http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6373 of 2001

PETITIONER: Arvinder Singh Bains                                     

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors.                                        

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/05/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 - Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh  Bhatti are impleaded as parties in I.A.No. 3 as per order dated  18.05.2006. The appellant - Arvinder Singh Bains filed the above  appeal against the final judgment and order dated 12.12.2000  passed by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana  at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1705/2000 whereby the High Court  has dismissed the LPA filed by him.   

BACKGROUND FACTS: ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 1976         State Government issued an advertisement in the year  1976 for 10 vacancies in the cadre of PCS Officers.  The 1976- Rules were enforced w.e.f. 02.12.1976.  As per the case of the  State Government itself requisition for 10 posts meant for  direct recruits (Register-B) were sent to Punjab Public Service  Commission.  ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 1980:  State Government issued an advertisement in the year  1980 for direct recruitment to the PCS.  With respect to the  said advertisement, State Government had issued a  corrigendum, inter alia, relaxing the age of recruitment to PCS.   With regard to the 1980 advertisement, competitive  examinations were held for direct recruitment.  Selection was to  be made by the Punjab Public Service Commission.   A list of candidates selected by the Commission by way of  direct recruitment was notified.  This included the name of the  petitioner and respondent No.3 \026 Dipinder Singh.  Promotees  from other Registers (other than Register-B) were appointed as  PCS in 1984-85.  The appellant had applied pursuant to the  above-mentioned advertisement of 1980-82.  The appellant and  others were selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission  joined as PCS Officers on the basis of competitive examination.  It is to be noticed that these vacancies had occurred in the  interregnum 1978 to 1982.  These vacancies were filled up only  in the year 1986.  According to the appellant, had these  vacancies been filled up timely, direct recruits coming in  through Register-B would have found higher places in the  impugned seniority list.  During the interregnum 1978 to 1986 appointment to the  service took place from other Registers.  In the meantime, the  promotee candidates were brought in as PCS officers.   According to the appellant, delay on the part of the Government  to appoint direct candidates could not result in appellant losing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

seniority to these promotee candidates.  On 24.08.1988,  tentative seniority list of candidates who had been selected and  appointed by direct recruitment (via Register-B) was prepared  and circulated.  The appellant represented against the above  tentative seniority list and submitted that Rule 21 has to be  read with Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules and thereby seniority is  governed by the order of vacancies mentioned in Rule 18 of the  1976-Rules.  On 01.07.1994, a final seniority list of Register-B  candidates was prepared without assigning their places in the  consolidated seniority of the cadre.  The final seniority list of  Register-B candidates was also circulated.  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT: The appellant and respondent No.3 - Dipinder Singh filed  writ petition No. 16516 of 1995 before the High Court.  SUBMISSION IN THE WRIT PETITION: The appellant contended that Rule 21 which governs  seniority refers to Rule 18 and Rule 18 provided for the filling  up of the slab of 100 vacancies.  Rule 21 reads thus: "21.  Seniority of the members of the Service.- The  seniority of officers appointed to the Service shall be  determined in accordance with the order of their  appointment to the Service; provided that \026

(a)     if the order of appointment of any candidate is  cancelled under the provisions of rule 20 and  such candidate is subsequently appointed to  the Service, the order of appointment for the  purpose of this rule shall be determined by the  date of such subsequent appointment;

(b)     if any officer appointed to the Service fails to  qualify himself for substantive permanent  appointment within the prescribed period of  probation, the Government may determine  whether the date of his appointment for  purpose of this rule shall be postponed by a  period not exceeding the period by which such  officer’s substantive permanent appointment is  delayed beyond the prescribed period of  probation;

(c)     the persons appointed as a result of earlier  selection from a Register shall be senior to  those appointed as a result of subsequent  selection from the same Register."  

It was submitted that seniority list be governed by order of  their appointment and order of their appointment was provided  for in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules.  It was thus contended that  seniority would be governed by the serial number of the  vacancy and not the date of appointment.  Rule 18 reads as  follows:- "18.  Appointment of accepted candidates to the service.   The Government shall make appointments to the Service  in pursuance of rule 7 from amongst the candidates  entered on the various Registers in a slab of 100  vacancies as follows:-

(i)     the first vacancy and thereafter every alternative  vacancy shall be filled from amongst candidates  borne on Register’B’.  

(ii)    the 2nd, 8th, 14th, 20th, 26th, 32nd, 38th, 44th, 50th,  56th, 62nd, 68th, 74th, 80th, 86th, 92nd, 96th and  100th vacancy shall be filled from amongst the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

candidates borne on Register A-I;

(iii)   the 4th, 10th, 16th, 22nd, 28th, 34th, 40th, 46th,  52nd, 58th, 64th, 70th, 76th, 82nd, 88th and 98th  vacancy shall be filled from amongst candidates  borne on Register A-II.  

(iv)    The 12th, 30th, 42nd, 54th, 66th, 78th and 90th  vacancy shall be filled from amongst the Excise  and Taxation Officers accepted as candidates on  Register A-III;

(v)     The 18th, 36th, 60th and 84th vacancy shall be  filled from amongst the District Development  and Panchayat Officers or Block Development  and Panchayat Officers accepted as candidates  on Register A-III; and  

(vi)    The 6th, 24th, 48th, 72nd and 94th vacancy shall  be filled from amongst the candidates on  Register ’C’:"         

The State Government and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed  written statement to the above statement.    

