REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1500-1504 of 2008)

R. Jayarama & Ors.                             .... Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Kerala & Ors.             .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  Leave granted.

2)  These appeals are directed against the common final  

judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Kerala  

at  Ernakulam in  O.P.  No.  5818  of  2002  and  O.P.  No.  

31240 of 2001 dated 29.08.2006 and in R.P. Nos. 1163,  

1164 and 1165 of  2006 dated  07.02.2007 whereby  the  

High  Court  dismissed  all  the  petitions  filed  by  the  

appellants herein.   

1

3) Brief facts:

(a) By  Government  Order  dated  18.11.1974,  the  

Government of Kerala prescribed that 50% of the posts of  

Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve will be filled  

up by direct recruitment as in the case of Sub Inspectors  

of the Local Police.  The appellants are the Sub Inspectors  

of Police in the District Armed Reserve.  A notification for  

appointment  to  the  post  of  Sub Inspectors  of  Police  by  

direct  recruitment  in  the  District  Armed  Reserve  was  

issued  by  the  Public  Service  Commission  (hereinafter  

referred to as “PSC”) in the Gazette dated 24.09.1985.   

(b) Pursuant  to  the  said  notification,  the  appellants  

herein applied for the said post.   After the written test,  

physical test and interview, a rank list was prepared for  

direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in  

the District Armed Reserve on 05.06.1990.  The appellants  

were also included in the rank list.  At the time, when the  

said rank list came into force, except special recruits, no  

2

one was appointed by direct recruitment for the post of  

Sub Inspector in the District Armed Reserve as prescribed  

in the notification dated 24.09.1985 issued by the PSC.

(c) On  05.06.1990,  there  were  207  posts  of  Sub  

Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve.  Out of the said  

posts, 11 posts were occupied by persons appointed under  

Rule  17A of  the  Kerala  State  and Subordinate  Services  

Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “KS & SSR”) from  

among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  The  

remaining 196 posts were occupied by the promotees from  

the feeder category.  The promotees occupied the posts in  

excess  of  the  ratio  purely  on  a  provisional  basis.   On  

09.08.1990, after the rank list  came into force,  only 40  

persons from that list were advised for appointment since  

only 40 vacancies were reported to the PSC at that time.   

(d) Since the rank holders were not advised by the PSC,  

the  candidates  including  the  appellants  filed  O.P.  No.  

2062 of 1991 and similar other petitions before the High  

3

Court for directing the authority to report the vacancies  

and  also  to  direct  the  PSC  to  advice  for  the  vacancies  

available in the direct recruitment quota.  On 30.05.1991,  

the High Court passed an interim order in CMP No. 3685  

of  1991  in  O.P.  No.  2062  of  1991  directing  the  first  

respondent therein to report all the vacancies available to  

the PSC before 03.06.1991.  In the counter affidavit dated  

25.09.1990,  filed  in  O.P.  No.  8188  of  1990,  the  

Government  had  stated  that  there  were  207  posts  and  

only  11  posts  were  occupied  by  directly  recruited  Sub  

Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve.   

(e) On the basis of the interim order, instead of reporting  

58 vacancies only 20 vacancies were reported to the PSC  

and they were advised on 26.02.1992.  There were 207  

sanctioned posts of reserved Sub Inspectors in the District  

Armed Reserve and 50% has to be given to direct recruits  

and  only  after  giving  appointment  to  them,  promotees  

could put forward any claim which was made clear by the  

4

Director  General  of  Police,  Police  Headquarters,  

Thiruvananthapuram  to  the  Deputy  Inspector  General,  

Northern  Range,  Calicut,  by  communication  dated  

14.01.1992.   

(f) Since  on  the  basis  of  the  interim  order  dated  

30.05.1991, passed by the High Court in C.M.P. No. 3685  

of  1991  in  O.P.  No.  2062  of  1991,  the  vacancies  

legitimately available to direct recruits were not reported  

to the PSC, another petition being C.M.P.  No.  11446 of  

1992  was  filed  for  reporting  more  vacancies  for  

appointment by direct recruitment from the rank list.  In  

the said petition, on 29.06.1992, the High Court issued an  

order to report 28 vacancies to the PSC for being advised.  

