Holding

Rule 26's terms mean that "recruited" equals "appointed" and "year" means calendar year, so direct recruits appointed in a given calendar year are junior to promotees appointed in the same year, rendering quota and vacancy‑year considerations irrelevant.

Summary

The appellants, directly recruited Assistant Engineers appointed in 1980 against vacancies of 1978, claimed seniority over promotee Assistant Engineers appointed in 1979‑80, invoking Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. The respondents filed a review and a separate original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the original suit but entertained the review, holding that seniority should be based on the actual appointment year. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "recruited" and "year" in Rule 26, concluding that "recruited" means "appointed" and "year" refers to the calendar year, making direct recruits appointed in a given calendar year junior to promotees appointed in the same year. The Court held that quota considerations and the year of vacancy are irrelevant for seniority, and since the entire dispute was before the Supreme Court, the maintainability of the review application need not be decided. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the seniority rule that promotees are senior to direct recruits in the same calendar year.

Issues considered

The meaning of 'recruited' in Rule 26 – does it refer to appointment or to an earlier stage of selection?
The definition of 'year' in Rule 26 – calendar year or the year of vacancy?
How should inter‑se seniority between direct recruits and promotees be determined under Rule 26?
Whether the quota for direct recruitment and promotion is relevant to seniority under Rule 26
The maintainability of the review application filed before the Administrative Tribunal
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain a review when the original application was dismissed

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 12, s. 19

Subjects

seniorityrecruitmentpromotionservice rules interpretationadministrative tribunalreview jurisdictionappointment vs recruitment

Judgment

A JAGDISH CH. PA TNAIK AND ORS.
v.
ST ATE OF ORIS SA AND ORS.

APRIL 7, 1998

B [G.B. PATTANAIK AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.]

Service law :

Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, I 941: Rule 26.
c Seniority-Inter se-Direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees-Determination
of-Officers-' 'Recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment in the same
year"-Held: The word "recruited" means "appointed" and the "year"
means calendar year-A Direct recruit is recruited when appointment letter
is issued and not when process of recruitment is started-Hence, direct
D recruits recruited during the calendar year would be junior to the promotee
recruits recruited during the said calendar year-Further, while determining
seniority, reference to quota for direct recruitment and the vacancies under
that quota, not necessary.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Sections 19 and 12.
E
Review application-Filed by third party-Maintainability of-Third
party also filed original application-Tribunal allowed review application
but dismissed original application as not maintainable-SL? filed against
dismissal of original application-Appeal against review order also filed--
Held : since the entire matter is before Supreme Court the issue regarding
F

-
maintainability of review application need not be decided. {

Interpretation of Statutes:

Interpretation-Ru/es of-Plain or ordinary meaning-Preference of-
Held : When language used in the statute is unambiguous and on a plain
G grammatical meaning being given to the words in the statute, the end result
is neither arbitrary and irrational nor contrary to the object of the statute,
then it is the duty of court to give effect to the words used in the statute
because the words declare the intention of the law making authority the best.

Words and Phrases :
H "Recruited" and "Year "-Meaning of-In the context of R. 26 of the
676
JAGDISH CH. PATNAIK v. STATE 677
Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941. A
The appellants were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers by the
State Public Service Commission in accordance with Orissa Service of
Engineers Rules, 1941 against vacancies for the year 1978 and were actually
appointed in the year 1980. The respondents were the promotees to the post B
of Assistant Engineers.

The appellants filed an original application before the State
Administrative Tribunal claiming that since the appellants were recruited
against vacancies for the year 1978 their seniority vis-11-vis the respondents
should be determined on that basis notwithstanding the fact that the appellants C
were actually appointed in the year 1980. The respondents had not been
arrayed as parties to the said proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the
application.

Being aggrieved the respondents filed a review application before the
Tribunal for reviewing the aforesaid order. The respondents also filed an D
original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original
application as not maintainable. However, the Tribunal allowed the review
application and held that the appellants could not be treated as recruits of
the year 1973 but must be treated as recruits of the year 1980 when they
were actually appointed. The Tribunal further held that the appellants were
not senior to the respondents of the year 1979 and 1980. Hence the present
E
appeals against the review order and dismissal of the original application.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the review application
before the Tribunal was not maintainable since the original application filed
by the appellants was disposed of; that there was a distinction between the F
expressions "recruitment" and "appointment" in service jurisprudence and,
therefore, when Rule 26 used the expression "recruited" it must be a stage
prior to the issuance of the appointment letter and logically should mean
when the selection process started; and that the year in which the vacancy
occurred was relevant for determination of seniority irrespective of the year G
in which a person was recruited.

