BHEY RAM AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusTHE HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                  BHEY RAM AND ORS. ETC. ETC.                                 A
                                    v.
          THE HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
                   AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                          SEPTEMBER 8, 1993
                                                                              B
               [S.C. AGRAWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]


      Secvice Law-Seniority-Haryana State Electricity Board-Assistant
EngineersClass II-Appointment by same process at different times-Mode of
detennination of senioril).-Held date of entering service is relevant-Persons C
appointed first shall rank senior to those who_ entered service later.

       Pursuant to an advertisement dated June 30, 1967 of the Haryana
State. Electricity Board, the appellants were selected and appointed as
Assistant Engineers Class II on April 18, 1969 with effect from January 1,    D
1969 after completion of training in terms of the advertisement and the
offer of appointment.

      Pursuant to another advertisement of the Board dated July 14, 1968
Respondent Nos. 2 to 29 were selected and appointed as Assistant En·
gineers Class II between October and December, 1968 i.e. prior to the         E
appointment of appellants. Out of these respondents, Respondent Nos. 6,
16, 17 and 28 were also appointed prior to the appointment of appellants.
However, they joined later but before the appointment date of appellants.
Since the respondents were appointed prior to appointment of the appel·
lants they were shown senior to the appellants in the seniority list. The     f
appellants filed a writ before the High Court, claiming seniority over
Respondent Nos. 2 to 29 which was dismissed. The appeal filed by them
was also dismissed.

       In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants
that as at had been stated in the advertisement that they had to undergo      G
apprenticeship for a period of six months, after expiry of that period they
should have been appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II. It was urged
that if they had been appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II just after
the expiry of the period of six months of apprenticeship, they would have
ranked senior to the respondents.                                             H
                                     219
    220                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            Dismissing the appeals, this Court

          HELD : J • While determining the inter se seniority amongest officers
    recruited from lifferent sources or between officers appointed by the same
    process at different times, the date of entering in the service is relevant. A
    person who enters in the service first shall rank senior unless there is some
B   Rule providing otherwise which can be held to be consistent with Articles
    14 and 16 of the Constitution. (223-C)

         N.K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. (1977) S.C. 251; Paramjit
  Singh v. Rakha Nat, A.I.R. (1983) S.C. 314; A. Janardhana v. Union of India,
C A.I.R. (1983) S.C. 769; A.N. Pathak v. Secy. to the Govt. Ministry of Defence,
  A.I.R. (1987) S.C. 716 and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' As-
  sociation v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 715, referred to.

          2. The respondents shall rank senior to the appellants, as they
    entered in the cadre of Assistant Engineers Class II of the Board before the
D   appellants. [223-F)

         3.1. While determining the seniority of an officer, the date of bis
    appointment is more important factor than the date of his joining. In many
    compelling circumstances like accident, the distance at which a particular
    candidate resides and the time taken by him to join, cannot be ignored.
E                                                                       [222-HJ
          3.2. In the instant case, Respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28 were not
    only appointed before the appellants but they joined also before April 18,
    1969 the date of the appointment of the appellants. The notional seniority
    given to the appellants with effect from 1.1.1969 cannot affect the seniority
F   of even respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28. [223-A]

           4. While challenging the seniority list the appellants cannot make a
     grievance in respect of the period of apprenticeship which was specifically
     mentioned in the advertisement and in the offer of appointment. If the
     appellants were required to undergo apprenticeship for a period exceeding
G    six months, no injustice bas been done to them and that cannot be a ground
     for questioning the seniority list. [224-C]

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4152 of
     1983.

H            From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.82 of the Punjab and
                      BHEY RAM v. H.S.E.B. (N.P. SINGH, J.]                   221
\
    Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 1098/82.                                        A
)
                                       WITH

          Civil Appeal No. 4153 of 1983.

                                        AND                                          B
          Civil Appeal No. 3630 of 1993.

          O.P. Malhotra and D.B. Vohra for the appellants.

          Arun Jaitley, Pramod Dayal, Ajay K. Jain, R. Anand Padmabhan and           C
    S.C. Patel for the respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          N.P. SINGH, J. The appellants in three appeals filed a writ applica-
    tion before the High Court, claiming seniority over respondent nos. 2 to 29      D
    of the said application and sought a direction from the High Court, for
    correction of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers Class II, published by
    the Haryana State Electicity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board").
    The said writ application was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High
    Court. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellants was also dismissed by        E
    the said High Court.

           An advertisement dated June 30, 1967 was published by the Board
    inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Engineers Class II (Electri-
    cal) and Apprentice Engineers (Electrical). Pursuant to the said advertise-
    ment, the appellants mad.e applications for Apprentice Engineers                 F
    (Electrical). The advertisement prescribed three conditions. The first con-
    dition was in respect of the academic qualifications, The second condition
    relating to the period of apprenticeship was as follow :-

                "He will have to undergo apprenticeship for a period of six
            months or such period as may be decided by the Board which can G
            be extended upto a maximum of three years. After completion of
            the said training, they will be considered for appointment to the
            post of Assistant Engineer Class II in the scale of Rs. 350-25-
            450/40-600/40-800 with starting salary of Rs. 350 P.M. on the basis
            of their work and conduct."                                         H
    222.                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The third condition was in respect of giving an undertaking in writing that
    the candidate shall serve the board for a period of two years after comple-
    tion of his training. In the offer of appointment issued to the appellants, it
    was said:-

                 "APPRENTICESHIP : You will have to undergo appren-
B
             ticeship for a period of one year or such period as may be decided
             by the Board. After completion of the above said training, you will
             be considered for appointment to the post of Asstt. Engineer
             Class-II in the scale of Rs. 350-25-450/30- 600/EB-40-800 at the
             basic pay of Rs. 350 P.M. on the basis of your work and conduct."
c
          After completion of the training in terms of the advertisement and
     the offer of appointment, the appellants were appointed as Assistant
     Engineers Class-II, w.e.f. January 1, 1969.