STAND OF THE STATE:  

A perusal of rule 18 makes it abundantly clear that the  rotation system provided in this rule is in fact meant for  recruitment to the Service from various sources and to ensure  prescribed representation of candidates drawn from various  sources.  The words "vacancy" and "filled" occurring in this rule  are important and therefore, worth noticing. A perusal of various rules of the 1976 Rules reveals that  these rules do not, implicitly or explicitly, permit application of  rota system provided in rule 18 thereof, for the purpose of  determining seniority which is governed by rule 21 alone.  If  seniority of the members of service is determined in accordance  with rule 18, rule 20 and 21 will become redundant." It was submitted that Rule 20 of 1976-Rules had operated  in a completely different filed and that Rule 20 of the 1976- Rules was concerned with the case of a candidate whose  appointment had been cancelled and so subsequently  appointed.  It is only in such an eventuality that the date of  such subsequent appointment has been made relevant.  It was  also contended that Rules 18 specifically refers to appointment  to Service and Rule 21 cannot be interpreted by ignoring Rule 7  and Rule 18.  In another written statement filed before the High Court  with regard to the other Registers, the date of such  appointments were 19.11.1994 and 20.11.1994.  These were  appointments from 2 different Registers made on given as  19.11.1994 and 20.11.1994.  To explain the seniority positions  allocated to these candidates, it was stated that: "Therefore, it is clear that even for this appointment,  seniority has been determined as per Rule 21.  Inter-jection  was only a via-media adopted by the State Government in view  of the fact that the rules are totally silent as to what would  happen if persons from two registers are issued orders of  appointment on the same date." Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh Bhatti \026 who were  respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in the writ petition and now respondent  Nos. 6 & 7 in this appeal filed written statement before the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

Court.  They contended that the appellants and their batch  mates will have to remain junior to respondent Nos. 6 & 7, they  having been appointed 2 years after the appointment of the  answering respondents and, therefore, they would remain  junior to them for the purpose of seniority and  selection/promotion to the post of IAS cadre.  

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT (SINGLE JUDGE): The learned single Judge on 08.12.1999 dismissed the  writ petition filed by the appellant.  The High Court was of the  opinion that there was nothing in the Rules from which it could  be inferred that candidates from the various services were  required to be selected simultaneously.  In this respect, the  learned Single Judge of the High Court recorded that: "In this context, it is important to bear in mind that Rule  18 earmarks the vacancies to be filled from among the  candidates entered in the various Registers, but there is  nothing in the language of the said rule or the scheme of Rules  7,8,9 to 11,12 to 14 and 15 from which it can be inferred that  selection for entering the names of the accepted candidates in  the various Registers should be made simultaneously." And  Moreover, as the scheme of the 1976 Rules does not envisage  simultaneous selection of the candidates for entering their  names in different Registers." It is submitted that a joint reading of Rules 7,12,18 and  21 of the 1976-Rules leads to the conclusion that the 1976- Rules contemplate simultaneous appointment.  All Officers  from various sources i.e. (from various Registers) whose name  had been entered in the said Registers as accepted candidates  were to be considered for appointment  simultaneously/contemporaneous.  The other finding of the learned Single Judge was that  seniority could not be linked to the year of the vacancy.  In this  respect, it was recorded that:- "The plaint language of Rule 21 speaks of, determination  of seniority of members of the service in accordance with the  order of their appointment and not as per the roster points  enumerated in Rule 18.  The expression in accordance with the  order of their appointment to the Service refers to the point of  time when the officers are appointed and not the slots allotted  to them under Rule 18.  In other words, those appointed earlier  in point of time will rank senior to the others who are appointed  subsequently irrespective of the Register from which they are  appointed." Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge  the appellant preferred LPA No. 1705 of 2000 before the  Division Bench.  DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH: The Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by the  appellant by observing:- "Heard.  In our view there is no provision made for determination  of seniority in accordance with order or appointment on  rotation of vacancies based upon quota of reservation for direct  recruitment and promotion under the Punjab Civil Services  (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976.  Rule 18 provides for  appointment to the Service on availability of vacancies in a slab  of 100 vacancies.  Rotation of vacancies, it is pertinent of note,  is not based on any quota of reservation for direct recruitment  and promotion respectively fixed in the rules.  This read with  Rule 21 for determination of seniority cannot be construed as  rota-quota rule.  We concur with the judgment of the learned Single Judge  and find no reason to interfere with it.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

Dismissed in limine." Aggrieved by the order of dismissal in LPA, the appellant  preferred the above special leave petition.  The delay was  condoned.  Leave was granted on 03.09.2001.  This Court made  it clear that any action taken will be subject to the outcome of  the appeal.  We have heard Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel  assisted by Mr. Prem Malhotra for appellants and Mrs. Kawaljit  Kochar, learned counsel and Ms. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi for  respondent No.3 and Mr. M.N.Krishnamani for respondent No.5  and Mr. Ashok Panda for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.  Mr. L.N.Rao, learned senior counsel, made the following  submissions:- a)      That the Division Bench which dismissed the LPA  filed by the appellant has not even addressed itself  to the real controversy which is evident upon a  reading of the order passed by the Division Bench.  The submission of the appellant was that seniority  under Rule 21 is to be governed by the ’order of  appointment’ to the service as provided for in Rule  18 of the 1976-Rules which further refers to Rule  7.  This point has not been addressed to by the  Bench; b)      Learned Single Judge held that it was not  incumbent upon the Government to hold  simultaneous selection with regard to the various  sources i.e. from the various registers.  It is  submitted that reading of Rules 7, 8, 12, 14, 18 &  21 demonstrates that the 1976-Rules clearly  envisage simultaneous/contemporaneous  appointment from the various sources, namely,  the various registers; c)      That simultaneous/contemporaneous  appointment from various sources is contemplated  by the Rules to give adequate representation to the  various categories of employees.  So also, to grant  appropriate seniority to the various categories of  officers. d)      The Government has not explained the reasons for  delay in recruitment.  On account of delay by the  Government in making selection of direct recruits  from Register-B, such direct recruits could not  lose their seniority. e)      That Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules was the Rule  governing seniority which contemplated seniority  in ’order of their appointment’ and this order of  appointment was as stipulated in Rule 18; f)      Learned single Judge rejected the contention of  the appellant on the reasoning that acceptance of  the contention of the appellant would result in  Rule 20 being rendered redundant.  Rule 20 of the  1976-Rules reads thus: "20. If a candidate on appointment to a particular  post, is unable, for any reason other than the orders  of the Government, to join his appointment within  one month from the date of receipt of the orders of  appointment, the Government may remove his name  from the Register or may cancel the orders of  appointment, and if he is subsequently appointed,  may assign to him seniority in accordance with the  date of the revised orders of appointment."

