http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND V. RANGA RAOAND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. RANGANATHAN AND ORS. AND THE STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH AND O

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1990

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (3) 912        1990 SCC  (4) 636  1990 SCALE  (2)315

ACT:     Civil  Services:  Andhra Pradesh State  and  Subordinate Service  Rules--Rule  22(ii)(c)--Deletion  of--Junior  Engi- neers--Transferred    to    Electricity     Board--Seniority List--Revised  by Government--Validity of--G.O.Ms. No.  1166 dated 7. 11. 1973--Interpretation of.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants and the respondents who were  originally appointed  as Junior Engineers in the Andhra  Pradesh  Elec- tricity  Subordinate Service, were subsequently  transferred along  with other Junior Engineers to the State  Electricity Board  with  effect  from October 1, 1973 on  the  basis  of options exercised by them to join the Board. in response  to G.O.Ms. No. 1651 dated 28.12.1972. The terms and  conditions of  transfer  were  stipulated in  G.O.Ms.  No.  1166  dated 7.11.1973.     On  the  date  of transfer, the seniority  list  of  the Junior Engineers had not been finalised. However a seniority list prepared by the State Public Service Commission, taking into  account the deletion of rule 22(ii)(c) of  the  Andhra Pradesh  State  and  Subordinate  Rules  with  retrospective effect  from  April 1, 1964, had been circulated  among  the concerned Junior Engineers for objections, if any, and  most of  them.  including the petitioners  and  respondents,  had submitted their objections before October 1, 1973.     After the transfers were effected, the State Electricity Board  prepared a revised seniority list but the High  Court struck  down  the same on the ground that the Board  had  no power  to alter the seniority of the transferred  employees, whose  seniority  was fixed by the Government.  However,  it observed that if the Government had retained any power under the  transfer  order it would be at liberty  to  revise  the seniority list.     In  view of the aforesaid observations,  the  Government issued  show  cause notices once again to  all  the  persons belonging to backward classes (the respondents) for revising the seniority. 913     In  a  writ petition filed by the  respondents  for  re- straining  the  Government from revising  the  seniority,  a Single  judge  of the High Court, upheld the  power  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Government to revise the seniority list. During the pendency of appeal before the Division Bench, the Government issued a final  revised seniority list, vide G.O. No. 233 of May  23, 1981.  Thereafter,  the Division Bench quashed  the  revised seniority  list on the grounds that there was a  declaration in G.O. of November 7, 1973 that the exercise of the  option was final, and since the Government and the Board had  acted upon  the option exercised by the employees and  transferred them  from Government service to the service of  the  Board, they were estopped from revising the seniority and  similar- ly,  the  employees were estopped from claiming  that  their seniority should be revised on any grounds whatsoever,  that since  the  transfers were on "as is" basis  which  included seniority,  the  seniority  could not be  disturbed  on  any ground whatsoever, that the Government had no power to alter the  seniority of the employees after October 1, 1973  since they  had ceased to be Government employees, and  the  power given  under Rule 36A of the Rules to review  the  seniority could  not  be exercised to rectify the  mistake,  and  that merely because the Board had no jurisdiction to disturb  the seniority  so fixed, it did not follow that  the  Government continued to have jurisdiction in respect of those employees who were no more its employees. This decision was challenged in the appeals before this Court. Allowing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  1.1 The Government had reserved the power, as  it had  every  right to do so, to change the seniority  of  the employees  as on October 1, 1973 or prior to that date  when they  were employees of the Government. It had not  reserved the  power, as it could not, to change the seniority of  the employees  after October 1, 1973. Even if it so  willed,  it could not have reserved power to change the seniority of the employees  after October 1, 1973. Conversely the  Government had  always  the power to revise the seniority list  of  the employees as on October 1. 