Holding

Seniority of PCS (EB) officers must be fixed by a collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21, i.e., by applying the roster‑quota system, and the State’s reliance on the date of appointment alone is contrary to the 1976 Rules.

Summary

The appellant, a direct recruit to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), challenged the seniority list that placed him junior to promotee officers appointed earlier, arguing that seniority should be fixed by applying the roster prescribed in Rule 18 read together with Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules. The High Court had held that seniority is determined solely by the date of appointment, dismissing the writ petition and the subsequent appeal. The Supreme Court examined the interplay of Rules 18, 21, 24(5) and 20, and held that the Rules mandate a composite seniority based on the rotation‑quota system, not merely on appointment dates. It found the State’s method contrary to the Rules and to established case law on quota and rota. Consequently, the Court directed the State to prepare a fresh seniority list using the roster and to grant all consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether inter‑se seniority of direct recruits and promotees must be fixed by applying Rule 18 together with Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976.
Whether the High Court could dismiss the appeal without addressing the controversy over the interpretation of Rules 18 and 21.
Whether seniority can be determined solely on the basis of the date of appointment under Rule 21.
Whether the quota‑roster system prescribed in Rule 18 is applicable for fixing seniority.
Whether the State’s deviation from the established rota‑quota practice is justified.
Whether the delay in appointing direct recruits can lawfully affect their seniority.

Legislation cited

Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976s. Rule 18, s. Rule 20, s. Rule 21, s. Rule 24(5)

Subjects

service lawseniorityinter‑se seniorityrule interpretationquotarotapublic service commissionPunjab Civil Servicesappointment rulesadministrative law

Judgment

A ARVINDER SINGH BAINS
V.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

MAY 24, 2006

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Service law:

Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules,1976-Rules
c I 8and21---Seniority---lnter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees-
Joint requisition for promotees as well as direct recruits by the State--
Consolidated recommendation by Public Service Commission for recruitment
of both-Jn-service candidates appointed prior to the direct recruits--
Seniority determined in order oftheir appointment-Seniority List challenged
by direct recruits-Claiming the same to be fv:ed by applying roster--
D Dismissal of claim by Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court-On
appeal, held: The seniority could not have been determined from the date
of appointment-The act of the state was in disregard of rota-quota
prescribed in Rue 18 of the Rules.

E The appellant was one of the direct recruits to the PCS and the
dispute is regarding their seniority vis-ii-vis recruits from other sources.
Both the batches arose out of posts of 1978 to 1982 as per requisitions
sent by the Government to the public Service Commission. In the
requisition 50% of the posts were meant for direct recruits (Register B)
F and remaining 50% were meant for promotees/in-service candidates
(Registers A-1, A-11, A-III and C). The Commission made consolidated
recommendations in respect of the candidates on two different dates.
The in-service candidates were appointed in 1984 while the direct
recruits were appointed in 1986. Seniority List of the direct recruits was
prepared without assigning their places in the consolidated seniority of
G the cadre. Appellant filed Writ Petition before High Court claiming that
the inter-se seniority of the 80 candidates (40 direct recruits and 40
promotee) should be fixed by applying roster provided fJr in* rule 18
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 by reading Rules
18 and 21 together. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that
H determination of seniority of members of the service would be in order
886
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v. STATE 887

of their appointment irrespective of the Register from which they were A
appointed. Letter Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed
by Division Bench of High Court Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The action of the State is contrary to Punjab Civil B
Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976. The seniority under
the 1976-Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18
and Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules. The acti<in of the authorities is negation
of Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules in determining the seniority by the
impugned order. [917-A-C] c
2. Actual appointment is by virtue of Rule 18of1976 Rules which
says that first and thereafter every alternative vacancy shall be filled
up by Register-B candidates. This position is also fortified by Rule 24(5)-
(Un-amended), the plain reading of which reveals that reference point
D
is once again candidate from Register-B. Government has also admitted
that direct recruits have precedence over others. Such precedence has
to be reflected in the matter of seniority also. Even otherwise the direct
recruits can never be senior to promotees if date of appointment is made
the sole criterion in determining the seniority as their process of
selection is always lengthier than the promotees. It is in view of this, and E
to rule out any discrimination/arbitrariness that the Roster under Rule
18 has been prescribed which has to be read with Rule 21 in determining
the seniority. Making date of joining as the basis of determining
seniority would have led to discretion in the hands of the Government
and there would have been a possibility of misuse. It is to avoid this that F
a Roster has been prescribed in the Rules for fixing seniority. It is
mandatory to apply Rota and Quota in determining seniority where the
same is provided for under the rules. [903-G-H, 904-A-D]

Prafulla Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors., [2003) 11
SCC 614 and Mervyn Coutindo and Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay G
and Ors., [1966) 3 SCR 600, followed.

Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1987) SCC 207
and Devendra Prasad Sharma v. State of Mizoram and Ors., [1997) 4 SCC
422, relied on. H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Ors., (199919 SCC 596; Sura)
Parkash Gupta and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., (2000] 7 SCC 561 and
Dr. Chandra Prakash and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., (20021 IO SCC,
distinguished.

M Subba Reddy and Anr. v. A.P. state Road Transport Corporation
B and Ors., 12004) 6 sec 729, referred to.

3. It is not justified for the Government to deviate from the long
established practice without any specific reason.

C Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 715, followed.

4. The Government has admitted that recruitment to the service
cannot be made from one particular Register/source in isolation by
ignoring other Registers. On the same analogy, the seniority of officers
D from one Register cannot be finalized by ignoring other Registers. Even
Rule 21 envisages a joint/composite seniority list of all the Registers.
However, in the present case this has not been done. Composite seniority
list of officers appointed in 1984 and those appointed in 1986 was never
issued in spite of the fact that the officers were appointed as a result
E of requisitions sent by the Government in the year 1982 for the
vacancies of years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. In the seniority list
of Direct Recruits there is no mention of name of any of the promotee
officers inspite of the fact that a joint requisition of promotees and
Direct Recruits was sent in the year 1982, and as such a Joint/composite
F seniority in respect of Direct Recruits and Promotees was required to
be issued. (910-A-EI

5. Had there been an intention of the legislature to say that the
seniority shall be determined from the date of appointment/order they
would have used the term "date" in Rule 21 as has been done in Rule
G 20. Even in Rule 21 proviso (a) the term 'date' has been used in an
eventuality where the legislature has an intention to make the 'date'
relevant. (911-A-BJ

6. Had the date of appointment been the sole criterion for fixing
H seniority there would have been no need for proviso (a) to Rule 21 as
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE 889

any appointment after cancellation of original appointment will always A
be treated as original/first appointment. If the term "in accordance with
the order of their appointment" in Rule 21 actually means "in accordance
with the date of their appointment" there is no need for proviso (a) to Rule
21. (911-B-D)

7. Action of the authorities in determining seniority of all the
B
members of the PCS (EB) with reference to their date of appointment
and not with reference to the order by which they were required to be
appointed under Rule 18 is mis-interpretation of Rule 21 of 1976-Rules
and is liable to be set aside. The action of the authorities is also contrary
to the Register prescribed for purpose of appointment to the PCS. The c
mandate of the roster is that unless his appointment in the order
prescribed under Rule 18, the appointment is invalid. Consequently, the
order of appointment must be deemed to be the order prescribed in Rule
18 of the 1976-Rules. The term order of appointment is also being mis-
interpreted by the authorities and is being confined to individual order
D
of appointments issued to individual members of service whereas the
term of appointment refers only to the order/consequence prescribed
under Rule 18. Further, from a perusal of Rule 21 it would be manifestly
clear that if it is to be interpreted in the manner in which it is presently
being done, namely, to determine the seniority on the basis of the order
of appointment i.e. the date on which the order of appointment is issued, E
the same must necessarily relate to inter se seniority of individual
sources of recruitment. This procedure was adopted in preparing the
seniority list confined to Register-B. [916-F-G, 916-B-F)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6373 of f
2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2000 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 1705/2000.