Thereafter, the High Court issued an order on 27.11.1992  

in the same petition to advise 28 persons including the  

appellants from rank list to 28 vacancies reported to the  

PSC.  In that petition, it was made clear that the advise  

given on the basis of the order, will be provisional and the  

5

candidates  advised  would  be  entitled  to  get  regular  

appointment  only  if  it  was  ultimately  found  that  the  

vacancies  for  which  advise  was  made  arose  during  the  

currency of the rank list.    

(g) Though 40 persons were advised on 09.08.1990,  6  

persons  did  not  join  duty.   For  the  6  non-joining  duty  

vacancies,  candidates  were  advised  on  05.03.1991.  

Thereafter, for 20 vacancies reported on the basis of the  

interim  order,  20  candidates  from  the  rank  list  were  

advised on 04.01.1993.  Among the 28 candidates advised  

on the basis of the order issued by the High Court, one  

non-joining duty vacancy arose.   For that vacancy, one  

more  candidate  was  advised  from  the  rank  list  on  

03.03.1993.  Under the first proviso to Rule 13 of the PSC  

Rules of Procedure,  the validity  of  the rank list  was till  

15.04.1993.  Since under the said proviso, in cases, where  

candidates  were  included  in  the  rank  list  was  for  

admission  to  Training  Course  that  leads  to  automatic  

6

appointment, the validity of the rank list shall be one year  

from the date of finalization of the rank list or after one  

month from the date of commencement of the course in  

respect of  the last  batch selected from the list  within a  

period of one year from the date of finalization of the rank  

list, whichever is later.  The appellants were advised for  

vacancies  available  for  direct  recruits  even  at  the  time  

when the rank list came into force on 05.06.1990.  It is  

the claim of the appellants that on the basis of Ex. P-9,  

interim order passed by the High Court, the advice given  

to them has to be treated as regular.  However, O.P. No.  

2062  of  1991  and  other  connected  petitions  were  

dismissed  by  the  High  Court  by  judgment  dated  

20.07.1995 relying on the judgment in O.P. No. 5676 of  

1988.   

(h) After  the  advise  of  the  appellants,  by  order  dated  

26.12.1995,  a  provisional  seniority  list  of  reserved  Sub  

Inspectors,  as  on  01.01.1991,  was  published  by  the  

7

Inspector General of Police (Admn.) in the District Armed  

Reserve.   Since  the  case  of  28  persons  including  the  

appellants who were advised on 04.01.1993 were not dealt  

with  in  a  just  and  equitable  manner,  the  Government  

having  realized  that  28  vacancies  for  which  direct  

recruitment  should  have  been  made  existed  during  the  

currency  of  rank  list,  issued  Government  Order  dated  

17.06.1999 invoking the power under Rule 39 of the KS &  

SSR for  continuing 28 persons in  service  based on the  

advise given by the PSC.   

(i) In the seniority list, the names of only 111 persons  

were  included  whereas,  at  that  time,  there  were  207  

vacancies of Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve  

filled up on provisional basis and by direct recruitment.  

While  in  the  seniority  list,  only  34  persons,  who  were  

directly  recruited  were  included,  all  the  provisional  

promotees were not  included in the seniority  list.   It  is  

8

because  of  this  reason,  the  list  contained  only  111  

persons instead of 207 persons.   

(j) On 01.08.2001, a final seniority list of reserved Sub  

Inspectors as on 01.01.1996 was prepared and published  

by  the  Director  General  of  Police,  Police  Headquarters,  

Thiruvananthapuram in the District Armed Reserve.  It is  

the  claim  of  the  appellants  that  in  the  order  dated  

01.08.2001, if  the facts stated in the communication of  

Director  General  of  Police  was  correctly  followed,  direct  

recruits  should  have  been  placed  above  the  promotees.  

Hence,  all  the  direct  recruits  including  the  6  persons  

advised in the non-joining duty vacancies on 05.03.1991,  

20 persons advised on 26.02.1992 and 28 persons advised  

on  04.01.1993  should  have  been  shown  consecutively  

from S.No.1 onwards in the seniority list.  It is highlighted  

that when that is done, necessarily the appellants will be  

placed above all the provisional promotees shown in the  

seniority list.  