1973 on account of reasons accru- ing  prior to the said date. To do it, it was not  necessary for it to reserve any power, for it had inherent power to do so. [925B; 924H; 925A]     1.2  By  a mere reading of two  Government  Orders,  and particularly,  G.O. No. 1166 it is clear that  seniority  of the  appellants as on October 1, 1973 was liable to  be  re- vised by the Government at any time. Clause (3) of paragraph 6  makes it clear that the names in the Annexure sent  along with the order were not arranged in the order of seniority, 914 and  did not. therefore, confer any right for  seniority  on that basis. This shows that the Government had not finalised the seniority list and the list which was sent to the  Board with  the said order was a provisional one.  The  Government had  to  say  so. because, admittedly, as on  that  day  the seniority  of  the  employees was in a flux  on  account  of various reasons. viz., non-receipt of options of  non-gazet- ted technical staff and pendency of appeals of the  gazetted technical staff, like the appellants and non-technical staff against  the  Common  Gradation Lists prepared  as  per  the recommendations  of  various committees  with  reference  to seniority  position between November 1, 1956 and October  1, 1973,  sequel to reorganisation of the States and  amalgama- tion of different regions in the State. Besides. the Govern- ment could not have ignored the position that as on  October 1,  1973  the dispute with regard to the  seniority  of  the appellants and the respondents was pending in the High Court right from November 1966 when, 10 Junior Engineers including some  of  the  present appellants had  filed  Writ  Petition giving rise to further proceedings. In these  circumstances,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

it cannot be held that whereas the Government reserved power and  could  reserve power to revise the  seniority  list  on account  of the disputes about seniority arising out of  the States re-organisation and/or on account of the  non-receipt of  options of the non-gazetted technical staff  etc.it  did not  or could not reserve such power to meet the  situations arising  out  of the orders of the courts  in  the  disputes pending  between the appellants and the respondents.  There- fore,  even if no such powers were specifically reserved  in the  said Government order, the Government would  have  been obliged  to  revise the seniority list to comply  with  such orders. [923B-H; 924A]     1.3  Since the Government had not sent the list  of  the employees to the Board arranged according to seniority,  the expression  "as  is"  in clause (3) of paragraph  6  of  the Government  Order in the circumstances referred  to  service conditions  other than seniority. Even if the word "etc"  at the  end of clause (4) was construed to exclude the  dispute with  regard to seniority pending in the court,  that  would not  have  exempted the Government from complying  with  the orders of the Court. To hold that the Government by its  own order,  such as the present one, could prevent operation  of the  order of any court is to invite conflict in the  juris- diction  of the executive and the judiciary. Similarly,  the Government could not have forced the employees to accept the term  with regard to the seniority as an immutable  one.  In fact  the  said Government Order did not lay down  any  such term.  Hence,  it  cannot be said that  the  appellants  had accepted the seniority as was forwarded by the Government to the  Board and they were estopped thereafter from  agitating against it. The decision of the Court being the law, no plea of 915 estoppel could be raised against it. [925C-F]     1.4  It  is well-settled that there cannot  be  a  right without a remedy. Law abhors such vacuum. But, there are two periods  with respect to which the power to alter  seniority has to be examined. The first period is upto October 1, 1973 and  the second commences thereafter. In the  first  period, there  was a relationship of employer-employee  between  the Government and the transferred employees. Hence, the Govern- ment  had every right to correct or amend the  seniority  of the employees upto that date. If, therefore, the  Government had  advertently  or inadvertently committed  any  error  in preparing  the seniority list upto October 1, 1973,  or  be- cause  of  the decisions of the courts it had to  amend  the said  seniority list, not only it had power to do so but  it was the only authority which could do it. The seniority list which was corrected by the Government was the seniority list as on or before October 1, 1973. [925H; 926A-B]     In  the  circumstances, the decision of the  High  Court suffers from legal infirmities and has to be set aside.  The revised  seniority list sent by the Government to the  Board with  Government Order No. 233 of May 23, 1981  is  restored and the respondent--Electricity Board is directed to act  on the same. [926C]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  5336  & 5337 of 1983.     From  the  Judgment and Decree dated 15.7. 