L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra, Advs. with him G
for Appellant.

M.N. Krishnamani, Ashok Panda, Sr. Advs., Mrs. Kanwajlit Kochar,
D. Jha, Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Rajesh K. Sharma, Ms.
Shalu Sharma, S.K. Pabbi, Ms. Shikha Roy and Ms. S. Janani, Advs., with H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A them for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 - Khushi
Ram and Gurpal Singh Bhatti are impleaded as parties in I.A.No. _3 _ _
B as per order dated 18.05.2006.

The appellant - Arvinder Singh Bains filed the above appeal against the
final judgment and order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the High Court for the
States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1705/2000 whereby
c the High Court has dismissed the LP A filed by him.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 1976

D State Government issued an advertisement in the year 1976 for 10
vacancies in the cadre of PCS Officers. The 1976-Rules were enforced w.e.f.
02.12.1976. As per the case of the State Government itself requisition for
l 0 posts meant for direct recruits (Register-B) were sent to Punjab Public
Service Commission.
E
ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 1980:

State Government issued an advertisement in the year 1980 for direct
recruitment to the PCS. With respect to the said advertisement, State
F Government had issued a corrigendum, inter a/ia, relaxing the age of
recruitment to PCS. With regard to the 1980 advertisement, competitive
examinations were held for direct recruitment. Selection was to be made by
the Punjab Public Service Commission.

A list of candidates selected by the Commission by way of direct
G recruitment was notified. This included the name of the petitioner and
respondent No. 3 - Dipinder Singh. Promotees from other Registers (other
than Register-B) were appointed as PCS in 1984-85. The appellant had
applied pursuant to the above-mentioned advertisement of 1980-82. The
appellant and others were selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission
H joined as PCS Officers on the basis of competitive examination.
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 891

It is to be noticed that these vacancies had occurred in the interregnum A
1978 to 1982. These vacancies were filled up only in the year 1986.
According to the appellant, had these vacancies been filled up timely, direct
recruits coming in through Register-B would have found higher places in the
impugned seniority list.

During the interregnum 1978 to 1986 appointment to the service took B
place from other Registers. In the meantime, the promotee candidates were
brought in as PCS officers. According to the appellant, delay on the part of
the Government to appoint direct candidates could not result in appellant
losing seniority to these promotee candidates. On 24.08.1988, tentative
seniority list of candidates who had been selected and appointed by direct c
recruitment (via Register-B) was prepared and circulated. The appellant
represented against the above tentative seniority list and submitted that Rule
21 has to be read with Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules and thereby seniority is
governed by the order of vacancies mentioned in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules.
On 01.07.1994, a final seniority list of Register-B candidates was prepared
D
without assigning their places in the consolidated seniority of the cadre. The
final seniority list of Register-B candidates was also circulated.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT:

The appellant and respondent No.3 - Dipinder Singh filed writ petition E
No. 16516 of 1995 before the High Court.

SUBMISSION IN THE WRIT PETITION:

The appellant contended that Rule 21 which governs seniority refers F
to Rule 18 and Rule 18 provided for the filling up of the slab of l 00
vacancies. Rule 21 reads thus:

"21. Seniority of the members of the Service.- The seniority of
officers appointed to the Service shall be determined in accordance
with the order of their app?intment to the Service; provided that G

(a) ifthe order ofappointment ofany candidate is cancelled under
the provisions of rule 20 and such candidate is subsequently
appointed to the Service, the order of appointment for the
purpose of this rule shall be determined by the date of such H
892 SCPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A subsequent appointment;

(b) if any officer appointed to the Service fails to qualify himself
for substantive permanent appointment within the prescribed
period of probation, the Government may determine whether
the date of his appointment for purpose of this rule shall be
B postponed by a period not exceeding the period by which such
officer's substantive permanent appointment is delayed beyond
the prescribed period of probation;

(c) the persons appointed as a result of earlier selection from a
c Register shall be senior to those appointed as a result of
subsequent selection from the same Register."

It was submitted that seniority list be governed by order of their
appointment and order of their appointment was provided for in Rule 18 of
D the 1976-Rules. It was thus contended that seniority would be governed by
the serial number of the vacancy and not the date of appointment. Rule 18
reads as follows:-

"18. Appointment of accepted candidate~ to the service. The
Government shall make appointments to the Service in pursuance
E of rule 7 from amongst the candidates entered on the various
Registers in a slab of I 00 vacancies as follows:-

(i) the first vacancy and thereafter every alternative vacancy shall
be filled from amongst candidates borne on Register 'B'.
F
(ii) the 2nd, 8th, 14th, 20th, 26th, 32nd, 38th, 44th, 50th, 56th,
62nd, 68th, 74th, SOth, 86th, 92nd, 96th and IOOth vacancy
shall be filled from amongst the candidates borne on Register
A-I;

G (iii) the 4th, I 0th, 16th, 22nd, 28th, 34th, 40th, 46th, 52nd, 58th,
64th, 70th, 76th, 82nd, 88th and 98th vacancy shall be filled
from amongst candidates borne on Register A-II.

(iv) The 12th, 30th, 42nd, 54th, 66th, 78th and 90th vacancy shall
H be filled from amongst the Excise and Taxation Officers
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 893

accepted as candidates on Register A-III; A

(v) The 18th, 36th, 60th and 84th vacancy shall be filled from
amongst the District Development and Panchayat Officers or
Block Development and Panchayat Officers accepted as
candidates on Register A-III; and
B
(vi) The 6th, 24th, 48th, 72nd and 94th vacancy shall be filled
from amongst the candidates on Register 'C' :"

The State Government and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written
statement to the above statement. c
STAND OF THE STATE:

A perusal of rule 18 makes it abundantly clear that the rotation system
provided in this rule is in fact meant for recruitment to the Service from
various sources and to ensure prescribed representation of candidates drawn
D
from various sources. The words "vacancy" and "filled" occurring in this
rule are important and therefore, worth noticing.

A perusal of various rules of the 1976 Rules reveals that these rules
do not, implicitly or explicitly, permit application of rota system provided E
in rule 18 thereof, for the purpose of determining seniority which is governed
'by rule 21 alone. If seniority of the members of service is determined in
accordance with rule 18, rule 20 and 21 will become redundant."