g)      that the scope and ambit of Rule 20 is completely  different and was in no way rendered redundant  and is meant for another eventuality which may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

arise.  h)      The State Government in their written statement  had admitted that from two other sources, orders  of appointment had been issued on 19.11.1994  and 20.11.1994 and thereafter, the stand of the  State Government was :- "Therefore, it is clear that even for this appointment,  seniority has been determined as per Rule 21.  Inter- jection was only a via-media adopted by the State  Government in view of the fact that the rules are  totally silent as to what would happen if persons  from two registers are issued orders of appointment  on the same date." i)      that the State Government had itself done  interjection in the matter of assignment of  seniority.  The stand of the State Government  itself was that interjection had been done as a via- media.  The State Government had not assigned  seniority purely on the basis of the date of  appointment.  Thus, the stand of the State  Government was conflicting at various places.  j)      That Rule 24(5) of the 1976-Rules reads thus: "(5) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to  the Service from Register B shall be the year in which  he is appointed and the year of allotment of an officer  appointed from other Registers shall be the same as  that of the officers appointed to the Service from  Register B against their corresponding quota of  vacancies."

The above Rule clearly contemplates simultaneous  appointment of PCS Officers from various Registers.   Moreover, the reference point is the direct recruitment  from Register-B.  Others appointed from other Registers  are given year of allotment as Officers appointed in service  from Register-B against their corresponding vacancy.  Mr.  Rao submitted that the above Rule also demonstrates  linkage between year of allotment and the vacancies.  K) That the Government at times may not make  selection from a particular source on account of  unexplained reasons.  For such inaction of the  Government in making selection from a particular source,  appellant from Register-B could not be made to suffer loss  of seniority vis-‘-vis other sources from which recruitment  had been made. l)      that PCS is a feeder cadre for appointment to IAS.   Seniority in PCS would govern entry into IAS service.   On account of delay of the Government in making  selection of direct recruit candidates, their seniority  has been permanently depressed vis-‘-vis other  sources of recruitment in PCS service.  If this is  allowed to continue, direct recruit candidates would  invariably face disadvantage. m)      As is well known selection by direct recruitment  takes longer time to finalise than promotion and  direct recruitment involves a process of detailed  selection through PCS.  It is, therefore, contended  that in fact the process of selection of direct recruit  candidates should start earlier in point of time than  the process of selection of candidates from other  sources.  Therefore, it is submitted that this is the  mode to ensure obedience to the letter and spirit of  the 1976-Rules which Rules contemplates  simultaneous/contemporaneous appointment from  the various sources, namely, the various registers.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

So much so Rule 24(5) of 1976-Rules contemplates  allocation of year of allotment to a direct recruit as a  reference point for grant of year of allocation to  candidates recruited from other sources.  Under  these circumstances, Mr. Rao prayed that the final  judgment and order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the  High Court in LPA No. 1705 of 2000 be set aside and  relief prayed for by the appellant is granted.  Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 \026 State of Punjab filed counter  affidavit in this appeal. It is submitted that after the disposal of  the LPA Nos. 851/1982, 843/1982 by the High Court, the  seniority of Maninder Singh and H.S. Bains and 4 other  affected persons figuring in between them was re-determined  by the Government vide its order dated 15.11.1986 and that  the seniority of all other PCS officers appointed to the service  through various registers which stood duly determined under  the 1930 Rules i.e. in accordance with Rule 20 read with Rule  17 was kept in tact without effecting any change thereto.  It is  further stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that in the light  of the above noted factual position as also the legal advise  obtained by the legal remembrancer on the 09.12.1982 and  reiterated thereafter, the State Government decided to deviate  from the long established practice and switched over to the  determination of seniority in accordance with the date of  appointment/orders of appointment/act of actual appointment  in terms of the provisions of Rule 21 alone of the 1976 rules.  It  is also stated in para (d) of 5 of the counter that the post of  direct recruitment to be filled up on the basis of PCS (Executive  Branch) and other allied services examination were duly  advertised by the Commission vide advertisement dated  01.05.1982 and that the competitive examination was held by  the Commission March, 1984 and after taking viva-voce, the  Commission made its recommendation in June, 1985  whereafter appointment of candidates of Register-B were made  in March, 1986.  Learned senior counsel for the State of Punjab  reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit at the  time of arguments.   Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of  respondent Nos. 3 & 4 \026 Mr. R.L. Mehta and Mr. G.R.Bansal.   Ms. Kaur Dhodi, learned counsel reiterated the submission  made in their counter affidavit at the time of hearing.  It is  submitted that the relief as prayed for i.e. fixation of seniority  according to the roaster prescribed under Rule 18 could not  have been claimed by the appellant as the statutory rules Rule  21 specifically provided for determination of seniority in  accordance with the order of their appointment to service.   According to them, there was no challenge to Rule 21 and as  such in the absence of any challenge the relief as sought for by  the appellant with regard to the determination of seniority other  than as provided under Rule 21 could not be granted to the  appellant.  It is further submitted that the appellant had been  appointed to the PCS (Executive Branch) by way of direct  recruitment on 26.04.1986 and that the writ petition was filed  in the year 1995 questioning the delayed direct recruitment  and seeking seniority on the basis of the roaster provided under  Rule 18.  The appellant having accepted his date of  appointment thus was estopped by his act and conduct to  allege that the appellant is entitled to be treated as a member of  PCS with reference to a fictional/deemed date i.e. the date of  accrual of vacancy and not from the date of actual appointment  against the said vacancy.   Mr. M.N.Krishnamani appeared on behalf of respondent  No.5 \026 Dipinder Singh.  He has adopted the argument of Mr.  L.N.Rao.  He placed strong reliance on two judgments of this  Court reported in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