On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the word 'year'
meant a calender year under Rule 3(t) and, therefore, Rule 26 was categorical
to the effect that when the appellants and respondents were recruited in the
same calender year the respondents would be senior to the appellants. H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The expression "officers are recruited by promotion and
by direct recruitment" used in Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers
Rules, 1941 necessarily means that when the State Government appoints
them as Assistant Engineers. To import something else into the Rule will
B neither be in the interest of justice nor is it necessary in any manner and
it would tantamount to a legislation by the Court. When the language used )...
in the statute is unambiguous and on a plairi grammatical meaning being
given to the words in the Statute, the end result is neither arbitrary and
irrational nor contrary to the object of the statute, then it is the duty of the
C Court to give effect to the words used in the Statues as the words declare
the intention of the law making authority best. In that view of the matter
there is no justification to go into the question of quota meant for direct
recruits and promotees nor is it necessary to find out as to the year in which
the vacancy arose against which the recruitment is made. On an analysis of
the scheme of the Rules it becomes clear that the expression 'recruited'
D would mean appointed and the expression 'during the same year' in Rule 26
would mean during the calender year and, therefore, direct recruits recruited
during the calendar year would be junior to the promotee recruits recruited
during the said calender year. Quota should not be taken into cor.sideration
while fixing inter se seniority under Rule 26. There has been no grievance
E on the part of the appellants-direct recruits that there has been any excess
promotion beyond the quota permissible for them and consequently such
question does not crop up for consideration. [686-H; 687-A-C; 690-DI

1.2. It is not possible to accept the contention that the expressions
'recruitment' and 'appointment' have two different concepts in the service
F jurisprudence and , therefore, when Rule 26 uses the expression 'recruited
it must be a stage earlier to the issuance of appointment letter and logically
should mean when the selection started. This is not the intention in the
scheme of the Rules. Under the scheme of the Rules, a person can be said
to be recruited into service only on being appointed to the rank of Assistant
G Engineer, as would appear from Rules 5 and 6. Though the process of
recruitment starts when thr. Public Service Commission invites applications
under Rule 10 but until and unless the government makes the final selection
under Rule 15 and issues appropriat~ orders after the selected candidates
are examined by the Medical Board, it cannot be said that a person has been
recruited to the service. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that in the Rules
H the expression 'recruited' should be interpreted to mean when the selection
JAGDISH CH. PATNAIK v. STATE [G.B. PATTANAIK. J.] 679
process really stmied. That apmi, the said expression 'recruited' applies not A
only to the direct recruits but also to the promotees. In case of direct
recmits the process of recruitment sta11s with the im·itation of application
by the Commission and in case of promotces it starts with the nomination
made by the Chief Engineer under Ruic 16. Howe,·cr, in both cases, the final
selection ,·ests with the State Government under Rules 15 and 18 respcctivel~· B
and until such final selection is made and appropliate orders passed thereon
no person can be said to have been recruited to the service. The onl~·
appropliate and logical construction that can be made of Ruic :Z6 is the date
of the order under which the persons arc appointed to the post of Assistant
Engineer. This is the crucial date for determination of seniorit)'· under the
said Rule. (692-A-F) C
1.3. There is no dispute that there will be some time lag between the
year when the vacancy accrues and the year when the final recruitment is
made for complying with the procedure prescribed hut that would not give
• a handle to the Comito include something which is not there in Rule 26 .
Under this Rule the year in which vacancy arose and agaimt which rncancy D
the recmitment has been made is not at all to he looked into for detennination
of the inter sc seniority between direct recruits and the promotees. It merely
states that during the calender year direct recruits to the cadre of Assistant
Engineer would be junior to the promotee recruits to the said cadre. It is not
possible for the Comi to import something, which is not there in Rule 26, E
and thereby legislate a new Ruic of Seniority. It is, therefore, not possible
to accept the c.ontention that the year in which the vacancy occurred is
relevant for the purpose of determining the seniority irrespective of the year
in which a person was recruited. (690-G-H; 691-A-B)

S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703; VB. Badami''- F
State of.Mysore, (1976) l SCR 815; A.N. Sehgal v. Rafe Ram Sheroan, (1992)
Supp. 1 SCC 304 and Direct Recruits Class ff Engineering Officers'
Association''- State of Maharashtra, [1990) 2 SCC 715, held inapplicable.