It was submitted that Rule 20 of 1976-Rules had operated in a F
completely different field and that Rule 20 of the 1976-Rules was concerned
with the case of a candidate whose appointment had been cancelled and so
subsequently appointed. It is only in such an eventuality that the date of such
subsequent appointment has been made relevant. It was also contended that
Rules 18 specifically refers to appointment to Service and Rule 21 cannot
be interpreted by ignoring Rule 7 and Rule 18. G

In another written statement filed before the High Court with regard
to the other Registers, the date of such appointments were 19 .11.1994 and
20.11.1994. These were appointments from 2 different Registers made on
given as 19 .11.1994 and 20.11.1994. To explain the seniority positions H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A allocated to these candidates, it was stated that:

"Therefore, it is clear that even for this appointment, seniority has been
determined as per Rule 21. Inter-jection was only a via-media adopted by
the State Government in view of the fact that the rules are totally silent as
to what would happen if persons from two registers are issued orders of
B appointment on the same date."

Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh Bhatti - who were respondent Nos. 3
& 4 in the writ petition and now respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in this appeal filed
written statement before the High Court. They contended that the appellants
c and their batch mates will have to remain junior to respondent Nos. 6 & 7,
they having been appointed 2 years after the appointment of the answering
respondents and, therefore, they would remain junior to them for the purpose
of seniority and selection/promotion to the post of !AS cadre.

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT (SINGLE JUDGE):
D
The learned single Judge on 08.12.1999 dismissed the writ petition filed
by the appellant. The High Court was of the opinion that there was nothing
in the Rules from which it could be inferred that candidates from the various
services were required to be selected simultaneously. In this respect, the
E learned Single Judge of the High Court recorded that:

"In this context, it is important to bear in mind that Rule 18 earmarks
the vacancies to be filled from among the candidates entered in the various
Registers, but there is nothing in the language of the said rule or the scheme
F of Rules 7,8,9 to 11, 12 to 14 and 15 from which it can be inferred that
selection for entering the names of the accepted candidates in the various
Registers should be made simultaneously." And Moreover, as the scheme
of the 1976 Rules does not envisage simultaneous selection of the candidates
for entering their names in different Registers."

G It is submitted that a joint reading of Rules 7,12,18 and 21 of the 1976-
Rules leads to the conclusion that the 1976-Rules contemplate simultaneous
appointment. All Officers from various sources i.e. (from various Registers)
whose name had been entered in the said Registers as accepted
candidates were to be considered for appointment simultaneously/
H contemporaneous.
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 895

The other finding of the learned Single Judge was that seniority could A
not be linked to the year of the vacancy. In this respect, it was recorded that:-

"The plaint language of Rule 21 speaks 0£ determination of seniority
of members of the service in accordance with the order of their appointment
and not as per the roster points enumerated in Rule 18. The expression in
accordance with the order of their appointment to the Service refers to the B
point of time when the officers are appointed and not the slots allotted to
them under Rule 18. In other words, those appointed earlier in point of time
will rank senior to the others who are appointed subsequently irrespective
of the Register from which they are appointed."
c
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant
preferred LPA No. 1705 of 2000 before the Division Bench.

DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH:

The Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant by
D
observing:-

"Heard.

In our view there is no provision made for determination of seniority E
in accordance with order or appointment on rotation of vacancies based upon
quota of reservation for direct recruitment and promotion under the Punjab
Civil Services (Executive Branch) {Class I) Rules, 1976. Rule 18 provides
for appointment to the Service on availability of vacancies in a slab of l 00
vacancies. Rotation of vacancies, it is pertinent of note, is not based on any F
quota of reservation for direct recruitment and promotion respectively fixed
in the rules. This read with Rule 21 for determination of seniority cannot be
construed as rota-quota rule.

We concur with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and find no
reason to interfere with it. G

Dismissed in limine."

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal in LPA, the appellant preferred the
above special leave petition. The delay was condoned. Leave was granted H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A on 03.09.200 I. This Court made it clear that any action taken will be subject
to the outcome of the appeal.

We have heard Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Prem Malhotra for appellants and Mrs. Kawaljit Kochar, learned counsel and
Ms. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi for respondent No.3 and Mr. M.N. Krishnamani
B for respondent No.5 and Mr. Ashok Panda for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel, made the following submissions:-

a) That the Division Bench which dismissed the LPA filed by the
c appellant has not even addressed itself to the real controversy
which is evident upon a reading of the order passed by the
Division Bench. The submission of the appellant was that
seniority under Rule 21 is to be governed by the 'order of
appointment' to the service as provided for in Rule 18 of the
1976-Rules which further refers to Rule 7. This point has not
D been addressed to by the Bench;

b) Learned Single Judge held that it was not incumbent upon the
Government to hold simultaneous selection with regard to the
various sources i.e. from the various registers. It is submitted
E that reading of Rules 7, 8, 12, 14, 18 & 21 demonstrates that
the 1976-Rules clearly envisage simultaneous/contemporaneous
appointment from the various sources, namely, the various
registers;

F c) That simultaneous/contemporaneous appointment from various
sources is contemplated by the Rules to give adequate
representation to the various categories of employees. So also,
to grant appropriate seniority to the various categories of
officers.

G d) The Government has not explained the reasons for delay in
recruitment. On account of delay by the Government in
making selection of direct recruits from Register-B, such
direct recruits could not lose their seniority.

H e) That Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules was the Rule governing
ARVJNDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE (LAKSHMANAN, J.] 897

seniority which contemplated seniority in 'order of their A
appointment' and this order of appointment was as stipulated
in Rule 18;

f) Learned single Judge rejected the contention of the appellant
on the reasoning that acceptance of the contention of the
appellant would result in Rule 20 being rendered redundant.
B
Rule 20 of the 1976-Rules reads thus:

"20. If a candidate on appointment to a particular post, is unable,
for any reason other than the orders of the Government, to join his
appointment within one month from the date of receipt of the orders C
of appointment, the Government may remove his name from the
Register or may cancel the orders of appointment, and if he is
subsequently appointed, may assign to him seniority in accordance
with the date of the revised orders of appointment."

g) that the scope and ambit of Rule 20 is completely different
D
and was in no way rendered redundant and is meant for
another eventuality which may arise.

h) The State Government in their written statement had admitted
that from two other sources, orders of appointment had been E
issued on 19.11.1994 and 20.11.1994 and thereafter, the stand
of the State Government was :-

"Therefore, it is clear that even for this appointment, seniority has
been determined as per Rule 21. Inter-jection was only a via-media F
adopted by the State Government in view of the fact that the rules
are totally silent as to what would happen if persons from two
registers are issued orders of appointment on the same date."

i) that the State Government had itself done interjection in the
matter of assignment of seniority. The stand of the State G
Government itself was that interjection had been done as a
via-media. The State Government had not assigned
seniority purely on the basis of the date of appointment. Thus,
the stand of the State Government was conflicting at various
~~ H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A j) That Rule 24(5) of the 1976-Rules reads thus:

"(5) The year of allotment of an officer appointed to the Service
from Register B shall be the year in which he is appointed and the
year of allotment of an officer appointed from other Registers shall
be the same as that of the officers appointed to the Service from
B Register B against their corresponding quota of vacancies."