1982  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 194 of 1981.     P.P. Rao, S. Sitaramayya, K. Parasaran, T.V.S.N.  Chari,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Ms.  B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Manjula Gupta, B.  Parthasarthi,  A. Subba  Rao, A.D.N. Rao and K.R. Choudhary for the  appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SAWANT,  J. These matters have a chequered history.  The appellants  as  well as most of the  contesting  respondents were  appointed  as Junior Engineers in the  Andhra  Pradesh Electricity  Subordinate Service on emergency basis  between 1959 and 1963. While they were in service on April 24, 1963, the  Andhra Pradesh Public Service  Commission  (hereinafter referred  to as the "Commission") invited  applications  for regular  appointment by direct recruitment to 246  posts  of Junior Engineers and on December 21, 1963, the Commis- 916 sion  forwarded a list of selected candidates to  the  State Government.  This list was, however, not arranged  according to  merits  and therefore according to  seniority  inter  se among  the  candidates. On April 15,  1964,  the  Commission forwarded to the Government the list of selected  candidates arranging their names according to merits and seniority  and after  complying  with the reservation  prescribed  by  Rule 22(ii)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate  Serv- ice Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") by  which the  relevant service was governed. On August 11, 1964,  the State Government amended the said Rules by deleting the said Rule 22(ii)(c) with retrospective effect from April 1, 1964. This  amendment was effected to comply with the decision  of this  Court  in M.R. Balaji & Ors. v. State of  Mysore,  AIR 1963  SC 649--[1963] Supp. 1 SCR. In spite of the fact  that the Rules were so amended on August 11, 1964 with retrospec- tive effect, the State Government on April 29, 1965 gazetted the  list of selected candidates as was sent to them by  the Commission  on  April 15, 1964. The result was the  list  as gazetted was in breach of the said Rules. After the  gazette notification,  on April 29, 1965, the Chief Engineer of  the Government appointed all the said candidates to the posts of Junior  Engineers  who included the appellants and  the  re- spondents  and  others according to the order  of  seniority communicated by the Commission. The candidates so  appointed were put on probation for a total period of two years.     2. The seniority as notified in the said list was  chal- lenged  by  a Writ Petition No. 2 146 of 1966  in  the  High Court of Andhra Pradesh in November 1966 by 10 Junior  Engi- neers  belonging to the non-reserved category on the  ground that  the  same was in breach of law since it  was  contrary both  to the said decision of this Court as well as  to  the Rules as they stood amended on August 11, 1964 w.e.f.  April 1, 1965. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said  Writ Petition  on  the assurance of the Government  contained  in their  Memo. No. 3373 E/70 dated July 17, 1970 addressed  to the  Government  Pleader that the seniority  list  would  be revised  in compliance with the amended Rules so far as  the petitioners were concerned. Unfortunately, the learned Judge did  not  appreciate the discrimination to  which  the  said assurance  was to lead, since the assurance related only  to the petitioners before him and had excluded the rest of  the Junior  Engineers similarly situated. The  matter,  however, rested there.      On  December  28, 1972, the State  Government  gave  an option to all the Junior Engineers including the petitioners and the respondents to choose between the government service and a permanent 917 transfer to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board.     4.  Before the transfers could be effected,  it  appears

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

that  there was a correspondence between the Government  and the  Commission for changing the seniority list pursuant  to the  assurance given by the State Government to the  learned Single Judge. The Commission opined that the seniority  list could  not be altered in respect of only 10  petitioners  in the  said Writ Petition and had to be altered in respect  of all  the  candidates selected, to comply  with  the  amended Rules. Accordingly, the Commission on June 27, 1973 sent the corrected  seniority list to the State Government. The  Gov- ernment accepted the said list, and on July 23, 1973 direct- ed its Chief Engineer to circulate the said revised list and to invite objections to the same within a stipulated period. ’Accordingly,  the Chief Engineer by his Memo. dated  August 8,  1973  circulated.the  said seniority  list  and  invited objections from all the concerned Junior Engineers. Most  of them including the respondents submitted their objections by October  1, 1973 on and from which date those of the  Junior Engineers including the petitioners and respondents who  had exercised  their option to join the Electricity Board,  were transferred to the Board.     