TN. Saxena v. State of UP, [1991) Supp. 2 SCC 551 and S.S. Bola v.
B. Sardana, [1997) 8 sec 522, referred to. G
2. In the present case the respondents who were not llllliies to the
earlier proceedings not only filed an application for review hut also filed an
independent application and the Tribunal being of the \iew that independent
application will not he maintainable reviewed its earlier order and the
impugned order has been passed. While the appellants have challenged the H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A reviewed order of the Tribunal, the respondents have filed Special Leave
Petition against the order of the Tribunal dismissing their original
application. Thus the entire dispute is before this Court and, therefore the
issue regarding the maintainahilit)· of the review application need not be
decided. (691-F-G]

B K. Ajit Bahu v. L'nion of India, (1997] 6 SCC 473, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9108 of
1995 Et~.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.94 of the Orissa Administrative
C Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, in M.P. No. 3229 of 1992.

M.K. Banerjee. Raju Ramachandran and Ashok Kumar Gupta for the
Appellants.

G.L. Sanghi, Janaranjan Das, Aswini Kumar Mishra and K.N. Tripathy •
D for the Respondents.

P.N. Misra for State of Orissa.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E G.B.PATTANAIK,J. Leavegranted inSLPNo. 7017ofl998.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 25 .10 .1994 of the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal in Misc. Petition No 3229 of 1992, arising out of
Original application No. 78 of 1989. The appellants are graduates in Civil
Engineering and had been recruited as Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation
F Wing in the Irrigation and Power Department in the State of Orissa after being
duly selected by Orissa Public Service Commission in accordance with Orissa •
Service of Engineers Rule, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules). The
respondents are the promotces to the post of Assistant Engineers from
amongst the Junior Engineers and Sub-Assistant Engineers. O.A. No. 78 of
G 1979 had been filed by the direct recruited Assistant Engineers claiming inter
alia that the appointments of such direct recruits having been made against
vacancies of the year 1978 they should be treated as appointees of the year
1978 and consequently their seniority should be determined on that basis
....
under the promotee Assistant Engineers of that year notwithstanding the fact
that they were factually appointed as Assistant Engineer in the year 1980. The
H Tribunal allowed the said application by order dated 29.6.1992. It may be
JAGDISII Cl!. PATNAIK v. STATE [G.B. PATTANAIK. J] 681

stated that the promotec Assistant Engineers of the years 1979 and 1980 had A
not been arrayed as party to the said proceedings. As the order of the
Tribunal dated 29.6.1992 adversely affected the seniority of the promotee
Assistant Engineers who had been promoted in the year 1979 and 1980 they
filed a Misc. Petition \\hich was Registered as Misc. Petition No. 3229 of 1992
for reviewing the order dated 29.6. 1992. They also filed a direct Petition before B
the Tribunal which was registered as OA No. 2325 of 1992. The Tribunal
disposed of both the Original Application as well as the Misc. Petition by the
impugned judgment and came to hold that the Original Application would not
be maintainable since the question of inter se seniority has been decided in
OA No. 78of1989 by Order dated 29.6.1992. It, however, came to the conclusion
that the review of the said order is maintainable particularly when the affected C
persons had not been arrayed as parties to the earlier decision. Thereafter by
interpreting the Rule of seniority, particularly Rule 26 of the Rules, came to
hold that the direct recruits cannot be held to be recri1its of the year 1978 and
on the other hand, must be held to be recruits of the year 1980 when the State
Government by Notification appointed those direct recruits as Assistant D
Engineers in March 1980. It further came to hold that such direct recruits.
therefore, cannot be held to be senior to the promotees of the year 1979 and
will be juniors to promotees of the year 1980. The aforesaid order of the
Tribunal reviewing the earlier order dated 29.6. 1992 is the subject matter of
challenge in this appeal. The promotees whose Original Application No. 2325
of 1992 was dismissed as not maintainable also filed a Special Leave Petition E
by way of abundant caution and that Special Leave Petition was also taken
on Board and was heard alongwith the present appeal.

