http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: DEVDUTTA AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1990

BENCH: OJHA, N.D. (J) BENCH: OJHA, N.D. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 154  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 553  1990 SCALE  (2)692

ACT:     Civil Services--M. P. State--Surplus personnel of Devel- opment    Department--Absorption    of    as    Sales    Tax Inspectors--Inter  se seniority-Determination  of---Open  to authority to have a rationalisation of the  situation--Rules formulated should be reasonable, just and equitable.

HEADNOTE:     A  group  of  Block Level  Extension  Officers  rendered surplus  in their parent department were appointed as  Sales Tax Inspectors, Class III (Executive) posts, in the respond- ent  State between 13th February, 1967 and  28th  September, 1970. By an order dated 29th March, 1967, they were exempted from  the requirement of going through competitive  examina- tion for the purpose of absorption. By memorandum dated 22nd May,  1967 it was provided that seniority of  surplus  Class III ministerial employees of the development blocks on their absorption  in  other departments shall be  determined  with regard  to the completed years of service counted for  fixa- tion  of initial pay. By a subsequent memorandum  dated  8th November, 1967 this facility was also extended to  employees absorbed in Class III executive posts. Another order  issued on  19th July, 1973 on the subject maintained the  provision with  regard  to seniority as contained  in  the  memorandum dated  22nd May, 1967. Subsequently these Sales Tax  Inspec- tors  were made permanent to that post retrospectively  with effect  from 31st March, 1967 by an order dated 15th  Febru- ary,  1980. In the combined seniority list prepared  accord- ingly  some of the directly recruited Sales  Tax  Inspectors were shown junior to the absorbed Sales Tax Inspectors.     On cross petitions being filed by the existing Sales Tax Inspectors  and the absorbed Sales Tax Inspectors  assailing the  seniority list the High Court quashed the  order  dated 15th  February, 1980 and seniority was directed to be  fixed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and general  condi- tions of Service Rules.     In these appeals by special leave, it was contended  for the  existing Inspectors that the absorbed Inspectors  could not be confirmed on 15th February, 1980 retrospectively with effect from a presumed date, namely, 31st March, 1967;  that the determination of seniority taking 155

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

confirmation  as the basis was erroneous as they were  enti- tled to have the entire period between their actual appoint- ment and confirmation taken into consideration, and that the appointment  of the absorbed Inspectors was  illegal  having been  made  not in conformity with the  relevant  rules  and without  the recommendations of the Public  Service  Commis- sion.  For  the absorbed Inspectors it  was  contended  that since  they  had been working in another department  of  the State  Government from various dates between 13th  November, 1956  and  the  actual date of their  absorption  they  were entitled to have the entire period of their service in  that department  taken  into consideration and  the  fixation  of their seniority on the basis of their having been  confirmed from  the presumed date of 31st March, 1967  was  erroneous, that none of the rules relied on by the existing ’Inspectors was  applicable to them, and that it was the  executive  in- structions  issued  in this behalf particularly  dated  29th March,  1967, 22nd May, 1967, 8th November, 1967  which  ap- plied to their absorption. Allowing the appeals, the Court,     HELD:  1. The order of the State Government  dated  15th February,  1980  giving retrospective  confirmation  to  the absorbed  Sales  tax  Inspectors from a  presumed  date  and determination  of  inter se seniority on the  basis  of  the dates of confirmation was valid. [159H]     2.1  Once an incumbent is appointed to a post  according to rule, his seniority shall be counted from the date of his appointment  and not according to the date of his  confirma- tion.  His  transfer to the same or an  equivalent  post  in another Government department cannot wipe out his pre-exist- ing length of service in the parent department. [162D; 164G]     Direct  Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’  Associa- tion v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 715;  Wing Commander  J. Kurnar v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 3  SCR 453  and K. Madhavan & Anr. v. Union of India &  Ors.  etc., [1988] 1 SCR 42, referred to.     2.2  It is, however, perfectly within the power  of  the Government to have a rationalisation of the entire situation and  determine  with  objectivity and  fairness  what  rules should  govern  the inter se seniority and  ranking  of  the personnel  working in the concerned department.  The  Courts will  only  insist that the rules so  formulated  should  be reasonable, just and equitable. [165E; 166E] R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon, [1982] 1 SCC 379; K.C. Vasudeva 156 JUDGMENT: S.G.  Jai  Singhghani v. Union of India, [1967] 2  SCR  703, referred to.     2.3 In the instant case, if the period between the dates of  appointment and confirmation of the existing  Inspectors was counted for fixing their seniority but the period during which absorbed Inspectors worked in their parent  department was ignored, the former would have obviously been placed  on a  more advantageous position but only to the  prejudice  of the  latter as it would have amounted to  sacrificing  their interest.  If, on the other hand, the periods of  continuous service  of both the sets of Inspectors was taken  into  ac- count  it  would have resulted in granting  benefit  to  the absorbed Inspectors at the cost of existing ones and presum- ably  including those who had already been promoted  as  As- sistant  Sales Tax Officers, even prior to 22nd  May,  1967, inasmuch as the period during which they had served in their parent department was much longer than the period of offici- ation  of existing Inspectors. This was the  situation  with which the State Government was faced and it was its duty  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

