http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PRAHALLAD BARAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 3, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr.Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati B.A.Mohanty, Sr.Adv., Ms.Kirti Mishra, Adv. with him for the appellant A.K. Panda, P.N. Misra, Advs. for the Respondents                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Live granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on  both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunal,  Bhubaneswar, made  on February 8, 1996 in Application No.6/91.      The respondents-employees  were appointed  to the posts of L.D.C  in 1970-71.  The appellant  was later appointed in 1972-73. The  question of  their inter se seniority had come up before  the Government. The Government in its order dated February  4,   1971  prescribed   the  minimum   educational qualification, viz.,  intermediate, for  recruitment to  the post of  L.D.C in  the district and subordinate offices. The contesting respondents-employees are only Matriculates while the appellant  has Intermediate  educational qualifications. On  the  basis  of  their  educational  qualifications,  the Government have  issued instructions  for fixation  of their inter se seniority as under:      "(a) All  L.S.   Clerks  who   have      passed   Matriculation    or    any      equivalent  examination   shall  be      deemed   to    have   validly   and      regularly recruited  and  appointed      as  such  and  they  shall  not  be      required to  pass  the  Recruitment      Examination    or    any    special      qualifying  test  in  lieu  thereof      prescribed by Government.      (b)  The  seniority   of  the  L.D.      Clerks  under  category  (a)  above      shall be  fixed taking into account      their services  from  the  date  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    appointment as  L.D. Clerks  but in      the gradation  list of  L.D. Clerks      they shall  rank immediately  below      the L.D.  Clerks  recruited  during      the  same  year  with  the  minimum      educational           qualification      prescribed by Government in Finance      Department Resolution  No.3968F dt.      4.2.71. According  to  the  revised      gradation list  to be  prepared  as      above,  they   may   be   confirmed      against    permanent    posts    if      available, provided they fulfil all      other  conditions   necessary   for      confirmation.      (c)  Refixation  of   seniority  of      these clerks  as mentioned  in  (b)      above shall not entitle them to any      promotional                benefits      retrospectively.      (d)  The L.D. Clerks so regularised      will be  entitled to draw their pay      as per  the principles laid down in      Finance    Department    Resolution      No.3968F  dt.   4.2.71  read   with      Finance    Department    Resolution      No.90F. dt. 2.1.73 from the date of      their appointment to such posts."      A reading of it would clearly indicate that all L.D.Cs. who have  passed Matriculation or any equivalent examination shall be deemed to have been validly and regularly recruited to  pass   the  Recruitment   Examination  or   any  special qualifying test.  But in  the matter of preparation of their seniority, it  postulates that  seniority will  be given  to those who have got the minimum educational qualification. In other words,  those possessed of Intermediate qualification, will rank  as senior  to Matriculates. As a consequence, the appellant, though  appointed later,  became  senior  to  the respondents.   the    departmental    Promotion    Committee Constituted for  the purpose  of selection  for promotion to the post  of U.D.C. had considered the appellant’s claim and found him fit. It regularised his services and has given him the  promotion   as  he   was  senior  to  the  respondents. Subsequently,  when  the  respondents’  claim  came  up  for consideration, the  D.P.C. recommended  for demotion  of the appellant and confirmation of the respondents, Consequently, in the gradation list, the respondents were placed above the appellant.  On   appeal,  Government   reversed  it.   As  a consequence, the  respondents approached  the Tribunal.  The Tribunal in the impugned order has held thus:      "Petitioners who  were  regularised      in service  by  Govt.  order  dated      21.10.81  in  which  all  the  L.D.      Clerks who had passed Matriculation      or  equivalent   examination   were      deemed to  have  been  validly  and      regularly recruited  and  appointed      as such  and they were not required      to pass the recruitment examination      or any  special qualifying  test in      lieu    Thereof    prescribed    by      Government. Opposite Parties 4 to 6      who came to be appointed much later      than the  petitioners were promoted      without prejudice  to the claims of

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

    their seniors  (Petitioners) to the      rank of  U.D.  Clerk  in  the  year      1980, 1981  to  the  post  of  U.D.      Clerk. On  their promotion  as  per      the conditions,  Opposite Parties 4      to 6  were reverted  to the post of      U.D. Clerk  in the  year 1981. From      1981 till this litigation was filed      in the  year 1991  petitioners  are      continuing uninterruptedly  in  the      promotional post  of U.D. Clerk and      Opposite  Parties   4  to   6   are      continuing  as  L.D.  Clerks.  None      years after  in the year 1990 under      the impugned  order U.D. Clerks was      ordered to  be set  aside.  Was  it      justified? Even  on the ground that      the representation  of the Opposite      Parties was disposed of in the year      1990."      The appellant  was regularised in service by Government Order dated  8.10.1981.  All  the  L.D.Cs.  who  had  passed Matriculation or  equivalent examination were deemed to have been validly  and regularly recruited and appointed as such. They were  not required  to entitle  to pass the Recruitment Examination  or   any  qualifying   test  in   lien  thereof prescribed by  the Government.  On that basis, the direction was given in paragraph 13 which reads as under:      "In the  premise  for  the  reasons      stated above  and discussions made,      the orders  at Annexures-9  and  10      are    unsustainable    and    are,      therefore, liable  to be set aside,      which   are   hereby   set   aside.      Petitioners shall  continue in  the      promotional   post    without   any      disturbance in the seniority list."      This  direction  is  obviously  inconsistent  with  the orders issued  by the  Government as  indicated above. Since the respondent-employees did not possess minimum educational qualification, viz.,  Intermediate, they are not entitled to rank senior to the qualified appellant. Thus, the contesting respondents 4  and 5  in this  appeal shall be junior to the appellant.      However, their  continuance in the respective posts for promotion may  not be  disturbed since  all the parties have been  further   promoted  in  which  posts  their  inter  se seniority would  be the  appellant is  senior  to  them  for further promotions.      The  appeal   is  accordingly   allowed.  But   in  the circumstances without costs.