The brief facts culminating in the impugned order of the Tribunal may
be stated as hereunder:-
F
That in the year 1978 forty vacancies were available in the post of
Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Wing of the Irrigation Department of the
State ofOrissa out of which 10 posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment
in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules. Orissa Public Service Commission
issued an advertisement inviting applications from the candidates eligible for G
appointments to the service in the year 1979 and after completing the process
of selection prepared a list of selected candidates in accordance with Rule 13. .
of the Rules and submitted the same to the State Government sometimes in
November 1979. The State Government finally made the final selection in
accordance with Rule 15 and required the selected candidates to undergo
medical examination and issued letters ofappointment in March 1980. Thereafter H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A the appointees joined as Assistant Engineer. The respondents who are junior
engineers had been promoted as Assistant Engineers in accordance with
Rules on different dates in 1979 and 1980. namely. 27.8.1979, 27.11.1979.
-U.1980. -L 11.1980 and 27.12.1980. Jagdish Patnaik appellant No. I who was
a direct recrnit to the. post of Assistant Engineer filed Original Application No.
B 78 of 1989 in the State Administratiyc Tribunal seeking the relief that he
should be given the seniority in the rank of Assistant Engineer below the
promoted Assistant Engineers in the year 1978 since he has been recruited
to the said post against a vacancy which has arisen for the year 1978 and
for the delay caused by the department he should not be made to suffer. The
Tribunal was persuaded to accept the said contention raised on behalf of Shri
C Patnaik and it came to hold that since he has been selected against a vacancy
of the year 1978 his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer should be
determined treating him to be a recruit of the year 1978 notwithstanding the
fact that he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer by Notification dated
29th March, 1980. The Tribunal, therefore directed the State Government to
fix the seniority of said Shri Patnaik below the promoted Assistant Engineers
D of the year 1978. It may be stated at this stage that under Rule 26 of the Rules
which deals with the inter se seniority of the Assistant Engineers as between
direct recruits and promotees, the promoted officers recruited during the year
would be considered senior to the officers directly recruited during the year.
Since the implementation of the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal adversely
E effected the seniority of the promotee Assistant Engineers who had been
promoted during the year 1979-80 they approached the Tribunal both by filing
an Application for Review and by filing an Original Application, as already
stated, and the Tribunal disposed of the same by the impugned order.

Mr. Milan Banerjee, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
F appellants contended that under the Rules quota having been fixed for direct A.
recruits and for promotees and appointments having been made according to
the quotas, a person appointed as a direct recruit against the quota available
for the year 1978 cannot be held to be junior to a promotee who was promoted
in the year 1979 or 1980. According to the learned senior counsel though Rule
G 26 which deals with the question of inter se seniority between the direct
recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant Engineer does not refer to
the aforesaid quota, but once appointment itself is on the basis of quota that
must be engrafted into the Rule meant for determining the inter se seniority
and on that basis the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained
H in law.
JAGDISH CH. PATNAIK v. STATE [GB. PATTANAIK. J.] 683

Mr. Banerjee. the learned senior counsel further contended that the A
recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Engineer being made from two different
" x sources and the Recruitment Rules having itself prescribed the quota of
recruitment from different sources the seniority inter se has to be regulated
on the basis of the said quota and judged from that stand point the impugned
order is unsustainable in law. Mr. Benerjee. learned senior counsel lastly B
submitted that after disposal of the original Application No. 78 of 1979 by
entertaining an application for Review the Tribunal could not have re-
considered the matter and could not have taken a contrary view than the
earlier one and the impugned order, therefore. is beyond powers of review of
the Tribunal.
c
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for some of the
interveners who are direct recruits, supported the submissions made by Mr.
Banerjee, learned senior counsel and contended that there is a distinction
between expression 'recruitment' and ·appointment' in service jurisprndence.
The expression ·recrnitment' signifies a stage prior to the issuance of an
actual appointment order, therefore, when the seniority Rules contained in D
rnle 26 uses the expression 'direct recruitmenf there is no justification to
constrne that it is the actual year of appointment that would govern the
seniority and in this view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal
is erroneous in law. According to Mr. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel
the expression 'direct recruitment' in Rule 26 of the Rules refers to the E
commencement of the process of recruitment which is fixed and ascertainable
and not the date of actual appointment which for several reasons can be
indefinitely delayed in a given case and there is no justification for construing
Rule 26 in that manner.

Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the promotee F
respondents on the other hand contended, that the language used in Rule 26
of the Rules is clear and unambiguous and on a plain gramatical meaning
being given to the words used therein the conclusion is irresistible that the
seniority of Assistant Engineers appointed during a particular year has to be
determined on the principle that the promotees appointed during the year
would be senior to the direct recrnits appointed during the year, and therefore, G
the impugned order of the Tribunal is unassailable. Mr. Sanghi, learned senior
counsel further contended that the Recruitment Rules no doubt have prm·ided
quota indicating the percentage to be appointed as Assistant Engineers by
direct recruits and percentage to the appointed as Assistant Engineers on
promotion but that provision has no relevance nor can it be engrafted into H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f 1998] 2 S.C.R.

A Rule 26 which goYcrns the inter se seniority of the persons appointed in the
cadre of Assistant Engineer. Mr. Sanghi. learned senior counsel also submilted
that in the. facts and circumstances of the case Applic<Jtion for Review was ...- .,
maintainable and was rightly entertained by the Tribunal and in any event
Original Application also hal'ing been filed the rights of the respondents
B cannot be denied in any manner.

Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Orissa
supported the submissions made by Mr. Sanghi and contended that the
actual year during which the appointment is made to the cadre of Assistant
Engineer. be it on promotion or be it on the basis of direct recmitment is the
C governing factor for determination of inter sc seniority as is apparent from the
language used in Rule 26 of the Rules. Mr. Mishra .. learned counsel further
contended that under the scheme of the Rule, it is the State Gol'ernment who
has the final power of selection both for an appointment under direct
recmitment as well as appointment under promotion and until that power is
exercised no person can claim to have been recruited to the service and that
D being the position the year in which the vacancies arose and against which
the recmitment made is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the seniority
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that Rule 5 which deals with
recruitment to service is also indicative of the fact that a person can be said
to be recmited only on being appointed to the rank of Assistant Engineer and
E therefore it is not possible to construe that for the purpose of determining
the seniority any date anterior to· the said appointment can at all be germane
consideration. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel also submitted that the word
'year' having been defined to mean a calendar year under Rule 3(f) of the
Rules and Rule 26 being categorical to the effect that the officers recruited
by promotion and by direct recruitment during the same calendar year the
F promoted officers would be considered senior to the direct recruited officers,
it is only logical to hold that when they are appointed to the post of Assistant
Engineer which would be taken into account for the purpose of seniority and
not otherwise.

G Correctness of the rival submissions would depend upon an
interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Rules and for that purpose it
would be necessary to notice the scheme of the Rules itself.

Rule 4 of the Rules indicate the strength of the cadre and it includes
...
posts starting from Assistant Engineer to the Chief Engineer. Rule 5 deals
H with recmitment to the service and the expression ·service' has been defined
JAGDISH CH. PATNAIK v. STATE [G.13. PATTANA!K, J.] 685

in Rule 3(a) to mean Orissa Service of Engineers. A
Under Ruic 5 first appointment to the serYice lws to be made to the rank
of Assistant Engineer ordinarily.

Rule 6 deals 11ith the mode of rccrnitment to the rank of Assistant
Engineer and under the said Ruic the said recruitment is made partly by direct B
recruitment in accordance with Rules 8 to 15 and partly by promotion from
the subordinate Engineering Service and the Junior Engineers ScrYice in
accordance with Rules 16 to 18.

Under Ruic 7 the Government decides the number of vacancies to be
filled each year and it further provides thM out of the vacancies posts to be C
filled up by promotion from Sub-Assistant Engineers should be such as it
would not exceed the 25% of the total strength of the pemrnnent and temporary
Assistant Engineers including the leave and training reserve and those
officiating as Executive Engineers. Out of the remaining vacancies 2/3rd
would be filled up by promotion from the rank of Junior Engineers and the D
. rest by direct recruitment.

Rule 9 prescribes the qualification for the direct recruitment of Assistant
Engineer.

Rule I 0 is the procedure which the Public Service Commission is required
to adopt by inviting applications for the vacancies to be filled up by direct E
appointment.

Rule 11 provides for submission of application forms to the Commission.
And

Rule 12 provides for consideration of those application by the F
Commission and interviewing all candidates who arc likely to be suitable for
appointment.

Ruis 13 prescribes that the Commission shall prepare a list of selected
candidates, arranged in order of preference, and the said list is required to be
submitted to the Government alongwith the recommendations of the G
Commission.
•
Rule 14 and 14 A deal with reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribe candidates.

Rule 15 provides for final selection of the candidates to be made by the H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 2 S.C.R.

A Government from amongst the list submitted by the Commisssion. In Rule 15
B canmdidates so selected \rnuld be examined by a Medical Board and on
being found medically fit letters of appointments can be issued. r
"'
Rules 16 to 18 is the procedure prescribed for promotion of the candidates
who arc either Junior Engineers or in Subordinate Engineering Service. And
B in their case also the final selection lies with the State Government under Rule
18.

Rule 19 provides for probation of direct recruits for a period of 2 years
and for promotees a period of one year.

c Rule 20 is the provision for confirmation.

Rule 26 with which we are really concerned in the present case is the
rule of seniority. It would be appropriate to extract the said Ruic 26 in
extenso:-

D '·Rule 26 - Seniority - (I) When officers are recruited by Promotion and
by direct recruitment during the same year. the promoted officers shall ,,. ~
be considered senior to the officers directly recruited irrespective of
their dates of joining the appointment.

(2) Between the two groups of promoted officers, those promoted
E from the rank of Sub-Assistant Engineers shall en bloc be senior
to those promoted from the rank of Junior Engineers.

