Supreme Court of India
KARAM CHANDversusHARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 336
- Decided
- 31 October 1988
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- M P THAKKAR
Holding
The Court held that the appellant's promotion to a reserved post was a regular promotion, not a temporary one, so seniority is determined from the date of appointment under Rule 9(i), making him senior to the respondents and entitled to promotion.
Summary
Karam Chand, a Scheduled Caste clerk, was promoted in 1973 to Deputy Superintendent of the Haryana State Electricity Board under a reservation quota. The promotion order contained a note that the promotion would not confer seniority over others, and the Board later fixed his seniority based on inter‑se seniority in his previous grade, treating his promotion as temporary under the exception to Rule 9 of the 1952 Service Rules. The appellant claimed that his seniority should be counted from the date of his promotion, making him senior to two junior deputies who were later promoted to Superintendent, and filed a writ petition. The High Court held the promotion was temporary and applied the exception, denying his claim; the Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the promotion was regular, not temporary, and that Rule 9(i) governs seniority, giving the appellant seniority from the promotion date. Consequently, the Court directed that he be treated as promoted to Superintendent from the date his juniors were promoted and ordered payment of the differential emoluments.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee promoted to a post reserved for Scheduled Castes/Tribes is entitled to seniority from the date of appointment to that post or only inter‑se seniority based on the previous grade.
- Whether the exception to Rule 9 of the Punjab P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provincial Service Class‑III Rules, 1952, applies to the appellant's promotion.
- Whether the appellant is senior to the respondents for purposes of promotion to Superintendent.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. Section 3
Subjects
senioritypromotionreservationScheduled Castestemporary promotionservice rulesRule 9public service lawadministrative law
Judgment
j.
KARAM CHAND
A
v.
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.
OCTOSER 31, 1988
B [M.P_. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Punjab P. W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provincial Service Class III
(Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1952. Rule 9-Seniority-Fixation of-
Normally 'in accordance to the date of appointment'-Exception-Case
of temporary promotion.
c The appellant, who belongs to the Scheduled Castes community,
joined service as a clerk on February 20, 1954 in the Electricity Branch
of the Punjab Public Works Department. In February 1959, the Punjab
State Electricity Board was constituted and the employees of the
Electricity Branch were transferred to the said Board. The conditions
D of service of the employees were governed by the existing terms and
conditions, as well as the existing service rules.
In 1967, the Haryana State Electricity Board was constituted and
the appellant was allocated to the said Board. The Electricity Board by
its resolution dated March 16, 1976 adopted the circular letter dated
E December is, 1972 providing for reservation of 22% of Vacancies both
for initiai recruitment as well as for promotion to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes as well as to members of the backward classes.
The appellant was promoted on September 25, 1973 as Deputy
SuperinrenlieiiL The respondent No. 2 was also promoted by the same
F order as Deputy Supel"inteildeitt. However, In the said order, it was
made cleat by :a note appended thereto that the earlier promotion of the
offieials wiii no\ ·confer on theill ·aity right to claim seniority over others.
On April 27, i'91i, .a circular was issued by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Haryana to all the Departments regarding the criteria
for reservation for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
G in the service and fixation of their seniority. As the seniority of the
appeilalit was not determined from the date of his appointment to the
post of Deputy Superintendent, he made a representation to the Board
requesting for its determination. This representation was, however,
rejected on the ground· that seniority in the promoted rank would be
accorded 'only With reference to the inter se seniority in the previous
H post; and •on January 20, 1977, the appellant was finally informed that
702
KARAM CHAND v. H.S.E.B. 703
~· his seniority will not be computed from the date of his promotioll to the
post of Deputy Superintendent, On January 12, 1977 respondents 2 and A
3 who were junior to the appellant as Deputy Superintendent were
promoted as Superintendent superseding the claim of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the first respondent in pro-
moting respondents 2 and 3, the appellant filed a writ petition in the B
High Court for a mandamus directing respondent l to consider his case
for promotion for the post of Superintendent on the basis of his ·being
the senior-most Deputy Superintendent. The writ petition was contested
on behalf of the respondent l who stated in its counter-affidavit that the
petitioner could not claim seniority above the respondents 2 and 3 in the
rank of Deputy Superintendent on the ground that his seniority had
already been fixed in accordance with the exception below rule 9 of the c
I( 1952 Service Rules.