Officers’ Association vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,  (1990) 2 SCC 715 and Gonal Bihimappa vs. State of  Karnataka and Others, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 207. Mr. Ashok Panda, learned senior counsel appeared on  behalf of Shri Khushi Ram and Shir B.S. Bhatti \026 respondent  Nos. 6 & 7.  He invited our attention to the written statement  filed on their behalf as respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in writ petition  No. 16516/1995 in the High Court.  He reiterated the  averments made in the written statement and also cited Ajit  Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC  596 at 602 paras 13 & 14, Dr. Chandra Prakash and Others  vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2002) 10 SCC 710 at 726  paras 41 & 42 and Suraj Parkash Gupta and Others vs.  State of J&K and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 561 at 599 para 4. Mr. Panda invited our attention to the relevant rules and  submitted that no legal right has accrued to the appellants to  invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, and,  therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.  He denied  that the appellants are entitled to be given seniority on the  basis of alleged roaster system and against the vacancies of  1978 for the years 1978 and 1979.  They were not the members  of service.  According to Mr. Panda that the direct recruits gets  seniority from the date they were actually appointed although  the vacancies existed in the earlier years and the promotees got  seniority from the date when they were fitted within their  quota.  It is the case of Mr. Panda that the answering  respondents and other members of service appointed from  Registers A1, A2, A3 and Register-C cannot be considered to  have been promoted in the strict sense of definition for  promotion as their method of appointment is not in the nature  of promotion but his appointment by way of nomination on the  basis of their outstanding merits in their respective cadres of  service and the answering respondents and other members of  service appointed from Registers A1, A2, A3 and Register-C  have been appointed against their own quota of vacancies and,  therefore, their seniority cannot be shifted back in the garb of  alleged roaster theory.  It is further contended that so far as the  question of existence of vacancies in the earlier years is  concerned, the vacancies in the case of other registers also  were available in the years of 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982  and, therefore, the position regarding existence of vacancies in  different years is the same as is in the case of candidates of  Register-B.  Therefore, it is submitted the appellant is not  entitled to be given seniority from the date prior to their  date/year of appointment in the garb of availability of vacancies  in the earlier years as the respondents and the members of  service appointed from other registers have been appointed  against the vacancies of their respective quota and, therefore,  their seniority cannot be shifted back.  Concluding his  arguments, Mr. Panda submitted and in view of the position  explained the appellants and their batch mates will have to  remain junior to the answering respondents, they having been  appointed 2 years after the appointment of the answering  respondents and, therefore, they would remain junior to the  answering respondent for the purpose of seniority and  selection/promotion to the post of IAS cadre.  Concluding his  arguments Mr. Panda submitted that the prayer in the writ  petition and in this appeal is not legally tenable and, therefore,  this appeal is liable to be dismissed.  We have carefully and thoughtfully considered the rival  submissions made by the respective parties through their  learned counsel.  We have also perused the entire pleadings,  counter affidavits filed before the High Court and also of this  Court and the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge  and of the Division Bench.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

The following questions of law arise for consideration by  this Court:- (i)     Whether a reading of Rules 7, 8, 12, 14, 18, 21 of the  Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I)  Rules,  1976, does not lead to the conclusion that  simultaneous/contemporaneous appointment is  envisaged by the 1976 Rule from the various sources  i.e.    from the various Registers? (ii)    Whether the Division Bench of the High Court could  have dismissed the LPA of the Petitioner without  addressing itself to the real controversy at hand? (iii)   Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was  correct in concluding that there was no provision for  determining seniority on the basis of rotation of  vacancies? (iv)    Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was  correct in considering quota when rota alone (and  not quota) is provided for in the 1976-Rules? (v)     Whether the mere reading of Rules 7, 18 and 21 was  not sufficient to conclude that seniority was on  rotation of vacancy and not post? (vi)    Whether on account of delay on the part of the State  Government in making appointment of the Petitioner  from Register-B, Petitioner could have been denied  seniority?

The issue in this case relates to the inter-relation between  Rules 18 and 21 of the PCS (EB) (Class I) Rules, 1976.         Rule 7 lays down that appointment to the service shall be  made from amongst Accepted Candidates whose names have  been duly entered in the registers of the Accepted Candidates. Rule 8 details the various registers of Accepted Candidates. A-1:-   Teshildars \\\ A-11:-  Ministerial Employees of the State Government                    (Class II&III) A-III:- ETOs/BODs/DDPOs B:-             Direct Recruits C:-             Other Govt Servants          Rules 9, 10, 11 & 15 lay down the procedure for selection  of in-service candidates.         Rules 12, 13 & 14 lay down the procedure for selection of  direct recruits (Competitive Exam).         Rule 18 clearly lays down the rotation (on a 100 point  roster) on the basis of which the various Accepted Candidates  from different registers (as laid down in Rule 7 Supra) are to be  appointed to the service.       Rule 21 which relates to seniority mandates that seniority  of officers shall be determined in accordance with the order of  their appointment.       The appellants are direct recruits (1986 batch) to the PCS  and the dispute is regarding their seniority vis-‘-vis recruits  from other sources (1984 batch).  Both these batches arose out  of posts of 1978 to 1982 as per requisitions sent by the  Government to PPSC. In the said requisitions, it was  mentioned by the Government that 50%of posts are meant for  Direct Recruits (Register-B) and remaining 50% are meant for  promotees/in\026service candidates (Registers A-1,A-II,A-III and  C).  (Vide communication dated 24.9.1982 the Punjab  Government made a specific request to the Punjab Public  Service Commission to make its recommendations against total  number of vacancies intimated to it).  The PPSC made  consolidated recommendations in respect of 40 (For in- service/nominated candidates +40 (Direct recruits) on two  different dates to the Government.  Accordingly, the candidates  of Registers A-1, A-II, A-III and C were appointed in November