(3) Subject to provision of Sub-rules (1) and (2) seniority of officers
shall be determined in accordance with the order in which their
names appear in the lists prepared by the Commission."
F _A..
The very sclteme of recruitment under the Rules, as indicated above,
unequivocally indicates that in case of direct recruit the final authority lies
with the State Government who issues appointment orders from amongst the
persons found eligible by the Public Service Commission and further who
have been found medically fit by the Medical Board. Even such an appointee
G is also required to undergo probation for two years and there after he can be

•
confirmed in the service. Under Rule 26, which is the Rule for determining
inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits when the expression
,., <-

used is 'officers are recruited by promotion and by direct recruitment'
necessarily it means that when they are appointed as Assistant Engineers by
H the State Government. To import something else into the Rule will neither be
JAGDISH CH. PATNAIK v. STATE [G.B. PATTANAIK. J.] 687

in the interest of justice nor is it necessery in any manner and it would A
tantamount lo a legislation by the Court. It is a well known principle of
construction of statute that when the language used in the statute is
unambib'llous and on a plain gramatical meaning being given to the words in
the Statute. the end result is neither arbitrary. irrational or contrary to the
o~ject of the statute, then it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the B
words used in the Statutes as the words declare the intention of the law
making authority best. In that view of the matter we do not see any justification
to go into the question of quota meant for direct recruits and promotees nor
is it necessary to find out as to the year in which the vacancy arose against
which the recruitment is made. On an analysis of the scheme of the Rules,
as narrated earlier, we are. of the considered opinion that the expression C
·recruited' would mea appointed and the expression ·during the same year'
in Rule 26 would mean during the calendar year and, therefore, direct recruits
recruited during the calendar year would be junior to the promotee recruits
recruited during the said calendar year.

Mr. Banerjee learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, D
however. stenuously urged that when the Recruitment Rules provide for
different quotas in the rank of Assistcnt Engineer and persons are appointed
against those quotas the seniority must be governed accordingly and, therefore,
the year in which the vacancies arose and against which the recruitment is
made would get engrafted into the rule meant for detem1ining the inter se
seniority. In support of this contention the learned senior counsel placed E
reliance on the decisions of this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India
& Ors., (1967) 2 Supreme Court Reports 703, VB. Badami etc. v. State of
ivfysore & Ors., (1976) I Supreme Court Reports 815, TN. Saxena & Ors., v.
State of U.P. & Ors., [1991) Supp. 2 Supreme Court Cases 551, and A.N
Sehgal & Ors., v. Raje Ram Sheoran & Ors., (l992) Supp. (1) Supreme Court F
Cases 304.

In .Jaisinghani :~case (supra) the validity of Rule l(f)(iii) of the Seniority
Rules framed in l 952 was under challenge inter alia on the ground that the
said Rule was bases upon an unjustifiable classification between direct recruits
and promotees after they had eI!WfOO. into Class I Grade II service. This Court G
negatived the said contention on a finding that under the said Rule three
years of outstanding work in Class II is equal to two years of probation in
Class I service and on consideration of this aspect of the matter the promotee
is given senioiity over the direct recruit on completing the period of probation
in the same year. On a thorough analysis of the different provisions of the
Rules this Court also came to the conclusion that Rule l(f) (iv) is based on H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 2 S.C.R.

A a reasonable classification and docs not violate the guarantee under Articles
14 and 16. Mr. Bane~jee, le2rned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
however, placed strong reliance on the observations of this Court in
Jaisinghani \-case whereander the Court had obseJYed .. we are of the opinion
that having fixed the quota in exercise of the power under Rule 4 between the
B two sources of recrnitmcnt, there is no discretion left with the Government
of India to alter that quota according to the exigencies of the situation or to
deviate from the quota, in any particular year, at its own will and pleasure,
As we have already indicated, the quota rule is linked up with the seniority
rule and unless the quota rule is strictly obseryed in practice, it will be difficult
to hold that the seniority rnk i.e., rule 1 (!)(iii) (iv), is not unreasonable and
C does not offend Article 16 of the Constitution.'·

The aforesaid observation had been made when the allegation that there
was excessive recruitment of promotees in violation of the Quota Rule was
being considered and examined. ln the case in hand there is no assertion by
the appellants-direct recruits that promotees have been recruited to the cadre
D of Assistant Engineer in excess of the quota provided for them. We are not
in a position to hold that injaisinghani's case anything has been said by this
Court to even suggest that whenever in a Recruitment rule quota is fixed for
different feeder cadre then the said quota gets engrafted into the Seniority
Rules and seniority has to be determined thereby. If an allegation is made by
E the direct recruits that at a given point of time or during a calendar year the
promotees were in excess of the quota available for them under the Rules then
such of those promotees who are found to be in excess of the quota would
obviously be held to be recruits contrary to the Rules and as such, would
not have any right to the post, but such an allegation has not been made in
the case in hand and consequently the question does not arise for
F consideration. In our considered opinion the decision of this Court in
Jaisinghani :~ case cannot be held to have laid down an inflexible rule that
a quota having been fixed for recruitment to a service for differePt feeder
caders the said quota protento gets embodied into t11e Seniority Rule.

