Holding

The Court held that the plaintiffs were appointed as Lecturers, not Senior Lecturers, and since promotion to Senior Lecturer had been abolished retrospectively from 1 January 1973, there was no demotion; the suit was without cause of action and was dismissed.

Summary

The plaintiffs, originally appointed as Lecturers in a private college that was later taken over by the Haryana Government, claimed they had been promoted to Senior Lecturers under the UGC scheme and that the Government’s regularisation of them as Lecturers amounted to a demotion. The Court examined the statutory orders issued by the UGC, the Haryana Governor (21 September 1976) and the Commissioner (27 January 1976) which merged the Junior, Senior and Selection‑grade Lecturer posts into a single grade effective 1 January 1973, thereby abolishing any promotion to Senior Lecturer thereafter. It held that the plaintiffs knowingly accepted appointment as Lecturers and that the regularisation order of 14 March 1980 was merely a confirmation of that appointment, not a demotion. Since promotion to Senior Lecturer was legally unavailable after the 1973 cut‑off, the plaintiffs could not claim seniority or status as Senior Lecturers. Consequently, the suit was deemed misconceived and without cause of action, and the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s dismissal, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiffs were demoted by being regularised as Lecturers instead of Senior Lecturers.
Whether promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer was permissible after 1 January 1973 in view of UGC and Governor orders.
Whether the plaintiffs, as new entrants after the college takeover, are entitled to seniority in the Senior Lecturer cadre.
Whether the suit disclosed a cause of action and was maintainable.
Whether the Government’s order rejecting the plaintiffs’ representation was illegal.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 16, s. 309, s. 311

Subjects

service lawpromotionregularisationdemotionsenioritygovernment takeoverUniversity Grants Commissionpublic service commissioncivil appealconstitutional law

Judgment

DR. S.K. KHANNA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

NOVEMBER 5, 1993.
B
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)

Service Law-Lecturers in private college-Promoted as senior Lec-
tures-R.ecommendation of University Grants Commission-Revision of and
uniformity in Pay Scales-Merger into one cadre with retrospective ef-
fect-Promotion orders after the merger· cancelled as infructuous-College c
taken over by Government along with entire staff-Regularisation and absorp-
tion as Lec:Urer.s-Whether amounts to demotion-Representation to Govern-
ment claiming status as senior Lecturers-R.ejection by Govemmen~Validity
of.
D
These appeals were filed by some candidates who were appointed as
Lecturers in a private college and thereafter promoted as Senior Lecturers
under the University Grants Commission Sche.me. In 1976, the Commis-
sioner and Secretary to the Government wrote to the Director of Public
Instructions to the effect that there was to be only one grade for Lecturers.
Both the grades of Senior and Junior Lecturers as well as the grade of E
Lecturers (Selection Grade) were made into one grade of Lecturers on a
pay scales of Rs. 700-1600.

In view of the aforesaid revision and the uniformity in pay-scales in
accordance with the recommendations of the University Grants Commis- F
sion, the pay-scales were revised with effect from 1.1.1973. Consequent
upon the said changes, the question of promotion from one category
(Lecturer) to another i.e. (Senior Lecturer) had been done away with,
effective from 1.1.1973, that is, with retrospective effect and certain promo-
tion orders issued in 1974 came to be cancelled as iJ!fructuous. The G
cancellation of promotion was in relation to various Lecturers • some in .
private colleges but mostly in Government Colleges. The College in which
some of the candidates were working was taken over in 1974 by the State
Government, and the services of the entire staff were placed at the disposal
of the Government and their services were regularised in 1980. Repre-
sentation was made to the Government against the order issued in 1980 H
645
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A by which the rank of the erstwhile Lecturers promoted as Senior Lecturers.
was allegedly reduced to that of Lecturers. The Government rejected th~
representation. Thereafter the promoted Senior Lecturers filed a suit
claiming their status as Senior Lectures.