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on
the ground that the instructions governing the matter of promotion in
favour of Scheduled Castes candidate had nothing to do with the D
determination of the seniority of these candidates and that the letter
promoting the petitioner had specifically mentioned that the earlier
promotion would not confer on him any right of claim to seniority over
and a!iove those who are otherwise senior to him in the cadre from
which he was promoted and that in the light of the exception to rule 9 of
the I 952 Service Rules, the petitioner being promoted temporarily, his E
seniority cannot .be counted from the date of his appointment in the
higher post and that respondents 2 and 3, who could be treated senior to
him in the rank of Deputy Superintendent as they were sellior to the
petitioner in the grade of assistants.
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant having been F
dismissed summarily, the appellant appealed to this Court by special
leave.
Allowing the Appeal,
HELD. l. On a plaiii reading of Rule 9 it appears that the ti
seniority of the members of the service serving in an officiating capacity
- shall be determined prior to confirmation 'in the order of the dates of
their appointment' and after confirmation by their respective dates of
confirnlation. The exception to this Rule is that if a member \lf the
Service is promoted temporarily to a post earlier than his senior for
reasons other than inefficiency •of the senior person they will take rank H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A inter se according to their relative seniority In the class from which they
were promoted and the junior person so promoted shall not be
confirmed from a date earlier than the dote of confirmation of the
senior. [70!1F ·G J
In the Instant case, the appellant has been promoted to the post of
B Deputy Superintendent which was reserved under the block system for
members of the Scheduled Castes. The appointment to the snld reserved
post on promotion ls a regular one. The appointment letter does not
articulate that the promotion of the appellant to the poat of Deputy
Superintendent was purely temporary. This being the poeltlon the
exception to Rule 11(11) cannot be applied to determine the seniority of
the appellant In the post of Deputy Superintendent, and his seniority
C cannot be bused In accordance with the Inter se seniority of re1pondent
Nos. l and 3 In the cadre of AHlstants from which the appellant and
respondent No8. 2 and 3 were promoted to the po8t of Deputy
Superintendent. l710A·Dl
D 2, The oppellant Is thus senior to re8pondent No1. 2 and 3 In
the rnnk of Deputy Superintendent OB he WAI proll\otod to the aald
po8t earller than the respondents No8, 2 and 3 and as 8Uch his claim ,,
for promotion to the post of Superintendent on the dates when tbe
respondent Nos, l end 3 were promoted to such post Is leuol end
vulld. [710EI
.I, Reapondenl No. I la directed to trellt the appelh1nt promoted to
the post of Superintendent from the dote Respondent Nos. 2 and J were
promoted to the sold post ond to pay him the emoluments olloched to
the aold post of Superintendent mlnu8 the emoluments pold as Deputy
Superintendent from lhol dole till Moy 29, 1981 dote of uetuol nppolnl•
p menl os Superintendent. l7llA·DJ
CIVIL APP!l:LLAT!l: JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4454
of 191!5,
From the Judgment and Order dilled 15.2. 1984 of the Punjob
o and Hllryona High Court In L.P .A, No, 224 of 1984. ·
V.M. Tarkunde, MIH Meenok8hl Arora, R.N. Karanjawaln ~nd
Mrs. Manlk Karnnjawala for the Appellant.· ....
K.K Jain, A.O. Sanger, Ajay K. Jain, Pramod Dayal, B.R.
H Agarwal, P.O. Ookhale, Janendra Lal and Miss Yashmin Tarapore for
the Respondents.