5.  The Government transferred the Junior Engineers  who had opted for service with the Board by its Order of  Novem- ber  7,  1973 w.e.f. October 1, 1973 as stated  above.  That order  being  G.O.M.  No. 1166  assumes  importance  in  the present  case since the contents of paragraph 6(3) and  6(4) of the said document are relied on by the High Court as well as  both sides in support of their  respective  contentions. The said contents may be reproduced here at the outset: "6(3). The transfer is on ’as-is’ basis and the names in the Annexure are not arranged in the order of seniority on  that basis; 6(4).  On transfer to the Andhra Pradesh  State  Electricity Board, the individuals will carry with them the seniority as it existed under Government as on 1.10.73 without  prejudice of the seniority of the persons referred to in sub-para  (1) above,  who may be transferred to the Board by a  subsequent order of the Government and the seniority with reference  to the position between 1.11.1956 to 1.10.1973 is liable to  be altered by Government at any time with reference to  pending appeals  on Common Gradation Lists or with reference to  the recommendations of High powered 918 Committee,  State Advisory Committee, Central Advisory  Com- mittee etc."     6. On November 5, 1974, the Chief Engineer of the  Elec- tricity Board (to which the petitioners and respondents  had stood  transferred permanently from October 1,  1973)  after considering  the representations against the seniority  list received  from the affected Junior Engineers, issued  a  re- vised seniority list. This seniority list was challenged  by the respondents and others who belonged to backward  classes by  a Writ Petition No. 6084/74 filed in the High  Court  in May  1972. The learned Single Judge who tried the said  writ petition,  by  his order of March 29, 1978 struck  down  the said  list  on  the ground that the Chief  Engineer  of  the Electricity Board had no power to alter the seniority of the transferred employees whose seniority was fixed by the State Government. However, he observed that if the Government  had retained any power under the transfer order and if it was so advised,  the Government would be at liberty to  revise  the seniority list. Aggrieved by the said order the  petitioners on  August 25, 1978 preferred an appeal before the  Division Bench of the High Court dismissed it.     7.  In  view  of the observations made  by  the  learned Single  Judge,  the  Government on August  23,  1979  issued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

show-cause  notices once again to all the persons  belonging to  backward  classes (the respondents) to  show  cause  why their  seniority should not be revised as per the  assurance given by the Government to the High Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 2 146/66. Some of the respondents  replied to  the show-cause notice on November 18, 1979 and  some  of them  filed  a Writ Petition in the High  Court  being  Writ Petition No.2 15 of 1980 on December 7, 1979 for restraining the  Government from revising the seniority pursuant to  the show-cause notice. At the same time, in February 1986,  some of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2 146/66 filed  Writ petition  No.  582/80 before the High Court  for  seeking  a direction to the Government to implement the assurance given by it while disposing of the said Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge by his decision of February 5, 198 1  dismissed the respondents’ petition upholding the power of the Govern- ment  to revise the seniority list, and in view of the  said order  passed in respondents’ writ petition, no orders  were passed in the petitioners’ petition.     8.  Aggrieved  by  the said  decision,  the  respondents preferred  an  appeal  on March 30, 198 1  to  the  Division Bench.  Since  no stay was granted pending the  appeal,  the Government by its order dated May 919 26,  198 1 issued a final revised seniority list after  con- sidering the representations of the persons belonging to the backward  classes including the respondents.  Thereafter  on July 15, 1982, the Division Bench of the High Court  allowed the  appeal of the respondents holding that  the  Government had no power to revise the seniority list. It is this  deci- sion which is under challenge.     9.  On behalf of the respondents some further  connected developments  have  been brought to out notice.  