G In Badami s case (supra) on which Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel
strongly relied upon what really fell for consideration of this Court is whether
the direct recruits were really recruited against the vacancies available in their
quota and as such would be senior to the promotees? This Court rejected the
contention of the promotees that the said direct recruits were recruited against
temporary vacancies and held that they having been recruited against the
H vacancies meant for their quota would be senior to the promotees under the
J/\GDISJI CH. PATNAIK r. STATE [G.B. P/\TT/\NJ\IK. J.] 689

Seniorit) Rules. In the absence of an) such grievance in the case in hand we A
fail 10 understand as lo how the aforesaid decision 1rill be of any assistance
in interpreting Ruic 26 of the Rules.

The next decision on which the learned senior counsel relied upon is
T.\'. Saxena:~ case (supra). In this case the dispute relating to inter se seniority
between direct recruits and promotees to the post of Senior Marketing B
Inspector was for consideration before this Court and the Court had given
certain earlier directions while disposing of an appeal. Pursuant to the said
direction a fresh seniority list had been drawn up and that seniority list had
been assailed on the ground that the earlier direction of the Court has not
been implemented. In disposing of the matter the Court had observed that in C
drawing up the seniority list the earlier direction of the Court has not been
borne in mind and consequently the list was quashed.

Mr. Banerjee, the learned senior counsel further very much relied upon
the observations made by this Court in Direct Recruits Class II Engineering
Officers· Association v. State of Maharashtra case, [1990] 2 SCC 715, a D
portion of which has been extracted in Saxena 's case to the effect--

'·when appointments are made from more than one source, it is
permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources
and if rules are framed in this regard, it must ordinarily be followed
strictly" E
There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition nor is there any
dispute in the present case that neither quota has been fixed or quota fixed
has been violated in filling up the post in the cadre of Assistant Engineers.
That being the position, the aforesaid decision also is of no assistance to the

- contention raised.

The last case on which Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel relied upon
F

is the case of A.N. Sehgal, (supra). In this case the inter se seniority between
the direct recruits and promotees in Haryana Service of Engineers Class I
PWD (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1960, came up for consideration. G
On consideration of the relevant provisions of the Rules the Court came to
the conclusion that when under Rule 5(2)(a) the quota for appointment of
direct recruits Assistant Executive Engineers has been fixed at 50% and
proviso to said Rule merely enables the State Government to promote in
excess of 50% of the Assistant Engineer, the intendment of the proviso is that
so long as eligible direct Assistant Engineers are not available for appointments H
690 Sl JPREME COURT REPORTS [ l 9981 2 S.C.R.

A as Exccutiyc Engineer a promotcc from Class II service could be allowed to
officiate in excess of the quota but the moment the direct recruits arc aYailable
they alone would be entitled to fill up the posts and promotces will hm·c to
give place to the said direct recruits. And this being the position those
promotees \Yho Iwd been recruited in excess of the quota under the proviso
B cannot get seniority m·cr the direct recruits who \Yere within the quota of 50'%
available for them. The ratio of the aforesaid case also will have no application
to the case in hand. It may be stated that subsequent to this decision the
Haryana Legislators amended the Recruitment Rules giYing it retrospective
effect as aforesaid interpretation given by this Court caused undue hardship
and a situation which cannot be conceived of and the said later Rule has also
C been considered by this Court by a Bench of three Hon 'bk Judges in S.S.
Bola & Ors. v. 'H. D. Sarda11a, [1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 522, and the rule
has been held to be valid. In the aforesaid premises, we are unable to accept
the contention of Mr. Banerje, the learned senior counsel, that under the
Rules in question quota having been fixed, while Interpreting inter se seniority
under Rule 26 that should be borne in mind. As we have stated earlier, there
D has been no grievance on the part of the appellants direct recruits that there ,..
has been any excess promotion beyond the quota permissible for them and
consequently such question does not crop up for consideration.