KARAM CHAND v. H.S.E.B. [RAY/J'l '' 705
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
RAY, J, The only question that arises for decision in this appeal
is whether an employee promoted to a post reserved for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes is entitled to have his seniority
determined from the date of his appointment to the post or his senio-
rity inter se will be reckoned as it was in the class or grade from which B
he was promoted to a post in a higher rank.
The appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste joined service as a
Clerk in the Electricity Branch of the Punjab ·Public Works Depart-
ment on February 20, 1954. The terms and conditions of his service
were governed by the Punjab P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provincial
Service Class-III (Subordinate posts) Rules, 1952. In February, 1959
c
and Punjab State Electricity Board was constituted under Section 3 of
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the employees of the Electricity '
Branch were transferred to the Board . .The coR<litions of service of the
employees were governed by their existing terms and'conditions as
well as existing service Rules. In 1967 the Haryana State Electricity D
Board was constituted and the appellant was allocated to the Haryana
State Electricity Board with existing terms and conditions of service.
The Board being a statutory corporation was requested by letter <:iated
December 13, 1972 by the Government to provide for reservation of
22 % of vacancies-initial recruitment and promotion posts for being
filled up by members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as E
well as by members of backward classes. The Haryana State Electricity
Board adopted the above circular by its Resolution dated March 10,
1976 providing for reservation of posts both for initial recruitment as
well as for promotion. The appellant was promoted on September 25,
1973 as Deputy Superintendent. The respondent No. 2, Rajinder
Singh Marya was also promoted by the same order as Deputy F
Superintendent. In the said order of appointment the following note
was appended:
"The earlier promotion of the above officials as Deputy
Superintendent, will not confer upon them any right lo
claim seniority over those who may otherwise be senior to ·(J
them due to any reason whatsoever."
On April 27, 1972 a circular was issued by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Haryana to all its departments regarding reservation
for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in service and
fixation of seniority, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the said circular which are H
relevant are quoted hereinbeIOw:
70(> SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
"2. It has to be pointed out that this was irregular and imer
se seniority of all the candidates taken together (i.e.
whether appointed against reserved vacancies or against
open ones) must be fixed according to the combined merit
list and not otherwise. Vacancies assigned to Scheduled
Castes/Backward Classes under block system are so
B assigned for the purposes of reservation only and are not
intended for fixing inter se seniority of the candidates con-
trary to their order in the combined merit list prepared by
the Public Service Commission/Subordinate Service Selec-
tion Board.
G.
4. ·The above instructions, regarding determination of inter
se seniority will however, apply only in those cases where
the deparimental service rules do not provide for seniority
being determined from the date of joining or from the date
D of confirmation or by a method otherwise than the merit
determined by the Public Service Commission/S.s.s:
Board. In other words, in all cases where the service rules
have .not yet been framed, or where the service rules pro-
. vide for seniority being determined according to the merit
laid down by the Commission/S.S.S. Board, the seniority
E of the officials shall be determined in the manner stated
above. In other cases, where the service rules specifically
provide for seniority being determined from the date of
joining or from the date of confirmation by the recruiting
authority the seniority shall be determined by such diffP.-
rent methods."
F
As the seniority -Of the appellant was. not determined from the
date of his appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent he made
a representation to the Board requesting for determination of his
seniority from the date of his appointment to the promoted post and
also for considering his case for promotion to the post of Superinten-
0 deni. This representation of the appellant was rejected on the ground
that:
"The officials belonging to the scheduled castes/tribes and
backward classes who are promoted against the posts
reserved for them under the block system and for reasons
other than inefficiency .of their seniors will not be assigned
KARAM CHAND. v. H.S.E.B. IRAY,,J.] 707
seniority from the date of their joining in the promoted A
rank. They shall be assigned seniority in the promoted rank
with reference to their inter .se seniority of their previous
posts.··
Thereafter, on January 20, 1977 the appellant was finally
informed that his seniority will not be computed from the date of his B
promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. On January 12, 1977
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Rajinder Singh Marya and Jagdish Lal
Lamba who were junior to the appellant as Deputy Superintendents,
were promoted as Superintendents superseding the claim of the
appellant.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant instituted an application under
c
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
No. 1 to consider his case for promotion to the oost of Superintendent
011 the basis of his being seniormost Deputy Superintendent according
to the continuous length of service on that post and to promote him to D
the post of Superintendent with effect from the date his juniors have
been promoted and for other consequential reliefs.
An affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 verified by
Shri R. Prakash, Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board wherein
in para 3 it has been submitted that: E
" ..... the seniority of the petitioner has been determined
in the post of Deputy Superintendent in accordance with
the exception below Rule 9 of the 1952 Rules."
In Para 5 it has been admitted that the appellant was ·promoted as F
Depury Superintendent on 25th September, 1973 and since then he is
continuing on the said post. It has further been submitted that the .
promotion of the appellant was in an officiating capacity and he still
continues to officiate as. Deputy Superintendent. The appellant was
promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent against a post which
was reserved for the Scheduled Castes, thoueh 11e was far junior in the G
cadre of Assistants. In para 7 it has been stated that:
" ..... The petitioner cannot claim seniority above those
two officials in the rank of Deputy Superintendent. In view
of the exception to Rule 9, if a member of service is pro-
moted temporarily to a post earlier than his s_enior, for H
•
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
reasons other than the inefficiency of the senior person,
A
they will take rank ·inter se according to their relative
seniority in the class from which they were promoted and
junior persons'thl!s promoted shall not be Cf>nfirmed from a
date earlier than the date of confirmation of his senior
except on the score of inefficiency of the latter. In the
B present case, the petitioner was promoted temporarily. to
the post of Deputy Superintendent earlier to the other two
officials on the ground that the petitioner belonged to the
scheduled castes.· The other two officials were not super-
seded on the ground ofinefficiency ...... "
On February 4, 1984 the learned single Judge of the High Court
c dismissed the writ petition holding inter alia that the instructions go-
verning th~ matter of promotion in favour of the Scheduled Caste candi-
dates had nothing to do with the determination of the seniority of
these candidates. Moreover, in the letter promoting the petitioner it
was specifically mentioned that the earlier promotion would not confer
D on him any right or claim to seniority over and above those who were
otherwise senior to him in the cadre .from which he had been pro-
moted. It was further held that in the light of exception to Rule 9, the
petitioner being promoted temporarily, his seniority cannot be
counted from the date of his appointment in the higher post and the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would be tfeated senior to him in the rank of
E Deputy Superintendent as they were senior to the petitioner in the
grade of Assistants. It was, therefore, found that respondent Nos. 2
and 3 were entitled to be promoted as Superintendents earlier to the
petitioner.
Against this judgment and order Letters Patent Appeal being
F LPA No. 224 of 1984 was filed. The said appeal was however, dismi&-
sed summarily as being without any merit.
The appellant, thereafter, filed the instant appeal assailing the
said judgment. Before proceeding to consider the question whether
the appellant's seniority was properly determined under Rule 9 of the
G Punjab P.W.D. (Electricity Branch) Provincial Service Class III (Sub-
ordinate posts) Rules, 1952 (in short to be referred he~ein as the said
Rules) it is necessary to set out herein the relevant provfaion of Rule 9:
"9. $.eniority of the members of the Service-The seniority
of the.members of the Service for the time being serving in
H each class of appointment shown in Appendix 'A' shall be
determined as folfows:
KARAM CHAND v. H.S.E.B. [RAY, J.J 709
. (i) Prior to confirmation (i.e. in the case of persons serving A
on probation or in an officiating capacity) in the order of
0
the dates of th eir appointment or if such date be the same
in respect of twu or more persons, in the order of their
ages, the older being placed above the younger.
B
(ii) After confirmation by their respective dates of confir-
mation, provided that where two or more membrs are con-
firmed w .e.f. the same date they will retain the order to
confirmation.
Exception: If a member of the servke is promoted
temporarily to a post earlier than his senior, for reasons c
other than the inefficiency of the senior person they will
take rank inter-se according to their relative seniority in the
class from which they were promoted and the junior person
thus promoted shall not be confirmed from a date earlier
than the date of- confirmation of his senior except on the
D
score of inefficien,cy of the latter.