9

(k) Some of the promotees filed O.P. No. 31240 of 2001  

before  the  High  Court  on  15.10.2001  challenging  the  

seniority  list  and  sought  for  a  direction  to  exclude  29  

persons  including  the  appellants  who  got  retention  

through the order dated 17.06.1999 from the seniority list  

and promote them from reserve Sub Inspectors to reserve  

Inspectors.  One of the appellants, namely, Mr. A.A. Jolly,  

who was not a party in O.P. Nos. 4352, 9024 and 2062 of  

1991 which  were  disposed of  by  the  High  Court  by  its  

judgment dated 20.07.1995 filed Writ Appeal Nos. 2191,  

2189 and 2190 of 2002 before the High Court seeking a  

declaration that he was validly advised and appointed as  

Sub  Inspector  in  the  District  Armed  Reserve  for  direct  

recruitment from the rank list which came into force on  

05.06.1990 and based on that list he is entitled to get all  

consequential benefits.

(l) The third respondent herein, namely, Mr. P.B. Suresh  

Kumar,  was  appointed  as  Assistant  Sub  Inspector  by  

10

direct  recruitment  in  1989.   He  continued as  Assistant  

Sub  Inspector  till  1995  and  was  promoted  as  Sub  

Inspector  of  Police  only  in  1995.   While  the  appellants  

were working as Sub Inspectors,  he was working under  

them as Assistant Sub Inspector but he was placed above  

the appellants and shown at S.No. 17 in the seniority list.  

At the same time, the appellants are shown at S.Nos. 45,  

47,  49,  51,  59,  61  and  67  respectively.   The  3rd  

respondent, who is to be placed below the appellants and  

who was, in fact, promoted as Sub Inspector long after the  

advise of the appellants as Sub Inspectors is placed above  

them violating the 50:50 ratio for direct recruitment and  

promotion.  Similarly,  a number of promotees were also  

placed  above  the  appellants  violating  the  service  rules.  

Therefore,  the  appellants  filed  O.P.  No.  5818  of  2002  

seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 &  

2,  namely,  the  State  of  Kerala  and  Director  General  of  

Police,  Police  Headquarters,  to  give  seniority  to  direct  

11

recruits  including  themselves  based  on  the  advise  and  

appointment  made  from  Ex.  P-2,  rank  list  dated  

05.06.1990,  by  pushing  down  the  promotees  including  

respondent No.3 herein below the appellants working out  

the  ratio  prescribed  in  the  Government  Order  dated  

18.11.1974.   The  appellants  also  sought  a  writ  of  

mandamus declaring  that  they  were  entitled  to  be  

assigned  in  the  seniority  list  of  Sub  Inspectors  strictly  

working  out  the  ratio  of  50:50  for  direct  recruits  and  

promotees as prescribed in the said Government Order.   

(m) By  a  common  order  dated  29.08.2006,  the  High  

Court disposed of Writ Appeal Nos. 2189, 2190 and 2191  

of 2002 and O.P. Nos. 3596 of 1999, 31240 of 2001 and  

5818 of 2002.  However, the High Court dismissed all the  

writ appeals and O.P. No.3596 of 1999 and allowed O.P.  

No. 5818 of 2002 to the extent holding that the seniority  

of  respondent  No.3  above  the  appellants  is  illegal  and  

partly  allowed O.P.  No.  31240 of  2001 holding that the  

12

order  dated  17.06.1999 retaining  the  persons  including  

the appellants in service cannot operate retrospectively to  

adversely affect the seniority of persons, who were already  

promoted before  the  date  of  its  issue.   The High Court  

further held that it can at best take effect only from the  

date  of  its  issue  to  save  their  appointments  and,  

consequently, such persons except the 7 persons advised  

earlier can take seniority only from the date of the order  

i.e. 17.06.1999.   

(n) Against  the dismissal  of  the writ  appeals,  Mr.  A.A.  

Jolly  filed  Review Petition  Nos.1163,  1164 and 1165 of  

2006 before the High Court.  By a common order dated  

07.02.2007,  the  High  Court  dismissed  all  the  review  

petitions holding that even if there is a wrong finding, the  

remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal.  

(o)  In those circumstances, the above appeals by way of  

special  leave  petitions  have  been  preferred  by  the  

appellants herein.  

13

(4) Heard Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel  

for the appellants, Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned senior counsel  

for the promotees and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior  

counsel for the State of Kerala.