It  appears that along with the appellants and respondents who were  the Degree holders, some Diploma holders were transferred to the Board w.e.f. the same date, namely, October 1, 1973. Some of them  had preferred on April 16, 1980 a Writ Petition  being Writ Petition No. 1657/80 before the High Court for a direc- tion  to the Government to prepare a seniority list  of  As- sistant  Engineers who were appointed from June 15, 1963  in accordance  with the statutory Rules and to communicate  the same to the Board. On April 16, 1982, a learned Single Judge allowed  the said petition upholding the plea that the  said order  No. 1166 dated November, 7, 1973 had given powers  to the  State Government to settle the seniority of the  trans- ferred  employees as on October 1, 1973. This  decision  was upheld  in appeal by a Division Bench of the High  Court  by its decision of March 26, 1987. The Special Leave  Petitions Nos.  8044  and  10783 of 1987 preferred  against  the  said decision  were dismissed by this Court on October  30,  1987 and this Court directed the Board to implement the order  of the High Court subject to any decision which may be rendered by this Court in the present appeals. On August 4, 1989, the State  Government  communicated the seniority  list  of  the Assistant  Engineers to the State Electricity Board and  the Board is acting on the same. The result is that whereas  the petitioners,  namely, the Diploma holders in the  said  Writ Petition  No. 1657/80 are the beneficiaries of  the  revised seniority list, the present appellants are not.     10.  The  High Court has quashed the  revised  seniority list on .three grounds. The first ground is that the employ- ees  having  exercised  their option  under  the  Government Orders Nos. 1651 and 1166 dated December 28, 1972 and Novem- ber 7, 1973 respectively subject to the terms and conditions mentioned  therein, they were estopped from contending  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

the  seniority  which they carried with them as  it  existed under the Government as on October 1, 1973 cannot be contin- ued further and was liable to be disturbed because the  rule of reservation contained in old Rule 22(ii)(c) was  declared by  this Court to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of  the Constitution of India. The High Court 920 further opined that there was a declaration in G.O. No. 1166 of November 7, 1973 which was binding on all the  concerned, viz.,  the Government, the Board as well as  the  employees, that the exercise of the option was final. Since the Govern- ment  and the Board had acted upon the option  exercised  by the  employees and transferred them from Government  service to the service of the Board, they were estopped from  revis- ing the seniority. So also the employees were estopped  from claiming  that  their  seniority should be  revised  on  any grounds  whatsoever.  The second ground given  by  the  High Court  was  that the transfer itself being  subject  to  the terms and conditioned mentioned in the aforesaid  Government Orders which stated that the transfers were on "as is" basis which included seniority, the seniority cannot be  disturbed on  any  ground whatsoever. The High Court  stated  in  this connection  that the employees concerned  were  specifically notified  that the names mentioned in the Annexure were  not arranged  in  the order of seniority and they  were  further notified  that the employees would carry with them the  sen- iority as it existed on October 1, 1973, the only  exception being of those employees who were mentioned specifically  in sub-para (1) of paragraph 6 of G.O. No. 1166. Those  persons were  non-gazatted  technical  staff,  ministerial  and  few others whose options were not received by the Government  on account  of the delay in transit or for other  reasons.  The High  Court negatived the contention that clause 4  of  G.O. No.  1166  which stated that the employees will  carry  with them  their seniority as it existed under the Government  on October 1, 1973 "without prejudiced to the seniority of  the persons referred to in sub-para (1) above who may be  trans- ferred  to the Board by subsequent order of  the  Government the seniority with reference to the position between  Novem- ber 1, 1956 and November 1, 1973 was liable to be altered by Government at any time with reference to pending appeals  on common  gradation list or with reference to the  recommenda- tions  of High Powered Committee (HPC), State Advisory  Com- mittee (SAC), Central Advisory Committee (CAC) etc." includ- ed the cases of employees who had made their representations such  as the present appellants who had initiated  the  pro- ceedings  by Writ Petition No. 2 146 of 1966 and which  pro- ceedings  were  not finally disposed of even by  October  1, 1973. The High Court held that the word "etc." was  confined only to those employees who were affected by the States  Re- organisation  Act or by orders on appeal against the  Common Gradation  Lists or representations made against the  recom- mendations  of the HPC or SAC or CAC which were all  matters referfable to the integration of the services of the  Andhra and Telengana regions consequent upon the re-organisation of the States. That clause also referred, according to the High Court, to the revision of inter se 921 seniority list as on October -1, 1973 of other  non-gazetted technical  staff,  ministerial  and few others  who  may  be subsequently  transferred.  