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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3617 of 2000

PETITIONER: Baleshwar Paswan & Ors.                  

RESPONDENT: State of Bihar & Ors.                        

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2003

BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU & RUMA PAL

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

RAJENDRA BABU, J. :

       The appellants before us participated in a test  conducted by the Office of Advocate General, Bihar between  1975 and 1985 and they were appointed as Assistants.  Pursuant to the general competitive examination,  recruitment had taken place to the Secretariat of the  Government of Bihar and when the question of merger of  the two cadres arose, the Government took a decision on  14.8.1987 that all the Assistants who have been recruited  through general competitive examination would rank senior  to the Assistants who have not been appointed through  general competitive examination but through other sources,  while, of course, protecting their inter se seniority.   

By an order made on 21.7.1991, the Government of  Bihar decided that the office of Advocate General, would  stand attached to the office of the Law Department of the  Government of Bihar. When the question of merger of the  two Departments arose, the Government followed Rule  14(2)(gha) that inter se seniority of the candidates  appointed on the basis of the competitive examination and  those appointed through other sources shall be determined  on the basis that those appointed pursuant to the  competitive examination shall rank senior and the position  will be determined on the basis of the date of being put on  probation below all successful candidates appointed on the  basis of the result of the competitive examination.  On this  basis, final gradation list was published and the appellants  were shown to be junior to the Assistants who have been  appointed through competitive examination.  Their  representations against the same having been unsuccessful,  they preferred a writ petition before the High Court.

The High Court held that the appellants admittedly did  not take the general competitive examination held in the  years 1971 and 1973 and that they have been selected on  the basis of the test held by the Department of Advocate  General and, therefore, they stood on the same footing as  candidates recruited from other sources and not on the basis  of the general competitive examination held for the  recruitment of Assistants.  It is this order of the High Court  that is in challenge before us.

It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the  appellants should have been placed in the category of

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

persons appointed through general competitive examination  and their inter se seniority along with other Assistants ought  to have been fixed on the basis of date of joining as per the  existing rules and not in the manner as has been done.  The  stand of the respondents is what has been accepted by the  High Court.  The High Court proceeded on the basis that the  Assistants employed in the office of the Advocate General  became members of the joint cadre only after it was  declared to be an attached office pursuant to the Resolution  dated 27.2.1991.  The Joint Cadre Rules had already come  into effect from 30.8.1988 though they were notified on  1.6.1992.  The contention put forth by the appellants that  they were also appointed on the basis of the test held by the  office of the Advocate General and they should be equated  with those Assistants who were selected on the basis of the  general competitive examination, was not accepted by the  High Court.  The High Court observed that the appellants  stood in the same position as other candidates who had not  taken the general competitive examination held in the years  1971 and 1973 and, therefore, they stood on the same  footing as candidates recruited from other sources, i.e.,  candidates recruited departmentally and not on the basis of  any general competitive examination held for the  recruitment of Assistants and that on the merger of the  departments, the appellants cannot claim anything what had  been claimed by the parties in connected matters.  In this  context, the High Court placed reliance on the decision of  this Court in Uday Pratap Singh & Ors.  vs. State of  Bihar & Ors., 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 451.  This Court held  that the appellants, who were placed in a similar situation as  in the present case, had entered the merged cadre of senior  branch on a particular date and while the respondents  therein had entered the department as direct recruits prior  thereto and, therefore, they should be treated as senior to  the respondents.

In principle, there cannot be any difference between  these two sets of employees who had been recruited from  other sources and recruited by the office of Advocate General.  Therefore, the view taken by the High Court that the  appellants who have been recruited from other sources vis- ‘-vis those appointed on the basis of the general  competitive examination must be determined by applying  the principles laid down in the Government circular dated  30.3.1981, constitutional validity of which had been upheld  by the High Court and as affirmed by this Court in Uday  Pratap’s case [supra] cannot be faulted with at all.

This appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismised.   Ordered accordingly.