(5) Questions for consideration:

The  questions  which  arise  for  consideration  in  these  

appeals are:

(i) Whether  the  High  Court  committed  an  error  in  

holding that the seniority of the appellants will take effect  

from the date  of  the  Government  Order  i.e.  17.06.1999  

and in not calculating the seniority of the appellants from  

the date of their advise by the PSC?

(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting the  

seniority  of  the  appellants  by  partly  allowing  O.P.  No.  

31240  of  2001  without  considering  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case in a perspective manner?  

14

(6) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  all  the  appellants  were  

appointed as Reserve Sub Inspectors in the District Armed  

Reserve of the Kerala Police as per the advise of the Kerala  

State  Public  Service  Commission  and  commenced  their  

training on 15.03.1993.  They are now working as Reserve  

Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve.  As per G.O.(MS)  

No. 171/74/Home dated 18.11.1974, 50% of the posts of  

Sub Inspectors in the District Armed Reserve (Reserve Sub  

Inspectors) will have to be filled up by direct recruitment.  

The  Kerala  State  Public  Service  Commission  invited  

applications  for  the  direct  recruitment  of  Reserve  Sub  

Inspectors  vide  Notification  dated  24.09.1985  and  the  

rank list came into force with effect from 05.06.1990.  The  

particulars  furnished  show  that  from  the  list  40  

candidates were advised on 09.08.1990 and out of which  

6 candidates did not join and hence 6 other candidates  

were  advised  on  05.03.1991.   Subsequently,  20  

15

candidates were advised on 26.02.1992.  In the meantime,  

11 candidates in the rank list filed O.P. No. 2062 of 1991  

before the High Court and the High Court by order dated  

29.06.1992  directed  the  Director  General  of  Police  to  

report 28 vacancies to the PSC and issued another interim  

order on 27.11.1992 to the PSC to advise candidates for  

the  28 vacancies.   Accordingly,  the  Kerala  State  Public  

Service Commission advised 28 candidates on 04.01.1993  

and one candidate on 03.03.1993 against one among the  

28 who did not join.  Training of the candidates advised on  

26.02.1992,  04.01.1993 and 03.03.1993 commenced on  

15.03.1993 and completed on 15.12.1993.   

7) It  is  also  not  in  dispute  that  the  High  Court  

ultimately  dismissed  O.P.  No.  2062  of  1991  and  other  

related petitions on 20.07.1995.  In view of the same, the  

Secretary,  Kerala Public  Service Commission by a letter  

dated  09.11.1995,  informed  the  Government  for  

discharging  the  candidates  advised  on  04.01.1993  and  

16

03.03.1993.   The  Government,  vide  G.O.(Rt)  No.  

3241/99/Home dated 17.06.1999, issued orders to retain  

them in service  by invoking Rule  39 of  the  KS & SSR,  

1958.   Accordingly,  they  were  assigned  seniority  as  

Reserve  Sub  Inspectors  with  effect  from  their  date  of  

advise and included their names in the finalized seniority  

list of Reserve Sub Inspectors as on 01.01.1996.  However,  

some of the promotees filed O.P. No. 5818 of 2002 before  

the  High  Court  with  a  prayer  to  revise  the  seniority  

assigned to the directly recruited Assistant Sub Inspector  

promoted as Reserve Sub Inspector before completing five  

years of service.  O.P. No. 31240 of 2001 was filed against  

the  seniority  given  to  directly  recruited  Reserve  Sub  

Inspectors alleging that they were appointed in excess of  

the 50 % quota for direct recruits.  It is further seen that  

in  the  common  judgment  dated  29.08.2006,  the  High  

Court found that only 7 candidates against the candidates  

advised  and  appointed  as  per  the  interim orders  dated  

17

29.06.1992  and  27.11.1992  (candidates  advised  on  

04.01.1993 and 03.03.1993) are to be placed in the 50%  

quota for direct  recruits and the remaining persons are  

eligible for seniority with effect from 17.06.1999, i.e., the  

date of the Government order.   

8) Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the  

appellants, by drawing our attention to the decision of this  

Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Sri  

D.  Janardhana  Rao  &  Anr.,  (1976)  4  SCC  226,  

submitted that having exercised the power under Rule 39  

of  KS & SSR, in  the  interest  of  justice  and equity,  the  

relevant date for the appellants to retain them in service is  

as on the date of advise i.e. 04.01.1993 and not the date  

of the Government Order, i.e. 17.06.1999.   No doubt, in  

that decision, it was held that the power under Rule 47 of  

the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules (which is  

similar to Rule 39 of the KS & SS Rules) is to be exercised  

in the interest of justice and equity and it was further held  

18

that the occasion for acting under Rule 47 may well arise  

after the attention of the Government is drawn to a case  

where there is a failure of justice.  It is further held that in  

such cases,  justice  can be  done  only  by  exercising  the  

power under rule 47 with retrospective effect,  otherwise  

the  object  and  purpose  of  the  rule  will  be  largely  

frustrated.  Considering the admitted factual position, the  

appellants  were  appointed  on 04.01.1993 based  on the  

interim order  passed by  the  High  Court  and ultimately  

their petitions came to be dismissed and in view of the  

peculiar  position  and  by  showing  sympathetic  attitude,  

the Government exercising power under Rule 39, passed a  

Government  Order  dated  17.06.1999,  to  retain  them in  

the  service.   Hence,  the  decision  relied  on  by  Mr.  R.  

Venkataramani is not helpful to the cases on hand.

9) By basing reliance on the judgment of this Court in  

Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana &  

Ors.,  (2008)  7  SCC 728,  Mr.  Venkataramani  submitted  

19

that  the  appellants,  who  were  selected  against  earlier  

vacancies but could not be appointed along with others of  

the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when  

appointed  subsequently,  will  have  to  be  placed  above  

those  who  were  appointed  against  the  subsequent  

vacancies.    The said claim is also liable to be rejected  

since it is settled law that selection by the PSC is merely  

recommendatory  and  does  not  imply  automatic  

appointment and that the appointing authorities should  

not  give  notional  seniority  without  valid  reason,  from a  

retrospective  date,  which  would  affect  the  seniority  of  

those who have already entered into service.   

10) In  Surinder Singh & Ors.  vs. State of Punjab &  

Anr., (1997) 8 SCC 488, this Court, in categorical terms,  

held  that  it  is  improper  exercise  of  power  to  make  

appointments over and above those advertised.  The Court  

further  held  that  it  is  only  in  rare  and  exceptional  

circumstances and in emergent situations that this rule  

20

can be deviated from.  It was further held that before any  

advertisement is issued, it would be incumbent upon the  

authorities to take into account the existing vacancies and  

anticipated vacancies.  It was clarified that it is not as a  

matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts  

than advertised even if the vacancies had not been worked  

out  properly.   The  same view has  been reiterated  by  a  

Bench of three Judges in a subsequent decision in Rakhi  

Ray & Ors.  vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.,  (2010) 2  

SCC 637.

11) As  mentioned  earlier,  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  

advise was made on 04.01.1993 by the Government to the  

PSC on  the  basis  of  interim  order  passed  by  the  High  

Court.  Based on the said interim direction, the claim of  

the appellants was duly considered.  Further, it is not in  

dispute  that  ultimately  their  writ  petitions  came  to  be  

dismissed  on  20.07.1995.   In  such  circumstances,  as  

rightly  pointed  out  by  Mr.  C.S.  Rajan,  learned  senior  

21

counsel for the promotees that after dismissal of the main  

petition,  interim  order  also  gets  vacated  and  the  

appellants cannot claim any benefit based on the interim  

order dated 04.01.1993.  In this regard, it is useful to refer  

the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  (i)  Employees’  State  

Insurance Corpn. vs. All India ITDC Employees’ Union  

&  Ors.,  (2006)  4  SCC  257  (ii)  Amarjeet  Singh  and  

Others vs.  Devi Ratan and Others,  (2010)  1 SCC 417  

and  (iii)  K.  Thulaseedharan  vs. Kerala  State  Public  

Service Commission, Trivandrum & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC  

190.  In the first two decisions, it was held that once the  

main  writ  petition  is  dismissed,  all  the  interim  orders  

granted earlier gets merged with the final order.  In other  

words,  if  the  writ  petition  is  dismissed,  interim  order  

stands nullified automatically.  In the third decision, this  

Court has held that once the rank list expired, the PSC  

has no power to extend the validity of that list.  This Court  

has reiterated that the PSC, being a constitutional body,  

22

must act in accordance with law and cannot issue order  

or notification extending the term of a dead list for which  

it has no authority.   

