to Class I from the Class 11 cadre must be determined according to the dates of  their  continuous  officiation  in  Class  I  posts  and according  to  the  dates  on  which  they  completed  their probationary period.  It is urged that by the application of this dual test, the appellant would rank higher in seniority over  respondents  2 and 3. By reason of  the  circumstances which  we have earlier mentioned, there is no  substance  in this contention.  The appellant was junior to respondents  2 and  3  in Class III as well as in Class 11 Service  of  the Pepsu State.  He was also junior to them in Class 11 Service of  the  Punjab  Government,  after  reorganisation  of  the States.   Having  been appointed to the higher post  on  the same  date  as  respondent 3 and on  an  ad-hoc  basis,  the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of a  chancy circumstance   that  being  geographically  close   to   the headquarters  he  was  able to take charge of  the  post  of promotion  on the very date on which he was appointed, ,in opportunity which a quirk of posting denied to respondent 3. The  latter., being at Kulu, had to be relieved of his  post there  and the proverbial red-tapism intervened to  disable. him  from taking charge of his Class I post  until  fourteen days later.  In so far as respondent 2 is concerned, he  had to  await  the  decision of the  Government  that  those  on deputation  to the Ludhiana Agricultural University may  re- turn  to their parent departments.  It is not disputed  that if  in  August  1965,  respondent  2  was  not  working   on

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

deputation,  he  would  have been promoted  along  with  the appellant  and  respondent  3  to Class I.  In  fact  it  is important that in Class 1, there were only two vacancies  in August  1965  and if respondent 2 were available  for  being posted  as a Deputy Director, it is he and respondent 3  who would  have filled the two vacancies.  The  appellant  being junior  to  them would not have been appointed as  a  Deputy Director even on an ad-hoc basis. Learned  counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance  on the  State Government’s instructions regarding  fixation  of seniority   contained  in  Government  Memo  No.   9448-Agr. 1(1)65/1583 dated April 11, 1966, in support of his argument that the appellant must rank 720 higher in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. The Memorandum has no application because it refers to ’temporary officers’ appointed  to the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class  I  and Class II.  In case of temporary officers promoted to Class I and  Class  11 posts, seniority may have  to  be  determined under the particular Government Memorandum with reference to the  dates  of  continuous  appointment  in  the  respective cadres.   But  the appellant and respondents 2 and  3  were working  in a permanent capacity when they were promoted  to Class 1. What governs the seniority of the appellant is  not the Memorandum on which he relies but the rules contained in the  Punjab Agricultural Service, Class 1, Rules, 1947.   If regard  is  had to rules 10 and 16 of the  aforesaid  Rules, there cannot be any doubt that the appellant must rank lower in seniority than respondents 2 and 3. Rule 16 provides that seniority  of  members of the Service  shall  be  determined according  to the date of confirmation in the Service.   The exact  dates of confirmation of the officers  concerned  are not  on  the record but it is clear that by  reason  of  the circumstances  adverted to before, appellant’s  confirmation has to, be postponed to that of respondents 2 and 3. We  are,  therefore, of the opinion that the High  Court  is right  in  taking  the view that respondents 2  and  3  were entitled  to be appointed as Joint Directors of  Agriculture in  preference  to  the  appellant on  the  basis  of  their seniority.  Accordingly we confirm the judgment of the  High Court  and dismiss the appeal.  The appellant shall pay  the costs  of respondents 2 and 3 in one set.  There will be  no order  as to costs of respondent 1, the State of Punjab,  or of respondents 4 and 5. S.R.                                Appeal dismissed 721