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

and December, 1984 whereas the candidates of Register-B  were appointed in March, 1986.  This was admitted in the  counter affidavit of the Government.          The appellant is not seeking any ante dated promotion.  The case of the appellant is that the inter-se seniority of 80  officers (40 Direct Recruits +40 Promotees) should be fixed by  applying roster provided for in Rule 18 of PCS (EB) Rules, 1976  by reading Rules 18 and 21 together.         Joint reading of Rules 7 and 18 envisages that  appointments are to be made when the names have been  entered in all the Registers.         Actual appointment is by virtue of Rule 18 only which  says that first and thereafter every alternative vacancy shall be  filled up by Register\026B candidates.  In other words, the first  officer to be appointed has to be from Register\026B.  This position  is also fortified by Rule 24(5)-(Un-amended), the plain reading  of which reveals that reference point is once again candidate  from Register-B. In para 5(1) of counter affidavit, Government  has also admitted that direct recruits have precedence over  others.  Such precedence has to be reflected in the matter of  seniority also.  Even otherwise the direct recruits can never be  senior to promotees if date of appointment is made the sole  criterion in determining the seniority as their process of  selection is always lengthier than the promotees.  It is in view  of this, and to rule out any discrimination/arbitrariness that  the Roster under Rule 18 has been prescribed which has to be  read with Rule 21 in determining the seniority.  Making date of  joining as the basis of determining seniority would have led to  discretion in the hands of the Government and there would  have been a possibility of misuse. It is to avoid this that a  Roster has been prescribed in the Rules for fixing seniority.  This Court held that it is mandatory to apply Rota and Quota  in determining seniority where the same is provided for under  the rules as held by this Court in Mervyn Coutindo & Ors.  Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Ors., [1966] 3 SCR 600  at page 604 and 605 (5 Judges),         "This brings us back to the circular of 1959, and the          main question in that connection is the meaning to be          assigned to the words "seniority determined          accordingly",   in the explanation to principle 6          relating to relative seniority of direct recruits and          promotees.  As we read these words, their plain          meaning is that seniority as between direct recruits and          promotees should be     determined in accordance with          the roster, which has also      been specified, namely, one          promotee followed by one        direct recruit and so on.           Where therefore recruitment to  a cadre is from two          sources, namely, direct recruits and    promotees and          rotational system is in force, seniority has    to be fixed          as provided in the explanation by alternately   fixing a          promotee and a direct recruit in the seniority list.    We          do not see any violation of the principle of equality of          opportunity enshrined in Art. 16(1) by following the          rotational system of fixing seniority in a cadre half of          which consists of direct recruits and the other half of          promotees, and the rotational system by itself working          in this way cannot be said to deny equality of          opportunity in government service\005.."    

M. Subba Reddy and Another vs. A.P. State Road  Transport Corporation and Others, (2004) 6 SCC 729 at 741  (3 Judges)         "Regulation 34 applies to posts reserved only to be filled          by direct recruits.  Reading Item 3 of Annexure ’A’          (Section B) with Regulation 34, it is clear that filling up

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

       of      the posts reserved for direct recruits by          departmental    promotees has to be on temporary          basis under Regulation  30 and as soon as eligible          candidates from direct recruits’        quota become          available, they are to replace the temporary    promotees.                           In the present case, the appellant promotees were          promoted to the posts of ATMs/AMEs temporarily under          Regulation 30 as there were no direct recruits available.           They were promoted subject to being reverted to          substantive posts on approved candidates becoming          available.      Regulation 34(6) states that the revertees          shall subsequently be considered for repromotion          against         the quota of vacancies reserved for          promotees.  Therefore, one has to read Regulation                3 of the Service Regulations with Regulations 30 and 34          of the Recruitment      Regulations.  It is only when such          revertees are repromoted as per Regulation 34, they can          be deemed to have been appointed to the posts of ATM          or AME.         Therefore, when the appellants were          tentatively appointed   to the post of ATMs/AMEs          originally for want of direct   recruits and to the posts          reserved for direct recruits, it        cannot be said that          they were first appointed to that       category within the          meaning of Regulation 3 of the Service  Regulations.           Therefore, seniority had to be fixed between    the direct          recruits and the promotees strictly in  accordance with          the quota provided for in Item 3 of Annexure ’A’          (Section B).  

               The appellants were promoted temporarily under          Regulation 30 which provides for ad hoc promotions          while Regulation 34 ensures induction of qualified direct          recruits.  But for Regulation 34, candidates from feeder          posts would be temporarily promoted to the slots          reserved for direct recruits and on their regularisation,          the quota       prescribed for direct recruits will be          defeated.  Regulation   34 has been enacted to protect          quota prescribed for direct     recruits.                           On reading Regulation 3 of the Service Regulations          with Regulations 30 and 34 of the Recruitment          Regulations, it becomes clear that neither the date of          promotion nor the date of selection is the criterion for          fixation of seniority.  The fixation of seniority under the          said regulations depends upon the number of vacancies          falling in a particular category.  Therefore, rota rule is          inbuilt in the quota prescribed for direct recruits and for          promotees in terms of Item 3 of Annexure ’A’ (Section B)          to the Recruitment Regulations.  In the present case,          the said regulations prescribe a quota of 1:1, which          leads to rota for confirmation.  In the circumstances,          there is no     merit in the appellants’ argument that Item          3(1) of Annexure ’A’ (Section B) prescribes only          quota and not rota and that the said item was not for          determination of seniority. "     Prafulla Kumar Das and Others vs. State of Orissa and  Others, (2003) 11 SCC 614 at 626 (5 Judges) "The submission that the principle of year of allotment  must be regarded as unworkable is quite apart, of  course, from the argument that the principle of year of  allotment       is in and of itself unreasonable and,  therefore, bad in law.          Ordinarily, and as a matter of  course, we are of the   considered opinion, in line with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

Roshan Lal Tandon v.    Union of India, AIR 1967 SC  1889 and other decisions of this Court, that it is the  length of actual service that must be the determining  factor in matters of promotion and consequential  seniority.  However, this Court has subsequently carved  out a distinct exception to this general rule by virtue of  its decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’  Assn. case (1990) 2 SCC 715 by stating that where the  seniority and the vested rights of the many have  through years of accustomed practice become  dependent       upon the existence of a rule, this rule, if  injurious to the        rights of a few, would not be trifled  with, unless it is unworkable or manifestly arbitrary or  egregious. "