evolve  some policy or equitable formula which did  justice, as far as possible, to the competing claims of both the sets of  officers.  The decision taken by the Government  in  the peculiar  facts and circumstances of the case could  not  be said to be either arbitrary or discriminatory. No  statutory rule  has  been brought to Court’s notice  which  could  run counter to it. [165H; 166A-D]     3. The services of the absorbed Inspectors have not been shown to have ever been factually terminated in their parent department. Again, though the nature of appointment of these officers in the Sales Tax Department was temporary they were allowed  to uninterruptedly continue to hold the  said  post and  were subsequently not only confirmed on that  post  but were  also  given ad hoc promotion as  Assistant  Sales  Tax Officers.  Furthermore, no relief for the quashing of  their appointment was sought for by the direct recruits before the High  Court nor was any such relief pressed there. In  fact, even the fixation of their pay as Inspectors consequent upon their  absorption,  which was done in  accordance  with  the executive  instructions  does  not seem to  have  been  ever challenged.  The validity of their appointment in the  Sales Tax  Department,  therefore, could not be  assailed.  [160G; 161A-B; C]

&     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  3412-13 of 1986.     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.85 of the  Madhya Pradesh  High  Court in Misc. Petition Nos. 259 and  503  of 1982. 157     Shanti  Bhushan  (N.P.), B. Dutta,  S.K.  Jain,  Pradeep Aggarwal and Mrs. Pratibha Jain for the Appellants.     M.K.  Ramamurthy,  R.K.  Garg,  C.K.  Ratnaparkhi,  Arun Madan,  S.K. Agnihotri and S.V. Deshpande for  the  Respond- ents. Respondent No. 15-In-person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     OJHA,  J. These two civil appeals by special leave  have been  preferred against the common judgment of,  the  Madhya Pradesh  High  Court rendered in two  writ  petitions  being Miscellaneous  Petition  No. 259 of 1982  and  Miscellaneous Petition No 503 of 1982. Certain persons after being select- ed  by  the  Public Service  Commission  were  appointed  as Sales-tax  Inspectors in the State of Madhya  Pradesh.  They shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience be referred to as  existing Sales-tax Inspectors. In another Department  of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, there were certain persons who  were  working as Block Level  Extension  Officers.  The Government of Madhya Pradesh reorganised Blocks all over the State  as a result whereof 50% of the posts of  Block  Level Extension Officers were rendered surplus. A policy  decision was  taken  by the State Government to  absorb  the  surplus employees  in  equivalent post in other  Government  Depart- ments.  A  meeting was held on 30th September  1965  in  the office  room of the Secretary Planning and  Development  De- partment  for settling principles and procedure for  absorp- tion  of  such surplus personnel which was attended  by  the Secretaries  of  the various Department of  the  Government, Director of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Director of Indus- tries  and Director of Public Instruction. In  that  meeting general  principles and procedure for absorbing the  surplus personnel were settled and it was inter alia agreed that;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