The trial court held that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and
B the suit was not maintainable. It also held that since the plaintiffs were
appointed Lecturers and joined as such, they were estopped from raising
any contention that they were appointed as Senior Lecturers and that they
were entitled to continue as Senior Lecturers. The plaintiffs preferred an
appeal and the lower appellate court allowed the same and held that the
C plaintiffs had to be treated as new entrants in the cadre of Senior Lectures.
Accordingly, it set aside the judgment of the trial court.

The appeal preferred by the State Government was dismissed by the
High Court. On appeal, by special leave.

D This court allowed the appeals, and

HELD : 1. The plaintiffs had knowingly accepted the offer for ap~
pojotment as Lecturers and the order of appointment dated 14th March,
1980 is merely an order of regularisation in consultation with the Public
E Service Commission and, therefore, it cannot be called an order of demo·
lion. There is no right in the plaintiffs, who were working as Senior
Lecturers in the erstwhile private institutions, to be absorbed as Senior
Lecturers when the institution is taken over by the Government. There
could be no promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer after 1st January,
1973 either in Government colleges or private colleges in view of the order
F of the Governor, dated 21st September, 1976 which came to be effective
retrospectively from 1.1.1973. [657·A·B)

2. As regards the seniority list maintained by the Government in
respect of the Senior Lecturers, it should not be forgotten that promotion
fioom Lecturer to Senior Lecturer had been done away with effect from the
G 1st January, 1973, and if there were Senior Lecturers promoted from
Lecturers before that date, there is bound to be a separate list of them.
That does not mean that the erstwhile Senior Lecturers who could not be
Senior Lecturers after 1st January, 1973 could claim to join that list at
any place. The reasons are two. Firstly, as per the orders of the Governor
H there could not be any promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer· after
DR. KHANNAi•. STATE(DAYAL,J.) 647

1st January, 1973. Both the plaintiffs had been promoted after that date - A
one in January and another in November, 1973. Secondly, the seniority or
otherwise in Gowrnment service has to be seen in respect of the post a
person is holding. Initially, the plaintiffs were appointed for six months as J
Lecturers. Their services were rt!gularised as Lecturers. Therefore, there
was no question of their names coming into the list of Senior Lecturers.
In fact it is apparent that the plaintiffs knew of their problem and that is
B
why they requested the Chief Minister for a new cadre of Lecturers or
Senior Lecturers of erstwhile private colleges. Therefore, neither there is
any demotion of the plaintiffs nor was the order of the Government
rejecting the representation could have been quashed. The whole suit was
misconceived. It disclosed no cause of action whatsoever and the trail court C
rightly dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court and the High Court
totally misconceived the facts. (657-C-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3947 of·
1990 etc. etc.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.88 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2455 of 1987.

Govind Mukhoty, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Lalita Kaushik and Shankar
Divate for the Appellants.
E
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Indu Malhotra and G.K Bansal for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition F
(Civil) No. 4702 of 1990.

This order will dispose of Civil Appeals 3947 of 1990; 4091 of 1991
and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4702 of 1990.

It appears that Civil Suit No. 215 of 1981 was instituted by three G
persons, namely- Bant Rai Gupta, O.P. Khosla and R.K. Jain, all Lecturers
of Government National College, Sirsa against the State of Haryana
through its Secretary, Education Department and Director, Higher Educa-
tion, Haryana. The Plaintiffs sought declaration that they were entitled to
continue as Senior Lecturers and the order dated 2nd July, 1980 rejecting H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the representation of the plaintiffs and also the order dated 24th October,
l1J80 reducing the plaintiffs in rank from Senior Lecturers to Lecturers
were illegal, wrong, null and void and were liable lo be sel aside.