But it did not refer to  any  of those  who  had already been transferred. According  to  the High Court, if that was the intention, the Government  would have  specifically stated so. The last ground given  by  the High Court was that the Government had no power to alter the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

seniority of the employees after October 1, 1973 since  they had ceased to be the Government employees. According to  the High  Court,  the power given to the Government  under  Rule 36-A  of  the  Rules to review the seniority  could  not  be exercised  to  rectify the mistake. According  to  the  High Court,  the question was not whether the  earlier  seniority list was valid but whether it could be revised and if so, by which  authority.  The Government’s power  of  revising  the seniority list was only in respect of those who were Govern- ment  servants on the date of the revision. The  High  Court also held that merely because the Board had no  jurisdiction to  disturb the seniority so fixed, it did not  follow  that the Government continued to have jurisdiction in respect  of those employees who were no more its employees.     11. To appreciate the reasoning of the High Court, it is first necessary to reproduce the relevant portions of  G.Os. Nos. 1651 and 1166 of December 29, 1972 and November 7, 1973 respectively: "G.O. Ms. No. 1651   ....................................................... 3. After carefully examining the matter in the light of  the above, the Government consider that in view of the  transfer of the bulk of the electricity projects to the Board and  in view of the fact that the Board is in charge of  Electricity Supply  and  distribution, it will be appropriate  that  the Board should have direct control over the staff and all  the activities  of  the  Board should be managed  by  the  Board staff.  The Government therefore direct that an  opportunity be given to the Government employees working in  electricity supply  and maintenance etc., to opt for service  under  the Andhra  Pradesh State Electricity Board subject to the  fol- lowing Board subject to the following terms and  conditions. The employees on transfer to the Boards: i.  shall cease to be Government servants and  shall  hence- forth be the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Electric- ity Board. 922 ii. shall be governed by the rules and regulations framed by the  Board  in all matters including matters  pertaining  to promotions and disciplinary action subject however to  (iii) below  and  the Andhra Pradesh Civil  Service  (CC&A)  Rules shall cease to apply to them  ......  " "G.O. Ms. No. 1166   ..................................................... 4.  With  reference to the above orders, the Board  and  the Chief  Engineer have obtained the options from the  officers referred  to  in the Annexure to this order,  and  forwarded them to the Government. 5.  The options exercised by the individuals were  carefully considered by the Government. All the officers mentioned  in the Annexure to this order, have opted to the Board  service in the form prescribed in Annexure I to the G.O. first  read above. 6.  In  view of the options exercised by the  officers,  the Government  have  decided to and  accordingly  transfer  the services of the officers, mentioned in the Annexure to  this G.O.  to the A.P. State Electricity Board with  effect  from 1.10.1973 forenoon on the terms and conditions specified  in paragraph 3 above and also those mentioned hereunder: (1)  Orders in respect of the non-gazetted technical  staff, ministerial  and of few others whose option forms  have  not been  received  by  the Government on account  of  delay  in transit or for other reasons, will issue separately; (2)  .................................................. (3)  The transfer is on "as is" basis and the names  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