D         It may be mentioned that another advertisement dated July 14, 1968
    had been published by the Board for filling up the posts of Assistant
    Engineers Class II and pursuant to that advertisement, respondent Nos. 2
    to 29 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") made applications and
    they were selected and appointed between October and December, 1968
    as Assistant Engineers Class II. As the respondents aforesaid had been
E appointed between October and December, 1968 and the appellants had
    been appointed w.e.f. 1.1.1969, in the seniority list which was published, the
    respondents were shown above the appellants. There is no dispute that so
    far the appellants are concerned, they were appointed as Assistant En-
    gineers Class II by an order dated April 18, 1969, w.e.f. 1.1.1969 after
p . completion of their apprenticeship, whereas the respondents were ap-
    pointed as Assistant Engineers Class II before 1.1.1969. There was some
    confusion in respect of respondent Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28 as to whether they
    had also been appointed prior to 1.1.1969, but during hearing of the
    appeals, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Board giving the dates of
    their appointments as 23.10.1968, 21.11.1968, 21.11.1968 and 6.12.1968
G respectively. Photo copies of their appointment letters have been annexed
    along with the affidavit. They, however, joined later. It is well-known that
    while determining the seniority of an officer, the date of his appointment
    is more important factor than the date of his joining. In many compelling
    circumstances like accident, the distance at which a particular candidate
H resides and the time taken by him to join, cannot be ignored. So far the
                      BHEY RAM v. H.S.E.B. [N.P. SINGH, J.]                  223

    present case is concerned, respondent nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28 were not only A
    appointed before the appellants but they joined also before April 18, 1969
    the date of the appointment of the appellants. The notional seniority given
    to the appellants with effect from 1.1.1969 shall not affect the seniority of
    respondent nos. 6, 16,17 and 28.

           This Court has examined the question of fixation of seniority inter se   B
    between officers appointed from different sources i.e. by promotion and
    by process of direct recruitment. It is almost settled that while determining
    the inter se seniority amongst officers recruited from different sources or
    between officers appointed by the same process at different times, the date
    of entering in the service is relevant. A person who enters in the service      C
    first shall rank senior unless there is some Rule providing otherwise which
    can be held to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
    Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of N.K Chauhan
    v. State of Gujrat, AIR {1977) SC 251; Paramjit Singh v. Ram Rakha Mal,
    AIR {1983) SC 314; A. Janardhana v. Union of India, AIR {1983) SC 769           D
    and A.N. Pathak v. Secy. to the Govt., Ministry of Defence, AIR {1987) SC
    716. The same view was approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court
    in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v.
    State of Maharashtra, [1990] 2 SCC 715.

           Once it is established that the appellants were appointed Assistant      E
    Engineers Class II on April 18, 1969 w.e.f. 1.1.1969, whereas the respon-
    dents had been appointed between October and December, 1968 as Assis-
    tant Engineers Class II, then the respondents shall rank senior to .the
    appellants, as they entered in the cadre of Assistant Engineers Class II of
    the Board before the appellants. The High Court has rightly pointed out         p
    that in fact the appellants were appointed as Assistant Engineers Class II
    on April 18, 1969, but notional seniority was given to them with effect from
    January 1, 1969. In this process they cannot affect the seniority of even
/
    respondent nos. 6, 16, 17 and 28.

          According to the appellants, as in the advertisement aforesaid, it had G
    been said that they had to undergo apprenticeship for a period of six
    months, after expiry of that period they should have been appointed as
    Assistant Engineers Class II. It was urged that if they had been appointed
    as Assistant Engineers Class II just after the expiry of the period of six
    months of apprenticeship, they would have ranked senior to the respon- H
    224                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A dents. It need not be pointed out that the advertisement while saying that
    the candidate concerned will have to undergo apprenticeship for a period
    of six months had also said that he will have to udergo training for such
    period, as may be decided by the Board, which can be extended upto a
    maximum of three years. Even in the offer of appointment, referred to
    above, it had been said in clear and unambiguous terms that the candidate
B   will have to undergo apprenticeship for a period of one year or such period
    as may be decided by the Board. We fail to appreciate as to how the
    appellants while challenging the seniority list can make a grievance in
    respect of the peiod of apprenticeship which was specifically mentioned in
    the advertisement and in the offer of appintment. According to us, if the
c   appellants were required to undergo apprenticeship for a period exceeding
    six months, no injustice has been done to them and that cannot be a ground
    for questioning the seniority list.

          On behalf of the appellants, it was also pointed out that in past in
    respect of some of the candidates, the period of apprenticeship was for six
D   months only. That is of no consequence when in the advertisement as well
    as in the offer of appointment with which we are concerned, it had been
    clearly stated that such period of six months could be extended upto
    maximum of three years. Accordingly, the appeals fail. But in the facts and
    circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to. costs.

    T.N.A.                                                 Appeals dismissed.