Before we deal with the avermenl!!'on the basis of which the aforesaid
declaration was sought, it may be useful lo mention that the plaintiffs had
B submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of Haryana requesting the
Government that their seniority should be fixed amongst the Senior Lec-
turers ~orking in Government Colleges. They also requested that a new
cadre be constituted for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers of the taken over
private colleges. On receipt of this representation, the Directorate of
C Education informed the Principal, Government National College, Sirsa that
the plaintiffs had been appointed Lectures as there was no provision in the
University Grants Commission's grades for the appointment of Senior
Lecturers, as such their demands were rejected vide letter dated 2nd July,
1980.
D It is thus clear from the aforesaid that the order dated 2nd July, 1980
was the order whereby the Haryana Government declined to form a new
cadre for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers for the taken over Colleges and
also declined to treat the plaintiffs as Senior Lectures.

E Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs were
promoted as Senior Lecturers in the National College, Sirsa and thereafter
were promoted as Senior Lecturers under the University Grants Commis-
sion Scheme. The plaintiffs R.K. Jain and Bant Rai Gupta were appointed
as Senior Lecturers in the National College Sirsa a private institution on
11th January, 1973 and 1st November, 1973 respectively.
F
It appears letter No. 765-Edu.1 (1) 76/3535 dated 27th January, 1976
was sent by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana,
Education Department, to the Director of Public Instructions, Haryana,
Chandigarh and copies thereof endorsed to the Principals of all Govern-
G ment/ Non- Government Colleges in existence on 1st January 1975. It was
communicated that there was only be one grade for Lecturers whether of
junior grade or senior grade. The erstwhile Junior Lectures' grade was
300-600 whereas Senior Lecturers' grade was 400-800. Both thes~ grades
as rell as the grade of Lecturers (Selection Grade) were made into one
H grade of Lecturers and it was fixed at 700-40-1100-EB-50- 1300-Assess-
DR. KHANNAv. STATE (DAYAL,J.j 649

ment-50-1600. In short the grade was 700-1600. In view of the aforesaid A
revision and uniformity in the pay-scales in accordance with the recommen-
dations of the University Grants Commission, the pay-scales were revised
with effect from Isl January, 1973. The Governor of Haryana also issued
an order dated 21st September, 1976 to the effect that consequent upon
the above changes, the question of promotion from one category (Lecturer) B
to another (Senior Lecturer) had been done away with retrospective effect
i.e. 1st January, 1973 and the Governor, Haryana, in consultation with the
Haryana Public Service Commission, cancelled the promotion orders is-
sued vide Haryana Government No. 2142/Edu. 1-(1)-74/7781 dated 14th
March, 1974 and 5896-Edu.1(1)-76/24346 dated 7th August, 1974 being C
infructuous as per enclosed annexure. The cancellation of promotion was
in relation to various Lecturers - some in private colleges but mostly in
Government colleges.

The erstwhile College where plaintiffs were serving was taken over
on 22nd January, 1979 by the Government and was re-named as "Govern- D
ment National College, Sirsa."

It was the case of the plaintiffs that as the College was taken over by
the Governmel).t, the services of the entire staff including the plaintiffs were
placed at the disposal of the Government by the Management and as such E
the defendants issued the appointment letters dated 22nd January, 1979
wherein the status of the plaintiffs as regular Senior Lecturers was con-
ceded and this fact was further corroborated when the services of the
plaintiffs were regularised by the defendants vide letter dated 14th March,
1980. It was pleaded that vide letter dated 14th June, 1980 the Government
substituted the words 'Lecturer' in place of 'Senior Lecturer' and also F
informed the plaintiffs that their representation for continuation of Senior .
Lecturers had been rejected by letter dated 2nd July, 1980. The letter dated
24th October, 1980 reducing the rank of the plaintiffs from Senior Lec-
turers to Lecturers was challenged on the ground that there was a separate
distinct living cadre of the Lecturers and of the Senior Lecturers since long G
and as such their seniority should be fixed alongwith the Senior Lecturers.
It was pleaded that the orders were malacious and violate Articles 14, 16,
309 and 311 of the Constitution of India as by the operation of the
impugned orders the plaintiffs would be deprived of their chances of
P!Omotion and lastly it would adversely effect the pension of the plaintiffs. H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
I

A A registered notii;:e was given to the defendants but the same remained
1
unreplied. ·

