BALESHWAR PASWAN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

A                   BALESHWAR PASWAN AND ORS.
                                      v.
                       STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

                            DECEMBER 16, 2003

B               [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.]

         Service Law-Seniority-Appointment in different cadres either on
    the basis of competitive examination or though other sources-Decision
    taken to merge cadres-Appellants appointed as Assistants on the basis of
C   a test conducted by the office of the Advocate General-Assistants
    appointed on the basis of competitive examination shown senior to
    appellants-Seniority list upheld by High Court in writ petition filed by
    appellants-Held, there can be no difference between sets of employees,
    who had been recruited by the office of the Advpcate General and those
    recruited from other sources-View taken by High Court on the basis of
D   a Government Circular, constitutional validity of which had been upheld
    and affirmed by this Court, cannot be faulted with at all.

          Appellants were appointed as Assistants on the basis. of a test
    conducted by the office of the Advocate General, Bihar. Assistants
E   were also appointed in the Secretariat through a previous general
    competitive examination. The Government decide~ to merge both
    these cadres and all Assistants recruited through the competitive
    examination were to rank senior to Assistants appointed through other
    sources. Later on, the office of the Advocate General merged with the
F   office of the Department of Law, Government of Bihar. The appellants
    were considered appointed through other sources, therefore, shown
    junior to Assistants appointed through the general competitive exami-
    nation. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by tliem upholding
    the seniority list. Hence this appeal.

G        Appellants contended that all persons should have been placed in
    the same category and inter se seniority ought to have been fixed on
    the basis of their date of joining the service.

         Dismissing the appeal, the Court

H        HELD : I. In principle, there cannot be any difference between
                                      948
     BALESHWAR PASWAN v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]                  949

these two sets of employees who had been recruited from other sources A
and recruited by the office of the Advocate General. The view taken
by the High Court that the seniority of the appellants who have been
recruited from other sources vis-a-vis those appointed on the basis of
the general competitive examination must be determined by applying
the principles laid down in the Government Circular dated 30.3.1981, B
constitutional validity of which had been upheld by the High Court and
as affirmed by this Court, cannot be faulted. (951-C-E)

    Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1994} Supp.
3 sec 451, relied on.
                                                                          c
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3617 of
2000.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.1999 of the Patna High
Court in CWJC No. 5313 of 1994.
                                                                          D
     P.S. Misra and Amrendra Sharan, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Sujit Kumar
Singh, Pawan Upadhyay, Vishnu Sharma, S.B. Upadhyay, Amit Kumar,
Shrish Kumar Mishra and Irshad Ahmad for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                           E
      RAJENDRA BABU, J. : The ~ppellants before us participated in a
test conducted by the Office of Advocate General, Bihar between 1975 and
 1985 and they were appointed as Assistants. Pursuant to the general
competitive examination, recruitment had taken place to the Secretariat of F
the Government of Bihar and when the question of merger of the two
cadres arose, the Government took a decision on 14.8.1987 that all the
Assistants who have been recruited through general competitive examina-
tion would rank senior to the Assistants who have not been appointed
through general competitive examination but through other sources, while,
of course, protecting their inter se seniority.                            G
      By an order made on 21. 7.1991, the Government of Bihar decided
that the office of Advocate General, would stand attached to the office of
the Law Depa1tment of the Government of Bihar. When the question of
merger of the two Departments arose, the Government followed Rule H
    950                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   l 4(2)(gha) that inter se seniority of the candidates appointed on the basis
    of the competitive examination and those appointed through other sources
    shall be determined on the basis that those appointed pursuant to the
    competitive examination shall rank senior and the posit!on will be deter-
    mined on the. basis of the date of being put on probation below all
B successful candidates appointed on the basis of the result of the competitive
  . examination. On this basis, final gradation list was published and the
    appellants were shown to be junior to the Assistants who have been
    appointed through competitive examination. Their representations against
    the same having been unsuccessful, they preferred a writ petition before
C the High Court.
         The High Court held that the appellants admittedly did not take the
    general competitive examination held in the years 1971 and 1973 and that
    they have been selected on the basis of the test held by the Department
    of Advocate General and, therefore, they stood on the same footing as
D   candidates recruited from other sources and not on the basis of the general
    competitive examination held for the recruitment of Assistants. It is this
    order of the High Court that is in challenge before us.

        It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the appellants should have
E been placed in the category of persons appointed through general competi-
  tive examination and their inter se seniority along with other Assistants
  ought to have been fixed on the basis of date of joining as per the existing
  rules and not in the manner as has been done. The stand of the respondents
  is what has been accepted by the High Court. The High Court proceeded
  on the basis that the Assistants employed in the office of the Advocate
F General became members of the joint cadre only after it was declared to
  be an attached office pursuant to the Resolution dated 27.2. 1991. The Joint
  Cadre Rules had already come into effect from 30.8.1988 though they were
  notified on l.6.1992. The contention put forth by the appellants that they
  were also appointed on the basis of the test held by the office of the
G Advocate General and they should be equated with those Assistants who
  were selected on the basis of the general competitive examination, was not
  accepted by the High Court. The High Court observed that the appellants
  stood in the same position as other candidates who had not taken the
  general competitive examination held in the years 1971 and 1973 and,
H therefore;-ihey stood on the same footing as candidates recruited from other
       BALESHWAR PASWAN v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.]                  951

sources, i.e., candidates recruited departmentally and not on the basis of A
any general competitive examination held for the recruitment of Assistants
and that on the merger of the departments, the appellants cannot claim
anything what had been claimed by the parties in connected matters. In
this context, the High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in Uday Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1994] Supp. 3 SCC B
451. This Court held that the appellants, who were placed in a similar
situation as in the present case, had entered the merged cadre of senior
branch on a particular date and while the respondents therein had entered
the department as direct recruits prior thereto and, therefore, they should
be treated as senior to the respondents.
                                                                            c
     In principle, there cannot be any difference between these two sets
of employees who had been recruited from other sources and recruited by
the office of Advocate General. Therefore, the view taken by the High
Court that the seniority of the appellants who have been recruited from
other sources vis-a-vis those appointed on the basis of the general D
competitive examination must be determined by applying the principles
laid down in the Government circular dated 30.3.1981, constitutional
validity of which had been upheld by the High Court and as affirmed by
this Court in Uday Pratap's case [supra] cannot be faulted with at all.

       This appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismised. Ordered accordingly. E

A.Q.                                                    Appeal dismissed.