"(a)  the  surplus staff should be  absorbed  on  equivalent posts  and carrying the same pay scale as far  as  possible. But  if they are absorbed on posts carrying  slightly  lower pay scale, their present pay scale should be protected; (b)  they should be treated as having been transferred  from one  post to another so that there may be no break in  their service." A Committee consisting of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Addi- 158 tional Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of  Sales Tax, Headquarters, held an interview of such  sur- plus Block Level Extension Officers who were to be  absorbed as  Sales-tax Inspectors and as a result of  that  interview they  were  appointed to the post of  Sales-tax  Inspectors. These  appointments seem to have been made on various  dates between  13th February, 1967 and 28th September,  1970.  The Block  Level  Extension  Officers who were  so  absorbed  as Sales-tax Inspectors shall hereinafter be referred to as the absorbed sales-tax Inspectors. At this place it is necessary to refer to certain orders having a bearing on the matter of absorption  as  aforesaid. The first such order in  the  se- quence  which  deserves to be noticed is a Memo  dated  29th March,  1967 issued in the name of Governor of  Madhya  Pra- desh. It provided: "The  Ex-Block Development Officers and the  Ex-Block  Level Extension Officers have been exempted by the Government from the  competitive examinations to be conducted by the  Public Service  Commission for the purpose of absorption as  Sales- tax Inspectors. The selection of these personnel to the said post shall be done by the departmental selection committee."     The  other order which requires mention is a  memorandum dated  22nd  may, 1967 issued by the  Government  of  Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department inter alia to  all Departments of Government. In contained certain decisions in respect of the surplus class-III (Executive) ministerial and Class-IV  employees of the development blocks on  their  ab- sorption in other Departments of Government. These decisions inter  alia were about fixation of pay and fixation of  sen- iority. With regard to fixation of seniority it was provided that seniority should be fixed with regard to the  completed years of service counted for fixation of initial pay and the number  of increments allowed therein. This  Memorandum  was also  issued  "By order and in the name of the  Governor  of Madhya  Pradesh". With reference to this Memorandum it  was, by a subsequent Memorandum dated 8th November, 1967, provid- ed  that the State Government had further decided  that  the facilities  granted to surplus personnel to the  Development Blocks vide G.A.D. Memo under reference may also be extended to  such  employees absorbed in Class-III  executive  posts. At . this place it may be mentioned that the post of  Sales- tax Inspector is a Class-III (Executive) post. Another Order dated  19th July 1973 was issued by the Madhya Pradesh  Gov- ernment to all the Heads of the Departments regarding facil- ities to the extra officials on being 159 absorbed in other Departments. The provision with regard  to seniority was the same as in the Memorandum dated 22nd  May, 1967.     As  is apparent from the seniority list dated 6th  Janu- ary,  1981 showing the position of the Sales-tax  Inspectors as  on 1.4.80, the existing Sales-tax Inspectors  were  con- firmed  on various dates between 1st November, 1956 and  5th October,  1968. With regard to fixation of seniority of  the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors on decision seems to have been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