The ddendants appeared and contested the suit through their writ-
ten statemeut filed on 11th January, 1982. The defendants in the suit
admitted that the College was taken over by the defendants -but denied
B other allegations. The defendants, however, admitted that the services of
the staff of tl\e erstwhile private college was placed at the disposal of the
Government by the Management of National College, Sirsa, but pleaded
that the College was taken over on the condition that the staff of the
College will be treated as new entrants and subject to the approval of
C Haryana Public Service Commission I Subordinate Services Selection
Board, Haryana and in the letter dated 21st November, 1978 whereby the
College was taken over, it was clearly stated that the members of the staff
of their College who will be considered suitable for absorption in the
Government services shall be treated as new entrants. It was further
D pleaded that on 22nd January, 1979 the staff of the College was appointed
purely on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the approval of the
Haryana Public Service Commission to their regular absorption in· the
Education Department and as such no question arose regarding consider-
ing the status of the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded in the written
statement that the plaintiffs were appointed as Lecturers (fresh entrants)
E and their services were regularised after obtaining the approval of the
Haryana Public Se. vict. .Commission as Lecturers only and hence no ques-
tion of there being 'Senior Lecturers' arose. It was further pleaded that
after the acceptance of offer as Lecturer by the plaintiffs, they submitted
their joining reports in which they themselves mentioned their post as
p 'Lecturer'. The defendants specifically pleaded that the services of the
plaintiffs were regularised after obtaining the approval from Haryana
Public Service Commission though they were addressed as Senior Lec-
turers in the address only, on the basis of the list submitted by the
Management, but in this very letter it was expressly made clear that the
.plamtiffs were appointed as 'Lecturer' only and the plaintiffs had mis-in-
0 . terpreted this letter of 14th March, 1980. The defendants denied that they
had reduced the rank of the plaintiffs or that the principles of natural
justice ha4 not been followed. ·

The trial court by order dated 9th February, 1982 framed the follow~
H U.,iauea :-
DR.KHANNAv. STATE (DAYAL,J.) 651
.....
ISSUES: A
1. Whether the impugned order dated 2.7.1980 rejecting the
representation of the plaintiff and order No. 3/4-79/E (i)
dated nil reducing the plaintiffs in rank from Senior Lecturer
to Lecturer is invalid illegal unable to set aside? OPP.
B
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?
OPD.

3. Whether the suit is bad f~r non-joinder of necessary parties?
OPD.
c
4. Whether the plaintiffs have got cause of action? OPD.

5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit? OPD:
D
7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued? OPD.

8. Whether the civil court at Sirsa has got no jurisdiction to try
the suit? OPD.

9. Relief." E
The trial court after considering the entire evidence and the record,
on issued No. 1, took the view that the impugned order dated 2nd July,
1980 rejecting the representation of the plaintiffs and the appointment
order of the plaintiffs dated 14th March, 1980 were legal and valid. 'on
issue.~es.• 2 and 4 the trial court held that the plaintiffs had not challenged F
the order of the Government's taking over the College and they were
specifically appointed as Lecturers by order dated 14th March, 1980 and
are bound by the agreement mentioned in the appointment letter dated
14th March, 1980. Thus the plaintiffs had no cause of action and the suit
in the present forth was also not maintainable as the plaintiffs were G
appointed as Lecturers and not as Senior Lecturers and thus issue Nos. 2
& 4 were also decided against the plaintiffs.

On issue No. 3 the trial court took the view that the suit was bad for
non-joinder of or necessary parties. It took the view that other Lecturers
of the College vyho were absorbed in Government service alongwith the H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A plaintiffs were not the parties to the suit and as the decision of the suit
would likely to effect them, the presertt suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties. Issue Nos. 5, 7 and 8, however, were found in favour of
the plaintiffs and it was held that the suit had been properly va1ued and
the civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. On issue No. 6
B the trial held that the plaintiffs were appointed as per order dated 14th
March, 1980 as Lecturers and they also joined their services as Lecturers
(vide joining reports Ext. D-4 to D- 6) and are therefore estopped from
raising contention that they were appoipted as Senior Lecturers. Since the
plaintiffs were appointed Lecturers and joined as such, they are estopped
from raising any contention that they were appointed as Senior Lecturers
C or are entitled to continue as Senior Lecturers. In view of these findings,
the trial court dismissed the suit.

. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order of the trial court took up
'the matter· in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sirsa. During
D the hearing of the appeal it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that
they were appointed as Lecturers in National College, Sirsa, which used to
be run by the Sirsa Education Society and in due course, were promoted
as Senior Lecturers in the higher pay scale of 400-800. Thereafter, on 22nd
January, 1979 the College was taken over by the Government and services
E of the entire staff, including them, were placed at the disposal of the
Government and in course of time their services were regularised and their
status as Senior Lecturer was conceded in the letter of appointment dated
22nd January, 1979. Even in the letter of 14th March, 1980, when their
services were regularised, they were addressed as Senior Lecturers. How-
ever, by another letter of 14th June, 1980, they were designated only as
F · Lecturers and even their representation for continuation as Senior Lec-
turers was rejected vide letter dated 2nd July, 1980. It was pleaded that
when the College was taken over it was made clear that the entire staff
shall be adjusted in the equivalent/identicaVhigher scale. Consequently, the
Principals were adjusted as Principals, Lecturers as Lecturers,
G Demom:.trators. ~' Demonstrators and so on and so forth and since they
... as Senior Lecturers, they were entitled to be adjusted
were already working
as such. It was "also urged on their behalf that 42 Senior Lecturers were
confirmed vide order dated 9th August, 1980 which means that there was
a distinct living cadre of Senior Lecturers and that they had also taken oath
H as Senior Lecturers. ·
DR.KHANNAv. STATE(DAYAL,J.] 653

The lower appellate court noticed the evidence and took the view A
that much before the taken over of the College on 22nd January, 1979, the
appellants before it were working as Senior Lecturers and were in the
revised U.G.C. scale of 700-1600 and at the time of taking over of the
College, they were holding the permanent posts of Senior Lecturer. The
lower appellate court felt that the only dispute which was to be resolved B
was whether at the time of taking over the College by the Government,
they were entitled to be aqjusted a$ Senior Lecturers or not. The lower
appellate court noticed the orders of the Haryana Government dated 27th
January, 1976 as well as of the Governor of Haryana·dated 21st September,
1976 and took the view that the question of promotion from one category
(Lecturer) to another (Senior Lecturer) was done away with retrospective C
effect i.e. 1st January, 1973 and the scales of College Lecturer and Senior
Lecturer were amalgamated and only one pay scale was formed and the
distinction between the scales of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer disap-
peared. It, however, took the view that since the gradation list of the year
1981 as well as of the years 1984 and 1986 made it abundantly clear that D
20 Lecturers are still being shown as Senior Lecturers in the same, which
means that either those orders were not implemented or later on they were
withdrawn and that the cadre of Senior Lecturers still exists. Therefore, it
does not lie in the mouth of the defendants/respondents before it to pleaci.
that the plaintiffs/appellants could not be adjusted as Senior Lecturers. The
lower appellate court agreed with the respondents before it that the E
plaintiffs had to be treated as new entrants but in the cadre of Senior
Lecturers and accordingly set aside the judgment of the trial court and
passed a decree for declaration, in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants and
against the defendants/respondents tie the effect that the plaintiffs were
entitled to be appointed as Senior Lecturers though in that category they p
might be treated as new entrants which means that they should not be
entitled to claim seniority over other Senior Lecturers, who were previously
working as such.