       It has been admitted in the preliminary submissions  made in the counter affidavit by the State Government that  there is no material difference between 1930 and 1976, Punjab  Civil Service (E.B.) rules and that so long as the 1930 rules  remained in force the seniority of members was determined by  applying ROTA rule i.e. expression "order of appointment" was  always read and interpreted as rotation/order/sequence of  slots enumerated for various registers.  This could be seen  from the Preliminary Submission No.3 in the counter affidavit  filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (pages 136-137)          That as a result of a decision by Punjab and Haryana  High Court which was applicable only to the concerned parties  it was decided by the Government to fix seniority of only the  concerned parties keeping in view the date of appointment.  However, the seniority of other officers was determined only by  applying ROTA rule.         It has also been mentioned/admitted that in view of the  above position and in view of legal advice by the Legal  Remembrancer in Dec.1982 the Government decided to deviate  from the long established practice of applying ROTA rule and  started determining seniority from the date of appointment and  that there was no other specific reason to follow the new  procedure for the determination of seniority of officers in the  Service in the face of provisions of the 1930 and 1976 Rules  being identical.  It has been held by this Court that it is not  justified for the Government to deviate from the long  established without any specific reason.  In this context, we  may usefully refer to the decisions of this Court in Direct  Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association vs. State  of Maharashtra and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 715 (5 Judges)  This Court held as under:          "23. Mr. Tarkunde is right that the rules fixing the          quota of the appointees from two sources are meant          to be followed. But if it becomes impracticable to act          upon it, it is no use insisting that the authorities          must continue to give effect to it. There is no sense          in asking the performance of something which has          become impossible.      Of course, the Government,          before departing from the rule, must make every          effort to respect it, and only when it ceases to be          feasible to enforce it, that it has to be ignored. Mr.          Tarkunde is right when he says that in such a          situation the rule should be appropriately amended,          so that the scope for unnecessary controversy is          eliminated. But, merely         for the reason that this          step is not taken promptly, the quota rule, the          performance of which has been rendered          impossible, cannot be treated to continue as          operative and binding. The unavoidable situation          brings about its natural demise, and there is no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

       meaning in pretending that it   is still vibrant with          life. In such a situation if appointments from one          source are made in excess of the quota, but in a          regular manner and      after following the prescribed          procedure, there is no reason to push   down the          appointees below the recruits from the other source          who are         inducted in the Service subsequently. The          later appointees may have been young students          still prosecuting their studies when the          appointments from the other source takes place --          and it is claimed on    behalf of the respondents that          this is the position with respect to many       of the          direct recruits in the present case -- and, it will be          highly inequitable and arbitrary to treat them as          senior.  Further, in cases      where the rules          themselves permit the Government to relax the          provisions fixing the ratio, the position for the          appointees is still better;     and a mere deviation          there from would raise a presumption in favour          of the exercise of the power of relaxation. There          would be still a third consideration relevant in        this          context: namely, what is the conclusion to be          drawn from deliberate continuous refusal to follow          an executive    instruction fixing the quota. The          inference would be that the executive          instruction has ceased to remain operative. In all          these cases, the matter would however be          subject to the scrutiny of the Court on the          ground of mala fide exercise of power. All the three          circumstances   mentioned above which are capable          of neutralising the rigours of the quota rule are          present in the cases before us, and the principle of          seniority being dependent on continuous officiation          cannot be held to have been defeated by reason          of the ratio fixed by the 1960 Rules."         47. To sum up, we hold that:         (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post          according to rule, his seniority has to be counted          from the date of his appointment and not according          to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the          above rule is that where the initial appointment is          only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as          a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post          cannot be taken into account for considering the          seniority.         (B) If the initial appointment is not made by          following the procedure laid down by the rules but          the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly          till the regularisation of his service in accordance          with the rules, the period of officiating service will          be counted.         (C) When appointments are made from more than          one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for          recruitment from the different sources, and if rules          are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be          followed strictly.         (D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to, the          existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an          appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation.          In case, however, the quota rule is not followed          continuously for a number of years because it was          impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that          the quota rule had broken down.         (E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the          appointments are made from one source in excess

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

       of the quota, but are made after following the          procedure prescribed by the rules for the          appointment, the appointees should not be pushed          down below the appointees from the other source          inducted in the service at a later date.         (F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax          the provisions relating to the quota, ordinarily a          presumption should be raised, that there was such          relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota          rule.         (G) The quota for recruitment from the different          sources may be prescribed by executive          instructions, if the rules are silent on the subject.         (H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive          instruction, and is not followed continuously for a          number of years, the inference is that the executive          instruction has ceased to remain operative.         (I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy          Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy          Engineers under the State of Maharashtra          belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers.         (J) The decision dealing with important questions          concerning a particular service given after careful          consideration should be respected rather than          scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is          not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled          position".

Prafulla Kumar Das and Others vs. State of Orissa and  Others, (2003) 11 SCC 614 at 626 (5 Judges) (already referred  to in paragraphs supra).           In reply to para 5 (B&C), the Government has admitted  that recruitment to the Service cannot be made from one  particular Register/source in isolation by ignoring other  Registers.  On the same analogy, the seniority of officers from  one Register cannot be finalized by ignoring other Registers.   Even Rule 21 envisage a joint/composite seniority list of all the  Registers.  However, in the present case this has not been done.   Composite seniority list of officers appointed in 1984 and those  appointed in 1986 was never issued in spite of the fact that the  officers were appointed as a result of requisitions sent by the  Government in the year 1982 for the vacancies of years 1978,  1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 as mentioned in para 1 above.  The  seniority of promotee officers was finalized vide order dated  18.03.1993 (issued on 19.03.1993) and that of Direct Recruits  vide order dated 1.7.1994 (issued on 16.08.1994).  These facts  were admitted by the Government in para 9 of the written  statement filed in CWP No. 16516 of 1995 (page 74 of the Paper  Book).  Surprisingly in the seniority list of Direct Recruits there  is no mention of name of any of the promotee officers in spite of  the fact that a joint requisition of promotees and Direct  Recruits was sent in the year 1982, the break-up of which has  been shown in para 5(D) of the counter affidavit of the  Government (Pages 140-141 of the Paper Book) and as such a  Joint/composite seniority in respect of Direct Recruits and  Promotees was required to be issued.  Only a small note has  been given at the bottom of the seniority list dated 1.7.1994 in  respect of Direct Recruits which reads as under:-         "The above officers will rank junior to one Shri Bhagwant  Singh, PCS whose name figures at Sr. No. 73 in the Quarterly  Gradation and Distribution List of the officers PCS (Executive  Branch) corrected upto 1st July, 1994.         (Copy of Seniority list is annexed herewith)." Neither any explanation was given as to how name of Shri  Bhagwant Singh find mention at Sr. No. 73 of the Gradation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