taken till 15th February 1980 when an Order of that date was issued  from the office of Sales-tax Commissioner of  Madhya Pradesh  which provided that the Sales-tax  Inspectors  men- tioned therein who were absorbed between 1967 and 1970  were made  permanent to that post according to the directions  of the  Government with effect from 31st March, 1967  (presumed date).  The seniority list referred to above indicates  that the  names  of the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors are  to  be found  at serial Nos. 21 to 104 having, 31st March, 1967  as the  date  of  confirmation of all  of  them.  The  existing Sales-tax Inspector Soni Badri Prasad shown at serial No. 20 was confirmed on 22nd May; 1966 whereas the existing  Sales- tax Inspector Cangrade Dashreth Lal shown at serial No.  105 was confirmed on 1st April, 1967.     The  existing  Sales-tax Inspectors as well as  the  ab- sorbed  Salestax Inspectors both felt aggrieved by the  con- firmation  order of the absorbed Sales-tax  Inspectors  with effect  from 31st March, 1967, the seniority list  aforesaid prepared on its basis as well as a subsequent seniority list dated  15th  May, 1982. The two writ petitions  referred  to above  were  filed in the High Court, one  by  the  existing Sales-tax Inspectors and the other by the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors.  Both of them were decided by a common  judgment whereby  the  order dated 15th February,  1980  referred  to above was quashed and seniority was directed to be fixed  in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and general conditions of Service Rules. It is this judgment which is the  subject- matter of these two civil appeals, both having been filed by some of the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors.     The  contention of the existing Sales-tax Inspectors  is that  the  absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors could not  be  con- firmed  on 15th February’, 1980 retrospectively with  effect from a presumed date, namely, 31st March, 1967. According to them the determination of seniority, taking confirmation  as the  basis, is erroneous as they were entitled to  have  the entire period between their actual appointment and confirma- tion taken into consideration; whereas the grievance of 160 the  absorbed  Sales-tax Inspectors is that since  they  had been  working in another department of the State  Government as Block Level Extension Officers from various dates between 13th November, 1956 and the actual date of their absorption, they were entitled to have the entire period of their  serv- ice as Block Level Extension Officers taken into  considera- tion  and  the fixation of their seniority on the  basis  of their  having been confirmed from the presumed date of  31st March, 1967 is erroneous.     It  was also sought to be urged before us on  behalf  of the  existing Sales-tax Inspectors that the  appointment  of the  absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors as  Sales-tax  Inspectors was  illegal  having been made not in  conformity  with  the relevant rules and without the recommendation of the  Public Service Commission. For the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors on the other hand it was urged that none of the rules relied on by  the existing Sales-tax Inspectors was applicable to  the absorption as Salestax Inspectors of the surplus Block Level Extension  Officers and that it was the  executive  instruc- tions  issued in this behalf particularly dated 29th  March, 1967, 22nd May, 1967, 8th November, 1967 and 19th July, 1973 referred to above which applied to their absorption.     Having  heard learned counsel for the parties  and  M.C. Katarpanch,  respondent No. 15 in C.A. No. 3412 of 1986,  we are,  on the facts of the instant case, so far as this  sub- mission  is concerned, of the  opinion that the validity  of the absorption as Sales-tax Inspectors of the surplus  Block

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Level Extension Officers does not deserve to be permitted to be  challenged in these appeals and that we have to  proceed on the basis that their appointment by absorption as  Sales- tax  Inspectors was valid. It is true, as has  been  pointed out on behalf of the existing Sales-tax Inspectors, that the surplus  Block  Level  Extension Officers  when  called  for interview  for the purpose of being considered suitable  for absorption  were required to bear themselves the  travelling expenses  and that fresh letters of appointment were  issued to them after the interview. In our opinion, however,  these circumstances are of very little significance for discerning the  true nature of their absorption. In this connection  it is of significance that no material has been brought to  our notice  to indicate that the services of the  surplus  Block Level Extension Officers had ever been factually terminated. Again,  notwithstanding  the fact that the nature  of  their appointment  as  Salestax  Inspectors  after  interview  was temporary, they were allowed to uninterruptedly continue  to hold  the post of Sales-tax Inspector and were  subsequently not  only confirmed on that post but were also given ad  hoc promotions as Assistant Sales-tax Officers. Another circums- 161 tance  which  is of significance in this behalf is  that  no relief for the quashing of their appointments was sought for by  the existing Sales-tax Inspectors in the  writ  petition flied by them before the High Court nor was, as is  apparent from the judgment appealed against, any such relief  pressed before  the High Court. In fact, even the fixation of  their pay  as Sales-tax Inspectors consequent upon  their  absorp- tion,  which was done in accordance with the  executive  in- structions  referred  to above, does not seem to  have  been ever challenged. On the other hand it is specifically stated in the judgment appealed against: "It is not in dispute that the  respondents  4  to 88 were absorbed  in  the  Sales-tax Department  between  13.2  1967 to  28.9.1970  although  the respondent  State adds that they were in Government  service in  other  governmental departments and some of  them  right from the year 1948 long before the petitioners were appoint- ed as Sales-tax Inspectors." It is for these reasons that we are of the opinion that now it is too late a stage to  chal- lenge the validity of appointment of the absorbed  Sales-tax Inspectors on that post.     Now  coming  to  the question  of  seniority,  the  term "absorbed" in Service Jurisprudence with reference to a post in  the very nature of things implies that an  employee  who has  not been holding a particular post in his own right  by virtue  of either recruitment or promotion to that post  but is  holding  a different post in a different  department  is brought to that post either on deputation or by transfer and is subsequently absorbed in that post whereafter he  becomes a holder of that post in his own right and loses his lien on his  parent post. No one asserts that the instant one was  a case  of the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors  being  initially sent  on deputation from the post of Block  Level  Extention Officer to the post of Sales-tax Inspector and being  subse- quently absorbed in that post. Consequently, when as pointed out by the High Court, it was not disputed that the  surplus Block  Extension Officers had been absorbed in the  post  of Sales-tax  Inspectors  it is obvious that it was a  case  of absorption  by  transfer.  In this connection  it  would  be useful  to  recapitulate  that the minutes  of  the  meeting referred  to above held on 30th September, 1965 laying  down the  principles of procedure for absorbing the surplus  per- sonnel specifically stated that the surplus staff which  was to  be  "absorbed" should be treated as having  been  trans-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