Annexure  are not arranged in the order of seniority and  do not therefore confer any right for seniority on that basis; (4)  On  transfer to the Andhra  Pradesh  State  Electricity Board, the individuals will carry with them the seniority as it  existed under Government as on 1.10.1973 without  preju- dice of the seniority of the persons referred to in sub-para (1) above, who may be transferred to the Board by a subse- 923 quent order of the Government and the seniority with  refer- ence  to the position between 1.11.1956 to (sic.)  1.10.1973 is liable to be altered by Government at anytime with refer- ence  to pending appeals on Common Gradation Lists  or  with reference to the recommendations of High Powered  Committee, State   Advisory  Committee,  Central   Advisory   Committee etc.,  ......  "     12. We should have thought that a mere reading of  these two  Government Orders and particularly G.O. No.  1166,  was enough  to  uphold the contention of the  appellants  herein that their seniority as on October 1, 1973 was liable to  be revised  by the Government at any time. This was so  because firstly,  clause (3) of paragraph 6 makes it clear that  the names  in  the Annexure sent along with the order  were  not arranged in the order of seniority, and did not,  therefore, confer any right for seniority on the basis, This shows that the Government had not finalised the seniority list, and the list  which was sent to the Board with the said order was  a provisional one. The Government had to say so because admit- tedly on that day the seniority of the employees was in flux on account of various reasons. In the first place, as stated in  paragraph 1 of the order, the seniority of  non-gazetted technical  staff, ministerial and few others  whose  options were  not received on account of various reasons, could  not have been arranged. As regards the gazetted technical  staff such  as the appellants as well as the  nontechnical  staff, there  were  appeals pending against  the  Common  Gradation Lists  prepared as per the recommendations of the HPC,  SAC, CAC  etc. with reference to the seniority  position  between November  1, 1956 and October 1, 1973. This was a sequel  to the  re-organisation of the States and the  amalgamation  of the different regions in the State. Secondly, the Government could  not have ignored the position that as on  October  1, 1973 the dispute with regard to the seniority of the  appel- lants  and  the respondents herein was pending in  the  High Court  right from November 1966 when, as stated earlier,  10 Junior  Engineers including some of the  present  appellants had  filed  Writ Petition No. 2 146 of 1966 giving  rise  to further  proceedings as narrated hereinabove. In these  cir- cumstances, it will indeed be difficult to hold that whereas the  Government  reserved power and could reserve  power  to revise  the seniority list on account of the disputes  about seniority arising out of the States’ re-organisation  and/or on account of the non-receipt of options of the non-gazetted technical  staff etc. it did not or could not  reserve  such power to meet the situation arising out of the orders of the courts  in the disputes pending between the  appellants  and the  respondents  herein. According to us, even if  no  such powers 924 were specifically reserved in the said Government order, the Government  would have been obliged to revise the  seniority list to comply with such orders.     We  are  further  afraid that the High  Court,  in  this connection, placed too much emphasis on the expression  "the transfer is on as is basis" and did not read into it what in the context of the whole order should have been quite  obvi-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

ous.  Clause  3 of the order itself states  that  the  names mentioned in the Annexure were not arranged in the order  of seniority  and  did  not, therefore, confer  any  right  for seniority on that basis. Clause 4 of the order  specifically stated  that the seniority was liable to be altered  by  the Government at any time with reference to the pending appeals "etc." Even assuming that the Government by the word  "etc." did not intend to refer to the matters pending in court  and only  intended  to refer to the appeals arising out  of  the recommendations  of the concerned committees, it  should  be clear  to any one that whether the Government reserved  such power or not with reference to the cases pending in  courts, the Government would have been under an obligation to revise the  seniority list to comply with such orders. In the  cir- cumstances, the expression "the transfer is on as is  basis" should  have been confined to all service conditions  except the seniority.     