The above Rule clearly contemplates simultaneous appointment of PCS
Officers from various Registers. Moreover, the reference point is the direct
recruitment from Register-B. Others appointed from other Registers are
C given year of allotment as Officers appointed in service from Register-B
against their corresponding vacancy. Mr. Rao submitted that the above Rule
also demonstrates linkage between year of allotment and the vacancies.

k) That the Government at times may not make selection from a
particular source on account of unexplained reasons. For such
D inaction of the Government in making selection from a particular
source, appellant from Register-B could not be made to suffer loss
of seniority vis-a-vis other sources from which recruitment had
been made.

E I) that PCS is a feeder cadre for appointment to IAS. Seniority in
PCS would govern entry into !AS service. On account of delay
of the Government in making selection of direct recruit candidates,
their seniority has been permanently depressed vis-a-vis other
sources of recruitment in PCS service. If this is allowed to
continue, direct recruit candidates would invariably face
F
disadvantage.

m) As is well known selection by direct recruitment takes longer time
to finalise than promotion and direct recruitment involves a
process of detailed selection through PCS. It is, therefore, contended
G that in fact the process of selection of direct recruit candidates
should start c;arlier in point of time than the process of selection
of candidates from other sources. Therefore, it is submitted that
this is the mode to ensure obedience to the letter and spirit of the
1976-Rules which Rules contemplates simultaneous/
H contemporaneous appointment from the various sources, namely,
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 899

the various registers. So much so Rule 24(5) of 1976-Rules A
contemplates allocation of year of allotment to a direct recruit as
a reference point for grant of year of allocation to candidates
recruited from other sources. Under these circumstances, Mr. Rao
prayed that the final judgment and order dated 12 .12 .2000 passed
by the High Court in LPA No. 1705 of2000 be set aside and relief
prayed for by the appellant is granted.
B

Respondent Nos. I & 2 State of Punjab filed counter affidavit in this
appeal It is submitted that after the disposal of the LPA Nos. 851/1982, 843/
1982 by the High Court, the seniority ofManinder Singh and H.S. Bains and
4 other affected persons figuring in between them was re-determined by the c
Government vide its order dated 15.11.1986 and that the seniority of all other
PCS officers appointed to the service through various registers which stood
duly determined under the 1930 Rules i.e. in accordance with Rule 20 read
with R,ule 17 was kept in tact without effecting any change thereto. It is
further stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that in the light of the above
D
noted factual position as also the legal· advise obtained by the legal
remembrancer on the 09.12.1982 and reiterated thereafter, the State
Government decided to deviate from the long established practice and
switched over to the determination of seniority in accordance with the date
of appointment/orders of appointment/act of actual appointment in terms of
the provisions of Rule 21 alone of the 1976 rules. It is also stated in para E
· ( d) of 5 of the counter that the post of direct recruitment to be filled up on
.the basis of PCS (Executive Branch) and other allied services examination
were duly advertised by the Commission vide advertisement dated 01.05.1982
and that the competitive examination was held by the Commission March,
1984 and after taking viva-voce, the Commission made its recommendation F
in June, 1985 whereafter appointment of candidates ofRegister-B were made
in March, 1986. Learned senior counsel for the State of Punjab reiterated the
contentions raised in the counter affidavit at the time of arguments.

Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3
& 4 - Mr. R.L. Mehta and Mr. G .R. Bansal. Ms. Kaur Dhodi, learned counsel G
reiterated the submission made in their counter affidavit at the time of
hearing. It is submitted that the relief.as prayed for i.e. fixation of seniority
according to the roaster prescribed under Rule 18 could not have been
claimed by the appellant as the statutory rules Rule 21 specifically provided
for determination of seniority in accordance with the order of their appointment H
-
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to service. According to them, there was no challenge to Rule 21 and as such
in the absence of any challenge the relief as sought for by the appellant with
regard to the determination of seniority other than as provided under Rule
21 could not be granted to the appellant. It is further submitted that the
appellant had been appointed to the PCS (Executive Branch) by way of direct
recruitment on 26.04.1986 and that the writ petition was filed in the year
B 1995 questioning the delayed direct recruitment and seeking seniority on the
basis of the roaster provided under Rule 18. The appellant having accepted
his date of appointment thus was estopped by his act and conduct to allege
that the appellant is entitled to be treated as a member of PCS with reference
to a fictional/deemed date i.e. the date of accrual of vacancy and not from
c the date of actual appointment against the said vacancy.

Mr. M.N. Krishnamani appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5 -
Dipinder Singh. He has adopted the argument of Mr. L.N. Rao. He placed
strong reliance on two judgments of this Court reported in Direct Recruit
Class fl Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and
D
Others, [1990] 2 SCC 715 and Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and
Others, 1987, Supp. [SCC] 207.

Mr. Ashok Panda, learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of Shri
Khushi Ram and Shri B.S. Bhatti - respondent Nos. 6 & 7. He invited our
E attention to the written statement filed on their behalf as respondent Nos. 3
& 4 in writ petition No. 16516/1995 in the High Court. He reiterated the
averments made in the written
I
statement and also cited Ajit Kumar Rath v.
State of Orissa and Others, [ 1999] 9 SCC 596 at 602 paras 13 & 14, Dr.
Chandra Prakash and Others v. State of U. P. and Another, [2002] l 0 SCC
F 710 at 726 paras 41 & 42 and Sura} Parkash Gupta and Others v. State of
J&K and Others, [2000] 7 SCC 561 at 599 para 4.

Mr. Panda invited our attention to the relevant rules and submitted that
no legal right has accrued to the appellants to invoking extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of the High Court, and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to
G be dismissed. He denied that the appellants are entitled to be given seniority
on the basis of alleged roaster system and against the vacancies of 1978 for
the years 1978 and 1979. They were not the members of service. According
to Mr. Panda that the direct recruits gets seniority from the date they were
actually appointed although the vacancies existed in the earlier years and the
· H promotees got seniority from the date when they were fitted within their
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 901

quota. It is the case of Mr. Panda that the answering respondents and other A
members of service appointed from Registers Al, A2, A3 and Register-C
cannot be considered to have been promoted in the strict sense of definition
for promotion as their method of appointment is not in the nature of
promotion but his appointment by way of nomination on the basis of their
outstanding merits in their respective cadres of service and the answering
respondents and other members of service appointed from Registers A I, A2,
B
A3 and Register-C have been appointed against their own quota of vacancies
and, therefore, their seniority cannot be shifted back in the garb of alleged
roaster theory. It is further contended that so far as the question of existence
of vacancies in the earlier years is concerned, the vacancies in the case of
other registers also were available in the years of 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 c
and 1982 and, therefore, the position regarding existence of vacancies in
different years is the same as is in the case of candidates of Register-B.
Therefore, it is submitted the appellant is not entitled to be given seniority
from the date prior to their date/year of appointment in the garb of
availability of vacancies in the earlier years as the respondents and the
D
members of service appointed from other registers have been appointed
against the vacancies of their respective quota and, therefore, their seniority
cannot be shifted back. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Panda submitted and
in view of the position explained the appellants and their batch mates will
have to remain junior to the answering respondents, they having been
appointed 2 years after the appointment of the answering respondents and, E
therefore, they would remain junior to the answering respondent for the
purpose of seniority and selection/promotion to the post of IAS cadre.
Concluding his arguments Mr. Panda submitted that the prayer in the writ
petition and in this appeal is not legally tenable and, therefore, this appeal
is liable to be dismissed. F
We have carefully and thoughtfully considered the rival submissions
made by the respective parties through their learned counsel. We have also
perused the entire pleadings, counter affidavits filed before the High Court
and also of this Court and the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge
and of the Division Bench. G