ferred  from  one post to another so that there  may  be  no break in their service."     The question as to whether the fixation of seniority  by the Government was valid or not has to be considered in  the aforesaid background. The crux of the problem, therefore, is as to what princi- 162 pie should govern the fixation of inter se seniority of  the Sales-tax  Inspectors who were directly recruited  as  such, namely,  the  existing Sales-tax Inspectors  and  those  who became  holders of that post by absorption on transfer  from one  Government department to another, namely, the  absorbed Sales-tax  Inspectors. The competing claims are, as  already indicated above, that whereas the existing Sales-tax Inspec- tors  contend  that the date of confirmation alone  was  not relevant and that even the period between the dates of their actual  appointment and confirmation should be  counted  for fixing  their  seniority,  the contention  of  the  absorbed Sales-tax  Inspectors  is that the entire  period  of  their service  as  Block Level Extension Officers should  also  be taken into consideration while fixing their seniority.     In so far as the legal position with regard to  fixation of  seniority  is  concerned it may be pointed  out  that  a Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class  11 Engineering  Officers’ Association v. State  of  Maharashtra and  Others, [1990] 2 SCC 715 after a conspectus of  various earlier decisions has inter alia held: "(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  confirma- tion.  The  corollary of the above rule is that where the  initial appointment  is only ad hoc and not according to  rules  and made  as 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 appointed continues in  the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of  his service in accordance with the rules, the period of  offici- ating service will be counted."     On its basic there is obviously substance in the  asser- tion  of the existing Sales-tax Inspectors that  the  period from the respective dates of their appointments to those  of their confirmation deserve to be counted while fixing  their seniority.  As  regards the absorbed  Sales-tax  Inspectors, even if their initial appointment as Sales-tax Inspector is, for  the  sake  of argument, taken to be  irregular  as  was sought  to  be  urged before us on behalf  of  the  existing Sales-tax Inspectors, the said appointment not being only ad hoc and they having continued in the 163 pOSt uninterruptedly till the regularisation of their  serv- ice, which event even if may be treated to have taken  place on 15th February, 1980 when they were granted  retrospective confirmation  with  effect from 31st March,  1967  they  are entitled  to  have  the entire period of  their  service  as Sales-tax  Inspector counted inasmuch as their  confirmation at  any rate with effect from 15th February, 1980 cannot  be said  to be in violation of any rule. The question  which  , therefore,  remains  to be considered is  about  the  period during  which they worked as Block Level Extension  Officers before  they were absorbed as Sales-tax Inspectors.  Is  the entire period to be taken into consideration or only a  part of  it  and  if so, what part or is the said  period  to  be ignored  in  its entirety, are questions which call  for  an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