12) Mr.  Jaideep  Gupta,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

State of Kerala has also clarified that 40 vacancies had  

already  been  reported  to  the  PSC  and  the  candidates  

advised  against  those  vacancies  started  training  on  

15.02.1991.   Based  on  the  interim  order,  7  vacancies  

alone  could  have  been  reported  and  those  candidates  

alone would have been advised and appointed going by the  

quota  rule  worked  out  as  on  the  date  of  direct  

recruitment.

13) According to the appellants, the main basis of their  

claim  is  that  the  rank  list  remained  in  force  till  

15.04.1993  and  the  appellants  were  advised  for  

appointment on 04.01.1993 when the rank list was alive.  

In other words, according to them, the rank list was alive  

when the appellants were advised by the PSC.  Therefore,  

23

according to the appellants, the advice and appointment  

were validly made and the appellants are entitled to have  

their  advice  and  appointment  treated  as  regular.   It  is  

their claim that based on the advice and appointment of  

the appellants, they are entitled to have the seniority and  

all consequential benefits from the date of their advise i.e.  

on 04.01.1993 and not from the date of the Government  

Order  i.e.  17.06.1999 as  held  by the  High Court.   The  

above claim of the appellants cannot be sustained since  

the direct recruits did not have any right whatever to the  

seniority in respect of 40 posts.  Only 27 vacancies were  

initially  reported.   If  27  posts  are  reckoned,  direct  

recruitment  should  have  been  confined  to  50%  of  the  

notified  vacancies.   The  specific  documentary  evidence  

which  is  a  letter  dated  22.08.1984  of  the  Home  

Department  which  clearly  shows  the  number  of  posts  

mentioned is 187.  The 50% quota in favour of the direct  

recruits will come to 93.  From the records, it is seen that  

24

the  factual  position  was  that  119  promotees  were  

functioning  as  Sub  Inspectors.   The  number  of  direct  

recruits  comes  to  41.   The  special  recruitment  for  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes took in 11 posts.  

The  quota  has  to  be  worked  after  deducting  the  

aforementioned  11  posts.   As  per  the  Division  Bench,  

though  the  appellants  had  claimed  that  all  the  posts  

should be reckoned for working of the ratio, if  11 posts  

earmarked for  special  recruits  is  deducted,  the  balance  

will work out to 176.  Consequently, 50% posts due for  

direct recruits will come to 176 X ½ i.e. 88.  There were  

already  41  direct  recruits  occupying  the  post.  

Consequently,  the  further  posts  available  for  direct  

recruits were 47 posts i.e. 88-41=47.  On the basis of this  

simple  arithmetic  work  out  the  ratio  and  number  of  

vacancies reckoned on the basis of official communication  

of the Home Department, the Division Bench found that  

only 40 persons from the rank list prepared by the PSC  

25

could be accommodated in the available quota.  7 posts  

lay outside their allotment entitlements.  The seniority had  

to be reckoned on the basis of such actual availability of  

post.  In fact, to avert the discharge of the appellants, the  

Government brought an order safeguarding their interest  

and  the  same  was  upheld  by  the  Division  Bench  by  

retaining the services of the appellant w.e.f. 17.06.1999.  

14) In view of the above factual position and in terms of  

the rules, as rightly observed by the High Court, the first 7  

candidates  advised  after  the  interim  order  dated  

30.05.1991  alone  were  thus  legally  eligible  for  the  

vacancies  against  the  50% quota  of  direct  recruitment.  

Others, in excess of that 7, are not so eligible as per law.  

If  the  appellants  are  accommodated,  necessarily,  it  will  

adversely affect the rights of the promotees to occupy their  

eligible quota as per the method of appointment.   

15) As  observed  by  the  High  Court,  inasmuch  as  the  

exemption and relaxation was ordered by the Government  

26

without giving any opportunity to anyone, particularly, the  

promotees,  at  best,  the  Government  order  operates  

prospectively  and if  it  is  to  be applied retrospectively  it  

would adversely affect the seniority of persons who were  

already promoted before the date of issue.   

Conclusion:

16) Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the  

High Court has considered all aspects in accordance with  

the Rules applicable and we are in entire agreement with  

the  said  conclusion,  consequently  the  claim  of  the  

appellants is to be rejected.  Accordingly, all the appeals  

fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 29, 2010.    

27