The matter was taken in appeal on behalf of the Government of
Haryana to the High Court as second appeal but that appeal was dismissed G
by the High Court whereupon the State filed Special Leave Petition and
this Court remanded the second appeal to the High Court for re-hearing
alongwith Writ Petition No. 2310 of 1987 R.K. Sehgal and Others. v. The
State of Haryana and Other. This writ petition had been filed by certain
other Lecturers contending that the de~ision of the High Court given H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A earlier in RS.A. was not binding on them as they were not parties to the
suit. The High Court, after hearing the R.S.A. as remanded by this Court
. alongwith the writ petition, dismissed. both of them.

Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 1990 and Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.
B (C) 4702 of 1990 is against the order of the High Court dated 20th
November, 1988 passed in the writ petition as well as in the RS.A. Civil
Appeal No. 4091 of 1991 is against the judgment of the High Court dated
27th February, 1991 which was passed following the aforesaid order of the
High Court dated 20th November, 1988.

C It appears to us that the lower appellate court and the High Court
totally misconceived the position both on law and facts. It is clear from
Notification dated 27th January, 1976 and the order of the .Governor of
Hatyana dated 21September,1976 that the distinction between the Junior
Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) had been
D done away there was only one grade pf Lecturers w.e.f. 1st January, 1973. ,
It is again clear from the order of the Governor of Haryana that ·the
question of promotion from one category to another had been done away
with retrospective effect. i.e. from lat January, 1973. This was the position
when the private institution was taken over by the Government vide order
No. 23t6n8/Edu.1{2)slated 21st November, 1978. It is clear from paragraph
E 2 thereof that-theHaryana Government had sanctioned the taken over of
the National College, Sirsa, oil the terms and conditions mentioned inter
alia in paragraph 2 sub-paragraphs (ii) and (viii). Sub-paras (ii) and (viii)
read thus:

F
""
"(ii) Such members of the Staff on this college as are considered
suitable for absorption in Government/Service by the
Haryana Public Service Commission/Haryana Subordinate
Services Selec~on Board shall be treated as new entrants.
Only Government scales of pay of respective categories shall
be allowed to them and there shall be no personal grace for
G any one. Their pay in the Government scales will be fixed on
the basis of length of service with equivalent/identical or
higher time scales. There shall be no guarantee in regard to
protecting their existing salaries."

H
DR. KHANNA v. STATE (DAYAL, J.) 655

(viii) ''The staff, subject to their suitability may be appointed tern-. A
porarily, for a period of six months. Their absorption on
regular basis shall however, be subject to the condition laid
down in sub-para 2(i.i) above."

It is clear from sub-para (viii) of paragraph 2 that initially, subject to
suitability, the staff may be appo~nted temporarily for six months and their B
regularisation is subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-para (ii) of
paragraph 2. Sub-para (ii) clearly contemplates that only the staff who are
considered suitable for absorption in Government/Service by Haryana
Public Service Commission/Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board
and are selected shall be treated as "new entrants". C
It is thus clear that when the plaintiffs were appointed, they were new
entrants in service and it is also clear from· their letters of appointment that
the Government was pleased to appoint them in consultation with the·
Haryana Public Service Commission as Lecturers in an officiating capacity
in the scale of 700-10- 1100/50-1300-assessment-50-1600 on the terms and D
conditions mentioned therein. It is mentioned in this letter of appointment
dated 14th March, i.980 that the plaintiffs will be on probation for a period
of two years unless and until the plaintiffs are appointed against permanent
vacancies and that their seniority will be fixed in accordance with the
departmental orders.
E
Admittedly the plaintiffs had joined as Lecturers on 22nd January,
1979. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon Ext. D-13 which is or'y
a covering letter to the order 9f appointment of individual plaintiffs as
Lecturer in consultation with the Haryana Public Service CommiSsion i.e.
order dated 14th March, 1980. It does not talk of any reduction in rank p
from Senior Lecturer to Lecturer. In fact it conveys that on taking over of
the National College, Sirsa, by the Government, the Government of
Haryana in consultation with the Haryana Public Service Commission is
pleased to appoint the plaintiffs as Lecturers in officiating capacity in the
scale mentioned earlier where plaintiffs Bant Rai Gupta and O.P. Khosla
were mentioned as Senior Lecturers in Hindi and English respectively G
while conveying the order dated 14th March. 1980. The idea was to convey
the order to right persons and not to confer the status of Senior Lecturer.
We may mention that initially the plaintiffs had joined as Lecturers on
taken over on or about 22nd January, 1979 and the Joining reports of both
• Bant Rai Gupta and Rajinder Kumar Jain are reproduced hereunder:- H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A "To