The following questions of law arise for consideration by this Court:-

(i) Whether a reading of Rules 7, 8, 12, 14, 18, 21 of the Punjab Civil
Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976, does not lead H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to the conclusion that simultaneous/contemporaneous appointment
is envisaged by the 1976 Rule from the various sources i.e.
from the various Registers?
-
(ii) Vv'hether the Division Bench of the High Court could have
dismissed the LPA of the Petitioner without addressing itself to
B the real controversy at hand?

(iii) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in
concluding that there was no provision for determining seniority
on the basis of rotation of vacancies?
c
(iv) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in
..
considering quota when rota alone (and not quota) is provided for
in the 1976-Rules?

(v) Whether the mere reading of Rules 7, 18 and 21 was not sufficient
D to conclude that seniority was on rotation of vacancy and not post?

(vi) Whether on account of delay on the part of the State Government
in making appointment of the Petitioner from Register-B, Petitioner
could have been denied seniority?
E
The issue in this case relates to the inter-relation between Rules 18 and
21 of the PCS (EB) (Class I) Rules, 1976.

Rule 7 lays down that appointment to the service shall be made from
F amongst Accepted Candidates whose names have been duly entered in the
registers of the Accepted Candidates. Rule 8 details the various registers of
Accepted Candidates.

A-1:- Tehsildars \\\

G A-11 :- Ministerial Employees of the State Government
(Class II&III)

A-III:- ETOs/BODs/DDPOs
B:- Direct Recruits

H C:- Other Govt Servants
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 903

Rules 9, 10, 11 & 15 lay down the procedure for selection of in-service A
candidates.

Rules 12, 13 & 14 lay down the procedure for selection of direct
recruits (Competitive Exam).

Rule 18 clearly lays down the rotation (on a 100 point roster) on the B
basis of which the various Accepted Candidates from different registers (as
laid down in Rule 7. Supra) are to be appointed to the service.

Rule 21 which relates to seniority mandates that seniority of officers
shall be determined in accordance with the order of their appointment. c
The appellants are. direct recruits (1986 batch) to the PCS and the
dispute is regarding their seniority vis-a-vis recruits from other sources ( 1984
batch). Both these batches arose out of posts of 1978 to 1982 as per
requisitions sent by the Government to PPSC. In the said requisitions, it was
mentioned by the Government that 50% of posts are meant for Direct
D
Recruits (Register-B) and remaining 50% are meant for promotees/inservice
candidates (Registers A-1,A-II,A-III and C). (Vide communication dated
24.9.1982 the Punjab Government made a specific request to the Punjab
Public Service Commission to make its recommendations against total
number of vacancies intimated to it). The PPSC made consolidated E
recommendations in respect of 40 (For in-service/nominated candidates +40
(Direct recruits) on two different dates to the Government. Accordingly, the
candidates of Registers A-1, A-II, A-III and C were appointed in November
and December, 1984 whereas the candidates of Register-B were appointed
in March, 1986. This was admitted in the counter affidavit of the Government.
F
The appellant is not seeking any ante dated promotion. The case of
the appellant is that the inter-se seniority of 80 officers (40 Direct Recruits
+ 40 Promotees) should be fixed by applying roster provided for in Rule 18
of PCS (EB) Rules, 1976 by reading Rules 18 and 21 together.
G
Joint reading of Rules 7 and 18 envisages that appointments are to be
made when the names have been entered in all the Registers.

Actual appointment is by virtue of Rule 18 only which says that first
and thereafter every alternative vacancy shall be filled up by Register-B H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A candidates. In other words, the first officer to be appointed has to be from
Register-B. This position is also fortified by Rule 24(5)-(Un-amended), the
plain reading of which reveals that reference point is once again candidate
from Register-B. In para 5(1) of counter affidavit, Government has also
admitted that direct recrmts have precedence over others. Such precedence
has to be reflected in the matter of seniority also. Even otherwise the direct
B recruits can never be senior to promotees if date of appointment is made the
sole criterion in determining the seniority as their process of selection is
always lengthier than the promotees. It is in view of this, and to rule out any
discrimination/arbitrariness that the Roster under Rule 18 has been prescribed
which has to be read with Rule 21 in determining the seniority. Making date
c of joining as the basis of determining seniority would have led to discretion
in the hands of the Government and there would have been a possibility of
misuse. It is to avoid this that a Roster has been prescribed in the Rules for
fixing seniority. This Court held that it is mandatory to apply Rota and Quota
in determining ~eniority where the same is provided for under the rules as
held by this Court in Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. v. Collector of Customs,
D
Bombay & Ors. [ 1966] 3 SCR 600 at page 604 and 605 (5 Judges),

"This brings us back to the circular of 1959, and the main question
in that connection is the meaning to be assigned to the words
"seniority determined accordingly". in the explanation to principle
E 6 relating to relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees. As
we read these words, their plain meaning is that seniority as between
direct recruits and promotees should be determined in accordance
with the roster. which has also been specified, namely, one promotee
followed by one direct recruit and so on. Where therefore recruitment
F to a cadre is from two sources, namely, direct recruits and promotees
and rotational system is in force, seniority has to be fixed as
provided in the explanation by alternately fixing a promotee and a
direct recruit in tht: seniority list. We do not see any violation of
the principle of equality of opportunity enshrined in Art. 16(1) by
following the rotational system of fixing seniority in a cadre half
G of which consists of direct recruits and the other half of promotees,
and the rotational system by itself working in this way cannot be
said to deny equality of opportunity in government service .... "

JI Subba Reddy and Another v. A.P. Stale Road Transport Corporation
H and Others. [2004] 6 sec 729 at 741 (3 Judges)
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 905

"Regulation 34 applies to posts reserved only to be filled by direct A
recruits. Reading Item 3 of Annexure 'A' (Section B) with Regulation
34, it is clear that filling up of the posts reserved for direct recruits
by departmental promotees has to be on temporary basis under

.. Regulation 30 and as soon as eligible candidates from direct
recruits' quota become available, they are to replace the temporary
promotees.
B

In the present case, the appellant promotees were promoted to
the posts of A TMs/AMEs temporarily under Regulation 30 as there
were no direct recruits available. They were promoted subject to
being reverted to substantive posts on approved candidates becoming c
available. Regulation 34(6) states thatthe revertees shall subsequently
be considered for repromotion against the quota of vacancies
reserved for promotees. Therefore, one has to read Regulation 3 of
the Service Regulations with Regulations 30 and 34 of the
Recruitment Regulations. It is only when such revertees are
repromoted as per Regulation 34, they can be deemed to have been
D
appointed to the posts of ATM or AME. Therefore, when the
appellants were tentatively appointed to the post of ATMs/AMEs
originally for want of direct recruits and to the posts reserved for
direct recruits, it cannot be said that they were first appointed to that
category within the meaning of Regulation 3 of the Service E
Regulations. Therefore, seniority had to be fixed between the direct
recruits and the promotees strictly in accordance with the quota
provided for in Item 3 of Annexure 'A' (Section B).