List nor the Direct Recruits were given any opportunity to file  any objection in respect of final seniority list of promotees as  there was no mention of seniority list dated 18.03.1993 in  respect of promotees.  The only reference that was given was  with regard to Sr.No.73 of the Gradation List of 1st July, 1994  thus giving an indication that Gradation List in fact is Seniority  List.          It is submitted in this appeal that the ambit of Rule 20 is  completely different and is in no way rendered redundant.  This  interpretation has not been contested or denied by the  Government in the written statement.          It may be pertinent to say that legislature has used the  term "date" where there was clear intention to refer to "date".   Had there been an intention of the legislature to say that the  seniority shall be determined from the date of  appointment/order they would have used the term "date" in  Rule 21 as has been done in Rule 20.  Even in Rule 21 proviso  (a) the term ’date’ has been used in an eventuality where the  legislature has an intention to make the ’date’ relevant.          Had the date of appointment been the sole criterion for  fixing seniority there would have been no need for proviso (a) to  Rule 21 as any appointment after cancellation of original  appointment will always be treated as original/first  appointment.          If the term "in accordance with the order of their  appointment" in Rule 21 actually means "in accordance with  the date of their appointment" there is no need for proviso (a) to  Rule 21.                It has also been admitted by the Government in reply to  para 5 (G) in the written statement that if officers from different  Registers happen to be appointed on the same date there is no  escape from the situation that for determining seniority the  ROTA as prescribed under Rule 18 is to be applied.  It has been  said by the State Government in the written statement that the  Rules are silent about the seniority of the officers appointed on  the same day.  If ’order of appointment’ mentioned in Rule 21  means ’the date of appointment’ and is the sole criterion for  fixing seniority then why the said Rule does not provide for the  determination of seniority of those appointed from different  Registers on the same date.  The legislature could not have left  it to the discretion of the Government to use Rule 18 by default  for determination of seniority i.e. to use Rule for fixing seniority  in those cases when the orders of appointments of officers from  different Registers are issued on the same date.          There is once again deviation by the Government from its  stand that date of appointment is the basis for determining the  seniority.  The perusal of Sr. Nos. 186, 187 and 188 on page 57  of the Gradation List of 1st January, 2006, reveals that  Government has once again reverted to applying Roster in the  determination of seniority.  Officer at Sr. No. 188 with  appointment date of 9th June, 2004 has been shown junior to  ones at Sr. Nos. 186 and 187 whose appointment dates are 23rd  June, 2004 and 1st July, 2004 respectively.  Similar situation  can be seen at Sr. Nos. 189 and 191 on page 58 and at Sr. Nos.  203 and 204 on page 59.          That by getting appointment orders ahead of Direct  Recruits the promotees had already enjoyed more perks than  the Direct Recruits by way of pay etc.  This became possible  because the selection process of promotees was shorter as  compared with that of Direct Recruits.  The injustice to Direct  Recruits cannot be compounded by relegating them in matter of  seniority also by placing the promotees enblock above the  Direct Recruits especially when both of them (promotees and  Direct Recruits) were selected against same requisition sent by  the Government to the Punjab Public Service Commission.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

       It is also pertinent to notice that Mr. Khushi Ram who has  been impleaded as respondent in the present case had himself  filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 8957 of 1993 in the Punjab and  Haryana High Court in which he had himself made the  following prayer:-         "(iii) issue a writ mandamus directing respondent no.1 to          fix the seniority of PCS Executive Branch Officers as per          Rota    quota system as laid down in Rule 18 read with Rule          21 of the Rules and also to fix the seniority of respondent          Nos. 4 and 5 below the name of the petitioner in view of          Rule 21-C of the Rules."        While granting leave on 03.09.2001 this Court passed the  following order:-         "Learned counsel has brought to our notice Rule 24(5) and  submitted that this Rule clearly indicated that there was a  quota and therefore principle of rota and quota should have  applied.          Leave granted.         Any action taken will be subject to the outcome of the  appeal."         In Gonal Bihimappa vs. State of Karnataka and  Others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 207 (2 Judges) this Court held as  under:         8. It is a well settled position in law that where  recruitment is from two sources to a service, a quota rule can  be applied fixing the limits of recruitment from the two  sources.  (H.C. Sharma vs. MCD, (1983) 3 SCR 372)

       10. Badami case 1976 (1) SCR 815 referred to several  authorities of the court and clearly drew out the judicial  consensus on the point in issue by concluding that the quota  rule had to be strictly enforced and it was not open to the  authorities to meddle with it on the ground of administrative  exigencies.  

       11.  The scheme in force relating to the services for  fixing inter se seniority takes into account the filling up of the  vacancies in the service from the two sources on the basis of  the quota and, therefore, fixation of inter se seniority in the  Gradation List has to be worked out on the basis of quota.  

       19.  In a precedent-bound judicial system binding  authorities have got to be respected and the procedure for  developing the law has to be one of evolution.  It is not  necessary for disposal of these matters before us to go into  that aspect except noticing the existence of distortion in the  field.  The rationalisation of the view in a way known to law is  perhaps to be attempted some day in future.  In the present  batch of cases the law being clear and particularly the  mandate in the rule being that when recruitment takes place  the promotee has to make room for the direct recruit, every  promotee in such a situation would not be entitled to claim  any further benefit than the advantage of being in a  promotional post not due to him but yet filled by him the  absence of a direct recruit.  One aspect which we consider  relevant to bear in mind is that the promoted officer has got  the advantage of having been promoted before it became his  due and is not being made to lose his promotional position.   The dispute is confined to one of seniority only.  The  advantage received by the promotee before his chance opened  should be balanced against his forfeiture of claim to seniority.   If the matter is looked at from that angle there would be no  scope for heart-burning or at any rate dissatisfaction is  expected to be reduced so far as the promotees are  concerned."  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

                            This Court in Devendra Prasad Sharma vs. State of  Mizoram and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 422 (2 Judges) held as  under:         "In the matter of fixation of the inter se seniority under  Rule 25(iii), the relative seniority of direct recruits and of  promotees has to be determined according to the rotation of  vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall  be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct  recruitment and promotion under Rule 5.  The Division Bench  has pointed out in the impugned order the position as under:

       "Clause (ii) of Rule 25 quoted above clearly stipulated  that the seniority of the Service appointed at the initial  constitution of the Service shall be determined by the  Administrator in consultation with the Board.  Since all the  respondents have been appointed as members of the Service  at the initial constitution of Service their seniority has to be  determined by the Administrator in accordance with the said  rules."