We  are  also unable to understand  why  the  Government could  revise the seniority list of some employees who  were no longer its employees after October 1, 1973 merely because it had reserved its powers to do so while it had no power to do  so in respect of the other employees merely  because  it had not reserved such power. If the ground given by the High Court for such lack of power in respect of the latter  class of  employees is correct, viz., that they had ceased  to  be the  Government servants, then for the same reason the  Gov- ernment could not have reserved and even if it had reserved, could not have had the power to change the seniority of  the other  employees since both had ceased to be the  Government employees on and from October 1, 1973. If the lack of  power was on account of the severence of the relationship  between the  Government and the employees, then whether the  Govern- ment  reserved  the power or not, the Government  could  not have had such power. On the other hand, if Government  could exercise  such power merely because it had reserved  it,  it could  exercise  it for any reason whatsoever  and  for  any length of time even when the employees were not the  Govern- ment servants. We are afraid that the Court failed to appre- ciate  that  firstly, even if the Government so  willed,  it could not have reserved power to change the seniority of the employees after October 1, 1973. Conversely, the  Government had 925 always the power to revise the seniority list of the employ- ees  as  on October 1, 1973 on account of  reasons  accruing prior  to the said date. To do it, it was not necessary  for the  Government  to reserve any power, for it  had  inherent power  to do so. What is unfortunately lost sight of by  the Court  is that the Government had no reserved the power,  as it could not, to change the seniority of the employees after October  1, 1973. The Government had reserved the power,  as it had every right to do so, to change the seniority of  the employees  as on October 1, 1973 or prior to that date  when they  were employees of the Government. It is  this  initial wrong assumption which, we are afraid, had led the Court  to the wrong conclusion.     13.  We have pointed out above that the  Government  had not  sent  the list of the employees to the  Board  arranged accordingly  to seniority and the expression "as is" in  the circumstances  referred  to service  conditions  other  than seniority. We have further pointed out that even if the word "etc."  at the end of clause (4) of paragraph 6 of the  said Government  Order was construed to exclude the dispute  with regard  to  seniority pending in the court, that  would  not have exempted the Government from complying with the  orders

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

of  the court. To hold that the Government by its own  order such as the present one could prevent operation of the order of  any court is to invite conflict in the  jurisdiction  of the executive and the judiciary which, we are sure, the High Court did not intend. But the reasoning of the Court  unwit- tingly and directly leads to such unconstitutional  proposi- tion.     14. For the same reasons, the Government could not  have forced  the employees to accept the term with regard to  the seniority as an immutable one. This is a part from the fact, as pointed out above, that in fact the said Government Order did  not  lay down any such term. This being  the  case,  it cannot be said that the appellants had accepted the seniori- ty as was forwarded by the Government to the Board and  they were  estopped thereafter from agitating against it.  It  is unnecessary  to state that the decision of the  court  being the law, no plea of estoppel could be raised against it.     15.  With  respect,  we are also unable  to  accept  the reasoning  of  the High Court that since the  Board  had  no power  to  change the seniority list, it could not  be  said that the Government had the said power. As a first  proposi- tion, it is well-settled that there cannot be a right  with- out  a remedy. Law abhors such vacuum. But, as  pointed  out earlier,  there  are two periods with respect to  which  the power  to  alter  seniority has to be  examined.  The  first period is upto October 1, 1973 926 and  the  second commences thereafter. In the  first  period there  was a relationship of employer-employee  between  the Government and the transferred employees. Hence, the Govern- ment  had ever? right to correct or amend the  seniority  of the employees upto that date. If. therefore. the  Government had  advertently  or inadvertently committed  any  error  in preparing  the seniority list upto October 1, 1973,  or  be- cause  of  the decisions of the courts it had to  amend  the said  seniority list. not only it had power to do so but  it was the only authority which could do it. The seniority list which was corrected by the Government was the seniority list as on or before October 1, 1973.     16.  In the circumstances, we are of the view  that  the decision  of the High Court suffers from  legal  infirmities and has to be set aside. The result is that both the appeals are allowed. The revised seniority list sent by the  Govern- ment  to the Board with Government Order No. 233 of May  26, 198  1 is restored and the respondent-Electricity  Board  is directed  to  act on the same. In the circumstances  of  the case,  there  will be no order for costs in  either  of  the appeals. N.P.V.                                 Appeals allowed. 927