The appellants were promoted temporarily under Regulation F
30 which provides for ad hoc promotions while Regulation 34
ensures induction of qualified direct recruits. But for Regulation 34,

- candidates from feeder posts would be temporarily promoted to the
slots reserved for direct recruits and on their regularisation, the
quota prescribed for direct recruits will be defeated. Regulation
34 has been enacted to protect quota prescribed for direct recruits. G

On reading Regulation 3 of the Service Regulations with
Regulations 30 and 34 of the Recrnitment Regl)lations, it becomes
clear that neither the date of promotion nor the date of selection is
the criterion for fixation of seniority. The fixation of seniority under H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the said regulations depends upon the number of vacancies falling
in a particular category. Therefore, rota rule is inbuilt in the quota
prescribed for direct recruits and for promotees in terms of Item 3
of Annexure 'A' (Section B) to the Recruitment Regulations. In the

-
present case, the said regulations prescribe a quota of I: I, which
leads to rota for confirmation. In the circumstances, there is no
B merit in the appellants' argument that Item 3(1) of Annexure 'A'
(Section B) prescribes only quota and not rota and that the said item
was not for determination of seniority."

"Prafu/la Kumar Das and Others v. State of Orissa and Others, [2003]
c 11 SCC 614 at 626 (5 Judges)
"The submission that the principle of year of allotment must be
regarded as unworkable is quite apart, of course, from the argument
that the principle of year ofallotment is in and of itself unreasonable
and, therefore, bad in law. Ordinarily, and as a matter of course,
D
we are of the considered opinion, in line with Roshan Lal Tandon
v. Union of India, AIR (1967) SC 1889 and other decisions of this
Court, that it is the length of actual service that must be the
determining factor in matters of promotion and consequential
seniority. However, this Court has subsequently carved out a
E distinct exception to this general rule by virtue of its decision in
Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. case [ 1990] 2 SCC 715
by stating that where the seniority and the vested rights of the many
have through years of accustomed practice become dependent upon
the existence of a rule, this rule, if injurious to the rights of a few,
F would not be trifled with, unless it is unworkable or manifestly
arbitrary or egregious."

G
It has been admitted in the preliminary submissions made in the counter
affidavit by the State Government that there is no material difference
between 1930 and 1976, Punjab Civil Service (E.B.) rules and that so long
-
as the 1930 rules remained in force the seniority of members was determined
by applying ROTA rule i.e. expression "order of appointment" was always
read and interpreted as rotation/order/sequence of slots enumerated for
various registers. This could be seen from the Preliminary Submission
No. 3 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (pages
H 136-137)
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 907

That as a result of a decision by Punjab and Haryana High Court which A
was applicable only to the concerned parties it was decided by the Government
to fix seniority of only the concerned parties keeping in view the date of
appointment. However, the seniority of other officers was determined only
by applying ROTA rule.

It has also been mentioned/admitted that in view of the above position B
and in view of legal advice by the Legal Remembrancer in Dec.1982 the
Government decided to deviate from the long established practice of
applying ROTA rule and started determining seniority from the date of
appointment and that there was no other specific reason to follow the new
procedure for the determination of seniority of officers in the Service in the
face of provisions of the 1930 and 1976 Rules being identical. It has been c
held by this Court that it is not justified for the Government to deviate from
the Jong established practice without any specific reason. In this context, we
may usefully refer to the decisions of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others,
(1990) 2 sec 715 (5 Judges) D
This Court held as under:

"23. Mr. Tarkunde is right that the rules fixing the quota of the
appointees from two sources are meant to be followed. But if it
becomes impracticable to act upon it, it is no use insisting that the E
authorities must continue to give effect to it. There is no sense in
asking the performance of something which has beconre-in(possible.
Of course, the Government, before departing from the rule, must
make every effort to respect it, and only when it ceases to be feasible
to enforce it, that it has to be ignored. Mr. Tarkunde is right when
he says that in such a situation the rule should be appropriately F
amended, so that the scope for unnecessary controversy is eliminated.
But, merely for the reason that this step is not taken promptly, the
quota rule, the performance of which has been rendered impossible,
cannot be treated to continue as operative and binding. The
unavoidable situation brings about its natural demise, and there is
no meaning in pretending that it is still vibrant with life. In such
G
a situation if appointments from one source are made in excess of
the quota, but in a regular manner and after following the prescribed
procedure, there is no reason to push down the appointees below
the recruits from the other source who are inducted in the Service
subsequently. The later appointees may have been young students H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A still prosecuting their studies when the appointments from the other
source takes place - and it is claimed on behalf of the respondents
that this is the position with respect to many of the direct recruits
in the present case -- and, it will be highly inequitable and arbitrary
to treat them as senior. Further, in cases where the rules themselves
permit the Government to relax the provisions fixing the ratio, the
B position for the appointees is still better; and a mere deviation there
from would raise a presumption in favour of the exercise of the
power of relaxation. There would be still a third consideration
relevant in this context: namely, what is the conclusion to be drawn
from deliberate continuous refusal to follow an executive instruction
c fixing the quota. The inference would be that the executive
instruction has ceased to remain operative. In all these cases, th.:
matter would however be subject to the scrutiny of the Court on the
ground of ma/a fide exercise of power. All the three circumstances
mentioned above which are capable of neutralising the rigours of
the quota rule are present in the cases before us, and the principle
D of seniority being dependent on continuous officiation cannot be
held to have been defeated by reason of the ratio fixed by the I 960
Rules."

47. To sum up, we hold that:
E
(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 confirmation. The corollary of the
above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and
F not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the
officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering
the seniority.

(8) If the initial appointment is not made by following the
procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the
G post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance
with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.

(C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is
permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different
H sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 909

be followed strictly. A
(D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to, the existing quota rule,
it should be substituted by art appropriate rule to meet the needs of
the situation. In case, however, the quota· rule is not followed
continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do
B
so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down.

(E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the appointments
are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after
following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment,
the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees C
from the other source inducted in the service at a later date.

(F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions
relating to the quota, ordinarily a presumption should be raised, that
there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota D
rule.

(G) The quota for recruitment from the different sources may be
prescribed by executive instructions, if the rules are silent on the
subject.
E
(H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and
is not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference
is that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative.