answer.     In  R.S.  Makashi v. I.M. Menon, [1982] 1  SCC  379  the question  of seniority arose among the members of the  staff who,  for maintaining a new department, had been drawn  from four  different sources. It was pointed out that in  such  a situation it was inevitable that some reasonable  principles had  to be formulated for the determination of the inter  se seniority of the personnel appointed to work in the  differ- ent  categories of posts in the new organisation. Rules  for fixation of seniority were framed by the Government, validi- ty  of some of which was challenged on the ground  of  being violative  of Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution.  Rule 4(a)  was one such rule. A learned Single Judge of the  High Court struck down that rule. While reversing the judgment of the High Court it was held: "Almost the entire reasoning of the learned Single Judge  is based  on an assumption that there is an invariable  "normal rule" that seniority should be determined only on the  basis of the respective dates of appointment to the post and  that any departure from the said rule will be prima facie  unrea- sonable  and illegal. The said assumption is devoid  of  any legal sanction. We are unable to recognise the existence  of any  such rigid or inflexible rule. It is open to the  rule- making  authority  to take a note of  the  relevant  circum- stances obtaining in relation to each department and  deter- mine with objectivity and fairness what rules should  govern the inter se seniority and ranking of the personnel  working in the concerned departments and the courts will only insist that the rules so formulated should be reasonable, just  and equitable.  Judged  by the said test of  reasonableness  and fairness, the action taken by the Government in equating the clerical personnel which had rendered two years’ regular 164 service  in  other  departments with  the  temporary  Supply Inspectors of the CFD and in directing as per impugned  Rule 4(a) that their inter se seniority shall be determined  with reference  to the length of service calculated on the  basis of  the said equation cannot be said to be in any  way  dis- criminatory  or illegal. We are unable to accept as  correct the  view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the  High Court  that "while fixing the seniority in the higher  post, it  is not open to take into consideration any service  ren- dered  in the lower post and that by itself spells out  dis- crimination." (Emphasis supplied).     Relying  on the aforesaid decision it was held  in  Wing Commander  J. Kumar v. Union of India and Others,  [1982]  3 SCR 453: "Equally  untenable  is  the further plea  advanced  by  the appellant that since the R & D is an integrated cadre, there cannot  be any further classification of the  officers  com- prised therein on the basis of the length of service put  in by  them in their respective parent services prior to  their permanent  statement  in the R & D. As pointed out  by  this Court  in  the  decision  in R.S.  Makashi  v.  I.M.  Menon, (supra),  it  is  a just and  wholesome  principle  commonly applied  in  such situations where  persons  from  different sources  are  drafted to serve in a new service  that  their pre-existing  length  of service in  the  parent  department should  be respected and preserved by taking the  same  into account  in  determining their ranking in  the  new  service cadre. Such a provision does not involve any  discrimination violative of Article 16 of the Constitution."     In K. Madhavan and Anr. etc. v. Union of India and  Ors. etc.,  [1988] 1 SCR 42 it was held that it will  be  against all  rules  of service jurisprudence if, when  a  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

servant  holding  a post is transferred to the  same  or  an equivalent post in another Government Department, the period of his service in the post before transfer is not taken into consideration  in  computing his seniority in  the  post  to which  he is transferred. The transfer cannot wipe  out  his length of service in the post from which he has been  trans- ferred.   It  is true that R.S. Makashi and Others as well  as  Wing Commander J. Kumar, (supra) were cases where new service was created   in our opinion, on that ground alone the principle enunciated 165 therein  cannot be treated as to be confined only to a  case where new service was created. The observations made therein are obviously based on equitable principles and it is  those principles  which  were applied in the case of  K.  Madhavan (supra).     Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the  absorbed Salestax  Inspectors  on the decision of this Court  in  the case  of  K.C.  Vasudeva and Others v. Union  of  India  and Others,  [1980] Suppl. SCC 341 where it was held that  fixa- tion of seniority between existing employees and those taken over  from an autonomous body after its dissolution must  be based not on mere compassion but on rational criteria having full consideration for rights of other parties affected  and having  nexus with efficiency in administration.  Government must  apply  its mind and give reasons for its  exercise  of power  to give relaxation to one class of employees. In  our opinion the said decision in clearly distinguishable. First- ly,  that was a case where employees not of another  Govern- ment Department but of an autonomous body were brought in  a Government Department and in the matter of determination  of seniority  the  period during which they had worked  in  the autonomous body was taken into account. Emphasis was  placed in  that case on this circumstance when it was  pointed  out that such employees were new entrants into Government  serv- ice  and  even so they were given credit  for  their  former service in the autonomous body. Secondly, unlike the instant case in that case credit for the entire period of Service in the  autonomous  body  seems to have been  given.  What  is, however,  noteworthy is that it was specifically  stated  in paragraph  5 the report of that case that "it  is  perfectly within the power of the Government to have a rationalisation of  the entire situation and if it thinks fit even  to  give weightage or credit for service" in the autonomous body. The principle of giving weightage was approved by this Court  in an earlier decision also in the case of S.G. Jai Singhani v. Union  of India, [1967] 2 SCR 703 and is a  well  recognised principle in the sphere of determination of seniority.     In  view of the legal position enumerated above,  it  is true  that  the claim of the existing  Sales-tax  Inspectors that  the period between the dates of their appointment  and confirmation should be counted seems to be justified but  it is  equally  true that the claim of the  absorbed  Sales-tax Inspectors that the period during which they worked in their parent  Department should also be taken into  account,  does not  obviously  appear  to be off the mark.  If  the  period between  the dates or’ appointment and confirmation  of  the existing  Sales-tax Inspectors was counted for fixing  their seniority but the period during which the 166 absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors worked in their parent Depart- ment  was  ignored,  the former would  have  obviously  been placed  on  a  more advantageous position but  only  to  the prejudice of the latter as it would have amounted to  sacri-