The next question for consideration is whether the year in which the
E vacancy accrues can have any relevance for the purpse of determining the
seniority irrespective of the fact when the persons are recruited? l\1r. Banerjee's
contention on this score is that since the appellant was recruited to the cadre
of Assistant Engineer in respect of the vacancies that arose in the year 1978
though in fact the letter of appointment was issued only in March 1980, he
should be treated to be a recruit of the year 1978 and as such would be senior
F to the promotees of the years 1979 and 1980 and would be junior to the
promotees of the year 1978. According to the learned counsel since the
process of recruitment takes a fairly long period as the Public Service
Commission invites application, interviews and finally select them whereupon
the Government takes the final decison, it would be illogical to ignore the year
G in which the vacancy arose and against which the recruitment has been made.
There is no dispute that there will be some time lag between the year when
the vacancy accrues and the year when the final recruitment is made for
complying with the procedure prescribed but that would not give a handle
to the Court to include something which is not there in the Rules of Seniority
under Rule 26. Under Rule 26 the year in which vacancy arose and against
H which vacancy the recruitment has been made is not al all to be looked into
JAGDISH CH. PATNA!K v. STATE [G.B. PATTANA!K. J.] 691

for determination of the inter se seniority between direct recruits and the A
promotees. It merely states that during the calendar year direct recmits to the
cadre of Assistant Engineer would be junior to the promotec recruits to the
said cadre. It is not possible for the Court to import something which is not
there in Rule 26 and thereby legislate a new Rule of Seniority. We are,
therefore, not in a position to agree with the submission of Mr. Banerjee, the B
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants on this score.

The only question that survives for consideration raised by Mr. Banerjee
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is whether the Tribunal
was justified in entertaining an application for review and ultimately reversing
the earlier decision? In support of this contention reliance has been placed C
on the decision of this Court in K. Ajit Babu & Ors. v. Union ofIndia & Ors.,
- 1997 (6) Supreme Court Cases 473. In the said case what was held by this
Court, after analysing the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act is
that the right of review is available only to those who are party to a case and
even if a wider meaning is given to the expression 'person feeling aggrieved'
accming in Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act then whether such D
person can seek the review b;· opening the whole case has to be decided by
the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances. The Court also held that the right
to review is possible only on limited grounds although strictly speaking Order
47R1 Civil Procedure Code may not be applicable and when such application
is filed within the period of limitation. This Court also held that when the E
application under Section 19 of the Act is filed and the question involved in
the said application stands concluded by some earlier decisions of the Tribunal,
the Tribunal necessarily has to take into account the judgment rendered in
the earlier case, as a precedent and decide the application accordingly. But
in the case in hand the respondents who were not parties to the earlier
proceedings not only filed an application for review but also filed an F
independent application and the Tribunal being of the view that independent
application will not be maintainable reviewed its earlier order and the impugned
order has been passed. While the appellants have challenged the reviewed
order of the Tribunal respondents have filed a Special Leave Petition against
the order of the Tribunal dated 29.10.1994 dismissing their original application G
No. 2335 of 1992 holding the same to be not maintainable. In this view of the
matter the entire dispute is before this Court and we have also heard the
parties at length and the question that review is not maintainable really does
not arise.

The only other contention which requires consideration is the one H
-+-
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S. C.R.

A raised by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the
intcrvenors to the effect that expression ·recmitment' and ·appointment' have
'r .c:::::
two different concepts in the service jurispmdencc and, therefore, when Rule
26 uses the expression ·recmited· it must be a stage earlier to the issuance
of appointment letter and logically should mean when the selection process
started and that appears to be the intendment of the Rule Makers in Rule 26.
B We arc, however, not persuaded to accept this contention since under the
scheme of Rules a person can be said to be recruited into service only on ~

being appointed to the rank of Assistant Engineer, as would appear from Rule
5 and Rule 6. Then again in case of direct recmits though the process of
recruitment starts when the Public Service Commission invites applications
c under Rule 10 but until and unless the Government makes the final selection
under Rule 15 and issues appropriate orders after the selected candidates are
examined by the Medical Board, it cannot be said that a person has been
recruited to the service. That being the position it is difficult for us to hold
that in the Seniority Rule the expression 'recmited' should be interpreted to
mean when the selection process really started. That apart the said expression
D 'recruited' applies not only to the direct recruits but also to the promotees.
r
In case of direct recruits the process of recruitment starts with the invitation
of application by the Comniission and in case of promotees it starts with the
nomination made by the Chief Engineer under Rule 16. But both in the case
of direct recmits as well as in the case of promotees the final selection vests
E with the State Government under Rules 15 and 18 respectively and until such
final selection is made and appropriate orders passed thereon no person can
be said to have been recmited to the service. In this view of the matter the
only appropriate and logical construction that can be made of Rule 26 is the
date of the order under which the persons are appointed to the post of
Assistant Engineer, is the cruciai date for determination of seniority under the
F said mle. Mr. Raju Ramachandran's contention, therefore, cannot be sustained. )...
_,
In the premises, as aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But in
the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

In view of the decision in C.A. No. 9108 of 1995 the appeal arising out

-
G of SLP No. 7017 of 1998 does not sun:ive and no further order is required to
be passed therein.
.{
V.S.S. Appeal dismissed.