The Principal,
Government College, Sirsa, .
Jan. 22, 1979.
.· Sub: Joining Report.
B
Dear ~ir,

This has reference to your appointment letter Endst. No. 4/40-
79-C.1( 1) dated Chandigarh (Camp Sirsa) 22.1.1979 from
C D.D.D.P.I. Haryana.

Respectfully, I beg to join duty as lecturer in Hindi today
forenoon, i.e., with effect from 22.1.1979.

Thanking you,
D
Yours faithfully,
Sd/
(Bant Rai Gupta)
22.1.1979"

E "To,

The Princip_al,
Government College, Sirsa.
Jan. 22, 1979 ·~
Dear Sir;
F
Ref. Haryana Government letter No. 23/6n8- Edu.1(2) dated
21.11.1978, I report for duty with effect from 22.1.1979 (forenoon)

. This.iS for your kind information and record.·
G
Your faithfully,

Sd/
(Rajinder Kumar Jain)
· Lecturer in English
H Govt. College, Sirsa"
DR. KHANNAv. STATE [DAYAL,J.) 657

The plaintiffs had knowingly accepted the offer for appointment as A
Lecturers and the order of appointment dated 14th March, 1980 is merely
an order of regularisation in consultation with the Haryana Public Service
Commission and therefore it cannot be called an order of demotion. There
is no right in the plaintiffs, who were working as Senior Lecturers in the
erstwhile private institution to be absorbed as Senior Lecturers when the
institution is taken over by the Government. As we have noticed, there
·B
could be no promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer after 1st January,
1973 either in Government colleges or private colleges in view of the order
of the Governor, Haryana dated 21st September, 1976 which came to be
effective retrospectively from 1.1.1973.
c
Coming to the so called seniority list being maintained by the
Government in respect of the Senior Lecturers, it should not be forgotten
that promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer had been done away with
effect from 1st January, 1973. If ~here were Senior Lecturers promoted
from Lecturers before that date, there is bound to be a separate list of D
them but that does not mean that the erstwhile Senior Lecturers who
could not be Senior Lecturers after 1st January, 1973 could claim to join
that list at any place. The reason are two. Firstly as per the orders of the
Governor there could not be any promotion from Lecturer to Senior
Lecturer after 1st January, 1973. Both the plaintiffs had .been promoted
after that date - one in January and another in November, 1973. Secondly E
the seniority or otherwise in Government service has to be seen in respect
of the post a person is holding. Initially the plaintiffs were appointed for
six months as Lecturers. There services were regularised as Lecturers.
Therefore, there was no question of their names being coming into the list
of Senior Lecturers. In fact it is apparent that the plaintiffs knew of their F
problem that is way they requested the Chief Minister for a new cadre of
Lecturers or Senior Lecturers of erstwhile private colleges. Therefore
neither there is any demotion of the plaintiffs nor was the order of the
Government rejecting the representation could have been quashed. The
whole suit was misconceived. It disclosed no cause of action whatsoever
and we are surprised that the lower appellate court and the High Court G
totally misconceived the facts.

The result is that Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 1990 and Civil Appeal
arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4702of1990 are accepted. The judgments of
. . the High Court and the lower appellate court set aside and the judgment H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of the trial court dated 17th February, 1983 is restored. As the judgment
under appeal in Civil Appeal No. 4091 of 1991 dated 27.2.1991 passed in
Civil Writ Petition No. 8617 of 1988 is also based on the aforesaid judgment
of the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 1990, for the reasons
aforesaid the same is also set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.

G.N. Appeal allowed.