(I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as F
the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra
belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers.

(J) The decision dealing with important questions .concerning a
particular service given after careful consideration should be G
respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible error.
It is not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled position".

Prafulla Kumar Das and Others v. State of Orissa and Others, [2003] 11
sec 614 at 626 (5 Judges) (already referred to in paragraphs supra).
H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A In reply to para 5 (B&C), the Government has admitted that recruitment
to the Service cannot be made from one particular Register/source in
isolation by ignoring other Registers. On the same analogy, the seniority of
officers from one Register cannot be finalized by ignoring other Registers.
Even Rule 21 envisage a joint/composite seniority list of all the Registers.
However, in the present case this has not been done. Composite seniority
B list of officers appointed in 1984 and those appointed in 1986 was never
issued in spite of the fact that the officers were appointed as a result of
requisitions sent by the Government in the year 1982 for the vacancies of
years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 as mentioned in para 1 above. The
seniority of promotee officers was finalized vide order dated 18.03.1993
c (issued on 19.03.1993) and that of Direct Recruits vide order dated 1.7.1994
(issued on 16.08.1994). These facts were admitted by the Government in
para 9 of the written statement filed in CWP No. 16516 of 1995 (page 74
of the Paper Book). Surprisingly in the seniority list of Direct Recruits there
is no mention of name of any of the promotee officers in spite of the fact
that a joint requisition of promotees and Direct Recruits was sent in the year
D 1982, the break-up of which has been shown in para 5(D) of the counter
affidavit of the Government (Pages 140-141 of the Paper Book) and as such
a Joint/composite seniority in respect of Direct Recruits and Promotees was
required to be issued. Only a small note has been given at the bottom of the
seniority list dated I. 7.1994 in respect of Direct Recruits which reads as
E under:-

"The above officers will rank junior to one Shri Bhagwant Singh, PCS
whose name figures at Sr. No. 73 in the Quarterly Gradation and Distribution
List of the officers PCS (Executive Branch) corrected upto 1st July, 1994.

F (Copy of Seniority list is annexed herewith)."

Neither any explanation was given as to how name of Shri Bhagwant Singh
find mention at Sr. No. 73 of the Gradation List nor the Direct Recruits were
given any opportunity to file any objection in respect of final seniority list
of promotees as there was no mention of seniority list dated 18.03.1993 in
G respect of promotees. The only reference that was given was with regard to
Sr.No. 73 of the Gradation List of I st July, 1994 thus giving an indication
that Gradation List in fact is Seniority List.

It is submitted in this appeal that the ambit of Rule 20 is completely
H different and is in no way rendered redundant. This interpretation has not
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 911

been contested or denied by the Government in the written statement. A

It may be pertinent to say that legislature has used the term "date" where
there was clear intention to refer to "date". Had there been an intention of
the legislature to say that the seniority shall be determined from the date of
appointffient/order they would have used the term "date" in Rule 21 as has
been done in Rule 20. Even in Rule 21 proviso (a) the term 'date' has been B
used in an eventuality where the legislature has an intention to make the
'date' relevant.

Had the date of appointment been the sole criterion for fixing seniority
there would have been no need for proviso (a) to Rule 21 as any appointment c
after cancellation of original appointment will always be treated as original/
first appointment.

If the term "in accordance with the order of their appointment" in Rule
21 actually means "in .accordance with the date of their appointment" there
is no need for proviso (a) to Rule 21.
D

It has also been admitted by the Government in reply to para 5 (G) in
the written statement that if officers from different Registers happen to be
appointed on the same date there is no escape from the situation that for
determining seniority the ROTA as prescribed under Rule 18 is to be applied. E
It has been said .by the State Government in the written statement that the
Rules are silent about the seniority of the officers appointed on the same day.
If 'order of appointment' mentioned in Rule 21 means 'the date of
appointment' and is the sole criterion for fixing seniority then why the said
Rule does not provide for the determination of seniority of those appointed F
from different Registers on the same date. The legislature could not have left
it to the discretion of the Government to use Rule 18 by default for
determination of seniority i.e. to use Rule for fixing seniority in those cases
when the orders of appointments of officers from different Registers are
issued on the same date.
G
There is once again deviation by the Government from its stand that
date of appointment is the basis for determining the seniority. The perusal
of Sr. Nos. 186, 187 and 188. on page 57 of the Gradation List of !st January,
2006, reveals that Government has once again reverted to applying Roster
in the determination of seniority. Officer at Sr. No. 188 with appointment H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A date of 9th June, 2004 has been shown junior to ones at Sr. Nos. 186 and
187 whose appointment dates are 23rd June, 2004 and !st July, 2004
respectively. Similar situation can be seen at Sr. Nos. 189 and 191 on page
58 and at Sr. Nos. 203 and 204 on page 59.

That by getting appointment orders ahead of Direct Recruits the
B promotees had already enjoyed more perks than the Direct Recruits by way
of pay etc. This became possible because the selection process of promotees
was shorter as compared with that of Direct Recruits. The injustice to Direct
Recruits cannot be compounded by relegating them in matter of seniority
also by placing the promotees enblock above the Direct Recruits especially
c when both of them (promotees and Direct Recruits) were selected against
same requisition sent by the Government to the Punjab Public Service
Commission.

It is also pertinent to notice that Mr. Khushi Ram who has been
impleaded as respondent in the present case had himself filed a Civil Writ
D Petition No. 8957 of 1993 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which
he had himself made the following prayer:-

"(iii) issue a writ mandamus directing respondent no. I to fix the
seniority of PCS Executive Branch Officers as per Rota quota
E system as laid down in Rule 18 read with Rule 21 of the Rules and
also to fix the seniority of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 below the name
of the petitioner in view of Rule 21-C of the Rules."

While granting leave on 03.09.2001 this Court passed the following
order:-
F
"Learned counsel has brought to our notice Rule 24(5) and submitted
that this Rule clearly indicated that there was a quota and therefore principle
of rota and quota should have applied.

G Leave granted.

Any action taken will be subject to the outcome of the appeal."

In Oona/ Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and Others, [1987] (Supp)
H sec 207 (2 Judges) this Court hdd as under:
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 913

8. It is a well settled position in law that where recruitment is A
from two sources to a service, a quota rule can be applied fixing
the limits of recruitment from the two sources. (H.C. Sharma v.
MCD, [1983] 3 SCR 372.

10. Badami case 1976 (I) SCR 815 referred to several
B
authorities of the court and clearly drew out the judicial consensus
on the point in issue by concluding that the quota rule had to be
strictly enforced and it was not open to the authorities to meddle
with it on the ground of administrative exigencies.