       We shall now scan the three judgments cited by Mr.  Ashok Panda.   1.  Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9  SCC 596 at 602 paras 13 & 14, (2 Judges) "It was also contended on behalf of the respondents  before the Tribunal, and is also reiterated here, that the  respondents are entitled to reckon their seniority from  1970 to 1971 as they were appointed against the  vacancies of those years.  It is pointed out that the  advertisement in 1970-71 for direct recruitment on the  posts of Assistant Engineer was issued by the Public  Service Commission on 6-12-1971 and the result was  thereafter published which indicated that all the  respondents had been selected.  They were also directed  to appear before the Medical Board.  The order of  appointment was, however, passed on 3-1-1972.  The  respondents, therefore, claim seniority with effect from  1970 and 1971 on the ground that they were appointed  against the vacancies of 1970 and 1971.  They claim  that their seniority may be ante-dated.  

       This plea is wholly unfounded and is liable to be  rejected as without substance and merit.  The law on  this question has already been explained by this Court  in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa (1998) 4 SCC  456 and it was categorically held that the appointment  does not relate back to the date of vacancy."

2. Suraj Parkash Gupta and Others vs. State of J&K and  Others, (2000) 7 SCC 561 at 599 (2 Judges)          "Point 4 Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from          date of vacancy in quota before their selection."

3. Dr. Chandra Prakash and Others vs. State of U.P. and  Another, (2002) 10 SCC 710 at 726 (3 Judges) paras 41 & 42  "As far as the question of seniority is concerned, Rule 18  of the 1945 Rules reads as follows:

"Seniority.- Seniority in the service shall be determined  by the date of the order of appointment in a substantive  vacancy provided that if two or more candidates are  appointed on the same date their seniority shall be  determined according to the order in which their names  are mentioned in the order of appointment."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

       Thus even under the Medical Services Rules, 1945,  the determination of seniority under those Rules was  from the date of appointment against a substantive  vacancy.  It is clear that in accordance with the Rules,  and as held by the High Court in Mathur case  appointment could be temporary or permanent.  But  where the appointment is against a substantive vacancy,  the year of appointment was determinative in fixing,  seniority under the Rules.  On this basis, calculations of  the writ petitioners’ seniority from the date of their initial  appointment cannot be said to be incorrect.   Furthermore, it has not been disputed that the writ  petitioners have been continuing to serve and had till  1983 enjoyed all the benefits of regular service since  their initial appointments like the writ petitioners in  Mathur case.  As held in Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of  India, 2000 (8) SCC 25 at p.45, para 20:

"20. In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses  the requisite qualification for being appointed to a  particular post and then he is appointed with the  approval and consultation of the appropriate authority  and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then  such an appointment cannot be held to be ’stopgap or  fortuitous or purely ad hoc’".   

These judgments, in our opinion, are not only distinguishable  on facts but also on law.  In the above cases, issues with regard  to year of vacancy and seniority in accordance with the date of  appointment was in question.  The argument advanced by  counsel for the contesting respondents has no merits and  substance.  The action of the authorities is based on the mis- interpretation of the provisions of Rule 21 of 1976-Rules and is,  therefore, liable to be set aside.  The action of the authorities is  also contrary to the Register prescribed for purpose of  appointment to the PCS.  The mandate of the roster is that  unless his appointment in the order prescribed under Rule 18,  the appointment is invalid.  Consequently, the order of  appointment must be deemed to be the order prescribed in  Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules.  The action of the respondents in  determining the seniority list without reference to the order  consequence of appointment is wholly unsustainable in law  and is liable to be set aside.  This apart, the term order of  appointment is also being mis-interpreted by the authorities  and is being confined to individual order of appointments  issued to individual members of service whereas the term of  appointment refers only to the order/consequence prescribed  under Rule 18.  Further, from a perusal of Rule 21 it would be  manifestly clear that if it is to be interpreted in the manner in  which it is presently being done, namely, to determine the  seniority on the basis of the order of appointment i.e. the date  on which the order of appointment is issued, the same must  necessarily relate to inter se seniority of individual sources of  recruitment.  This procedure was adopted in preparing the  seniority list confined to Register-B.  Action of the authorities in  determining seniority of all the members of the PCS (EB) with  reference to their date of appointment and not with reference to  the order by which they were required to be appointed under  Rule 18 is mis-interpretation of Rule 21 of 1976-Rules and is  liable to be set aside.          We have also referred to the decisions rendered by this  Court.  This Court said rota and quota must necessarily be  reflected in the seniority list and any seniority list prepared in  violation of rota and quota is bound to be negated.  The action

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

of the respondents in determining the seniority is clearly in  total dis-regard of rota-quota prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976- Rules.  The action is, therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid  down by this Court.  Thus, we hold: 1.      that the action of the State is contrary to the 1976- Rules; 2.      the seniority under the 1976-Rules must be based on a  collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the  1976-Rules; 3.      the action of the authorities is negation of Rule 18 of  the 1976-Rules in determining the seniority by the  impugned order.  Since the action is contrary to law  laid down by this Court, we have no hesitation in  allowing the appeal and grant the relief as prayed for  by the appellant.  We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the  respondents to prepare the seniority list of the appellants who  belong to the PCS (EB) in accordance with Rule 18 and read  with Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules by fixing seniority according to  the roaster prescribed under Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules.  Fresh  seniority list should be drawn within three months.   We further direct the respondents to grant all the  consequential benefits in the nature of scale of pay, promotion  etc. to the IAS, arrears of salary etc. which they remained  deprived due to negligence of the respondent State.     In the result, the Civil Appeal No. 6373 of 2001 is allowed.   However, we order no costs.