Provided further that if a member is appointed to a higher
class later than a person who was junior to him in the lower
class for reasons which the appointing authority may
certify in writing to be ·connected with the Public
E
interesf the person so appointed shall be given the same
seniority in the higher class vis-a-vis such junior as he held
in the lower class."
Thus, on a plain .reading of the Rule it appears that the seniority
of the members of the Service se~ng in an officiatinj! capacity shall be
F
determined prior to confirmation 'in the order of the dates of their
appointment' and after confirmation by their respective dates of con-
firmation. There is an exception to this Rule to the effect that if a
member of the Service is promoted temporarily to a post earlier than
his senior for reasons other than ineffiCiency of the senior person they
will take rank inter-se according to their relative seniority in the class
G
from which they were promoted and the junior person so promoted
.shall not be confirmed from a date earlier than the date of confirma-
tion of the senior. The provision contained in the exception to Rule 9
is applicable only in the case of temporary promotion of a member of
. the service to a post earlier than his senior for the purposes other than
inefficiency, of the senior persons. H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
ID the instant case admittedly the appellant has been promoted .
. A to the post of Deputy Superintendent which was rese!Ved under the
block system for members of the Scheduled Castes. The appointment
to the said reserved post on promotion is a regular one and this has·
been admitted in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit referred to
hereinbefore. The appointment letter does not articulate that the
B promotion of the appellant to the post of Deputy Superintendent was
purely temporary. The promotion has been .made on a regular basis to
the post of Deputy Superintendent reserved on the basis of quota of
vacancies for being filled up 'by promotion of members belonging to
the Scheduled Castes. The appointment of the appellant to the saia
promotional post of Deputy Superintendent, in our considered_
C opinion cannot be designated to be purely a temporary promotion.
This being the position the excel'tion to Rule 9(ii). of the said rules .
.:annot be applied to determine the seniority of the appellant in the
· post of Deputy Superintendent and his seniority cannot be based in
accordance with the inter-se seniority of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in
the cadre of Assistants from whlch the appellant and respondent Nos .
. D 2 and 3 were·promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent. Rule
9(i) of the said Rules is applicable in this case and the seniority of the
appellant JS to be reckoned from the date of his appointnlent m the post
of JJepucy Superintendent. The appellant is thus seniono respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 in the rank of Deputy Superintendent as he wa~ promoted
to the said post earlier than the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and as such
E his claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent on the dates
when the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to such post is legal
and valid·. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ.
petition, tne appellant had been promoted to the post of Superinten-
dent on 29.5.1981 and as such he pleaded in para 6 of the special leave
petition that. hls seniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent
F should not be affected on the basis of the judgments rendered by the
High Court.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances stated .
hereinbefore, the finding of the High Court that__ the appellant was
promoted temporarily and so exception to Rule 9(ii) applies for de'
G termination of seniority of the appellant as Deputy Superintendent, in
our considered opinion, cannot be sustained as we have already held
that the promotion of the appellant in a reserved vacancy,.is a regular
one and it does not smack of.purely temporary cnaracter. The seniority
of the appellant is to be reckoned from the date of his appointment to
the said post according to the provisions of Rule 9(i) of the said Rules.
H The judgments of the High Court in Letters l:'atent Appeal No. 224 of
. . ·~ .,
KARAM CHAND v. H.S.E.B. [RAY, J.]
•.
/
1984 as well as in the writ petition No. 773 of 1977 are set aside and the A
is
appeal allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to treat the appel-
·lant promoted to the post of Superintendent from the date the respon-
dent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to the said post and to pay him the
emoluments attached to the said post of Superintendent minus. the ,
emoluments paid as Deputy Superintendent from that date till the date /B1
of his actual appointment as Superintendent, i.e. May 29, 1981. The /
appeal is thus allowed with costs.
N.V.K. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search