I I. The scheme in force relating to the services for fixing inter C
se seniority takes into account the filling up of the vacancies in the
service from the two sources on the basis of the quota and, therefore,
fixation of inter se seniority in the Gradation List has to be worked
out on the basis of quota.
D
19. In a precedent-bound judicial system binding authorities
have got to be respected and the procedure for developing the law
has to be one of evolution. It is not necessary for disposal of these
matters before us to go into that aspect except noticing the existence
of distortion in the field. The rationalisation of the view in a way
E
known to law is perhaps to be attempted some day in future. In the
present batch of cases the law being clear and particu !arly the
mandate in the rule being that when recruitment takes place the
promotee has to make room for the direct recruit, every promotee
in such a situation would not be entitled to claim any further benefit
than the advantage of being in a promotional post not due to him F
but yet filled by him the absence of a direct recruit. One aspect
which we consider relevant to bear in mind is that the promoted
officer has got the advantage of having been promoted before it
became his due and is not being made to lose his promotional
position. The dispute is confined to one of seniority only. The G
advantage received by the promotee before his chance opened
should be balanced against his forfeiture of claim to seniority. If the
matter is looked at from that angle there would be no scope ·for
heart-burning or at any rate dissatisfaction is expected to be reduced
so far as the promotees are concerned."
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A This Court in Devendra Prasad Sharma v. State of Mizoram and
Others, (1997] 4 SCC 422 (2 Judges) held as under:

"In the matter of fixation of the inter se seniority under Rule
25(iii), the relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees has
to be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between
B direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas
of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion under
Rule 5. The Division Bench has pointed out in the impugned order
the position as under:

"Clause (ii) of Rule 25 quoted above clearly stipulated that the
c seniority of the Service appointed at the initial constitution of the
Service shall be determined by the Administrator in consultation
with the Board. Since all the respondents have been appointed as
members of the Service at the initial constitution of Service their
seniority has to be determined by the Administrator in accordance
D with the said rules."

We shall now scan the three judgments cited by Mr. Ashok Panda.

I. Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999] 9 SCC 596
at 602 paras 13 & 14, (2 Judges)
E
"It was also contended on behalf of the respondents before the
Tribunal, and is also reiterated here, that the respondents are entitled
to reckon their seniority from 1970 to 1971 as they were appointed
against the vacancies of those years. It is pointed out that the
F advertisement in 1970-71 for direct recruitment on the posts of
Assistant Engineer was issued by the Public Service Commission
on 6-12-1971 and the result was thereafter published which indicated
that all the respondents had been selected. They were also directed
to appear before the Medical Board. The order of appointment was,
however, passed on 3-1-1972. The respondents, therefore, claim
G seniority with effect from 1970 and 1971 on the ground that they
were appointed against the vacancies of 1970 and 1971. They claim
that their seniority may be ante-dated.

This plea is wholly unfounded and is liable to be rejected as
H without substance and merit. The law on this question has already
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 915

been explained by this Court in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of A
Orissa, ( 1998) 4 SCC 456 and it was categorically held that the
appointment does not relate back to the date of vacancy."

2. Sura) Parkash Gupta and Others v. State ofJ&K and Others, [2000]
7 sec 561 at 599 (2 Judges)
B
"Point 4 Direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of
vacancy in quota before their selection."

3. Dr. Chandra Prakash and Others v. State of U.P. and Another,
[2002] 10 SCC 710 at 726 (3 Judges) paras 41 & 42 C
"As far as the question of seniority is concerned, Rule 18 of the
1945 Rules reads as follows:

"Seniority.- Seniority in the service shall be determined by the date
of the order of appointment in a substantive vacancy provided that
D
if two or more candidates are appointed on the same date their
seniority shall be determined according to the order in which their
names are mentioned in the order of appointment."

Thus even under the Medical Services Rules, 1945, the E
determination of seniority under those Rules was from the .date of
appointment against a substantive vacancy. It is clear that in
accordance with the Rules, and as held by the High Court in Mathur
case appointment could be temporary or permanent. But where the
appointment is against a substantive vacancy, the year of appointment F
was determinative in fixing, seniority under the Rules. On this basis,
calculations of the writ petitioners' seniority from the date of their
initial appointment cannot be said to be incorrect. Furthermore, it
has not been disputed that the writ petitioners have been continuing
to serve and had till 1983 enjoyed all the benefits of regular service
since their initial appointments like the writ petitioners in Mathur G
case. As held in Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union ofIndia, [2000] 8 SCC
25 at p.45, para 20:

"20. In service jurisprudence, a person who possesses the requisite
qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate
authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period, then such
an appointment cannot be held to be 'stopgap or fortuitous or purely
ad hoc"'.

These judgments, in our opinion, are not only distinguishable on facts but
B also on law. In the above cases, issues with regard to year of vacancy and
seniority in accordance with the date of appointment was in question. The
argument advanced by counsel for the contesting respondents has no merits
and substance. The action of the authorities is based on the mis-interpretation
of the provisions of Rule 21 of 1976-Rules and is, therefore, liable to be set
c aside. The action of the authorities is also contrary to the Register prescribed
for purpose of appointment to the PCS. The mandate of the roster is that
unless his appointment in the order prescribed under Rule 18, the appointment
is invalid. Consequently, the order of appointment must be deemed to be the
order prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. The action of the r-::spondents
in determining the seniority list without reference to the order consequence
D
of appointment is wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
This apart, the term order of appointment is also being mis-interpreted by
the authorities and is being confined to individual order of appointments
issued to individual members of service whereas the term of appointment
refers only to the order/consequence prescribed under Rule 18. Further, from
E a perusal of Rule 21 it would be manifestly clear that if it is to be interpreted
in the manner in which it is presently being done, namely, to determine the
seniority on the basis of the order of appointment i.e. the date on which the
order of appointment is issued, the same must necessarily relate to inter se
seniority of individual sources of recruitment. This procedure was adopted
F in preparing the seniority list confined to Register-B. Action of the authorities
in determining seniority of all the members of the PCS (EB) with reference
to their date of appointment and not with reference to the order by which
they were required to be appointed under Rule 18 is mis-interpretation of
Rule 21 of 1976-Rules and is liable to be set aside.

G We have also referred to the decisions rendered by this Court. This
Court said rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list
and any seniority list prepared in violation of rota and quota is bound to be
negated. The action of the respondents in determining the seniority is clearly
in total dis-regard of rota-quota prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976-Rules. The
H action is, therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court Thus,
ARVINDER SINGH BAINS v.STATE [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 917

1. that the action of the State is contrary to the 1976-Rules;

2. the seniority under the 1976-Rules must be based on a collective
interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules;
B
3. the action of the authorities is negation of Rule 18 of the 1976-
Rules in determining the seniority by the impugned order. Since
the action is contrary to law laid-down by this Court, we have no
hesitation in allowing the appeal and grant the relief as prayed for
by the appellant. c
We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
prepare the seniority list of the appellants who belong to the PCS (EB) in
accordance with Rule 18 and read with Rule 21 of the 1976-Rules by fixing
seniority according to the roaster prescribed under Rule 18 of the 1976-
Rules. Fresh seniority list should be drawn within three months.
D

We further direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits
in the nature of scale of pay, promotion etc. to the IAS, arrears of salary etc.
which they remained deprived due to negligence of the respondent State.
E
In the result, the Civil Appeal No. 6373 of 2001 is allowed. However,
we order no costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.