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

ficing  their interest. If, on the other hand,  the  periods referred  to  above in case of both the  sets  of  Sales-tax Inspectors was taken into account, it would have resulted in granting benefit of the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors at the cost of the existing ones and presumably including those who had  already been promoted as Assistant Sales-tax  Officers, even  prior to 22nd May 1967, inasmuch as the period  during which  they had served in their parent Department  was  much longer  than  the  period of  officiation  of  the  existing Sales-tax Inspectors. This was the situation with which  the State  Government  was faced and it was its duty  to  evolve some  policy or equitable formula which did justice, as  far as  possible,  to the competing claims of both the  sets  of Sales-tax Inspectors. It was apparently in search of such  a formula  that  the State Government appears  to  have  given retrospective confirmation to the absorbed Sales-tax Inspec- tors  from a presumed date and determined the  seniority  on the basis of the dates of confirmation. This section can  be justified even on the well recognised principle referred  to above of giving weightage in the matter of determination  of seniority.  The  principle formulated in the  case  of  R.S. Makashi (supra) with reference to a rule of seniority namely that  "the Courts will only insist that the rules so  formu- lated  should  be reasonable, just and equitable"  with  the result that if they meet this requirement the Court will not interfere,  would  in our opinion apply even to  a  case  of executive action of determining seniority if the above  test is  satisfied.  It  is also relevant to point  out  that  no statutory rule has been brought to our notice which may  run counter to the decision mentioned above taken by the govern- ment. The two rules to which our attention has been  invited are (i) Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules 1961 and (ii) Madhya Pradesh Sales-taX Subor- dinate Class III Executive Service Recruitment Rules,  1966. In  so  far  as the 1966 Rules are concerned,  they  do  not contain  any provision about seniority. The 1961  Rules,  no doubt,  deal  with  seniority in Rule  12  but  having  gone through the said Rule we are of the opinion that the case of the absorbed Sales-tax Inspectors does not fail under any of the categories enumerated therein.     At  this place, we may mention that nothing  substantial has been brought to our notice by either party on’ the basis of which it could safely be said that on the peculiar  facts and  circumstances of this case already referred  to  above, the  decision  of the State Government did not  satisfy  the above said test and was either arbitrary or discriminatory. 167     In  this view of the matter. we are of the opinion  that it was not a fit case for interference by the High Court  in exercise  to its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the  Con- stitution  of India with the decision of the  State  Govern- ment.     In  the  result, these civil appeals  are  allowed,  the common judgment of the High Court in the two writ  petitions referred to above set aside and both the said writ petitions are  dismissed. In the circumstances of the  case,  however, the parties shall bear their costs in this Court as well  as in the High Court. P.S.S.                                               Appeals allowed. 168