M.S.L. PATIL, ASTT. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOLARPUR (MAHARASHTRA) ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

A           M.S.L. PATIL, ASTT. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
                    SOLARPUR (MAHARASHTRA} ETC.
                                             v.
                        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

                                  OCTOBER 23, 1996
B
                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

           Service Law :

C         Se11iority-l11ter-se se11i01ity between direct rec1uits and promotees-
  Ratio fu:ed is 1: 1-Promotees appdi11ted i11 excess of the quota ca11not get the
  e11tire le11gth of se1vice-17iey are to be fitteJ i11 the se11iority list according to
  the Rules--Promotees have 110 right to get illto the post reserved for direct
  recrnits-Ca11y f 01ward rnle 11ot applicable si11ce recrnitment in proportio11 is
  one of the methods of recrnitmellt a11d is required to be made--Civil services
D (Regulation of Se11iority) Rules, 1982.
          K.C. Joshi & Ors. v. Unio11 of India and Ors., AIR (1991) SC 284 and
    A.N. Sehgal v. Raje Ram Sheoran, [1992) Supp. 1 SCC 304, relied on.

           Indra Sawhney v. U11io11 of I11dia, [1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217, distin·
E    guished.

           State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sa11jay 17iakre & Ors., [1995) Supp. 2
     sec 407, held applicable and need not be reopened.
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C}
F    No. 17913 of 1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.1996 of the Maharashtra
     Administrative Tribunal in 0.A.No. 83 of 1996.

           Petitioner-in-Person.
G
         Raju Ramachandran, M.D. Adkar, P.K. Mullick, S.D. Singh and
     Kumar Parimal for the Petitioner in S.L.P (C} No. 17818/96.

           L.N. Rao and S.U.K. Sagar for the Impleading Party.

H          The following Order of the court was delivered :
                                       644
                            M.S.L PATIL v. STATE                          645

         By order dated September 16, 1996 passed by our learned brethren A
·· Justice N.P. Singh and Justice S.B. Majmudar, placed these matters before
   this Bench, since the controversy had already been decided by this Court
   in a matter in which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member, viz., State
   of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sanjay Thakre & Ors., (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 407.
   These cases arise from the common order of the Administrative Tribunal,
                                                                              B
   Bombay in Application No.83/96 etc. dismissing the above judgment.

         Mr. M.S.L. Patil, party appearing-in-person has raised five conten-
  tions, namely, that the combined seniority as per the rules was to be
  maintained from the date of the regular appointment or promotion. As per
  the rules, the petitioner came to be appointed prior to the appointment of C
  th<! direct recruits. Therefore, the entire length of service rendered by him
  as an Assistant Conservator of Forests requires to be tagged for maintain-
  ing his seniority. If so considered, he would be senior to the direct recruits.
  Therefore, they cannot scale march over the promotees. It is also con-
  tended that the direct recruits unfilled quota cannot be carried forward. D
  He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union
  of India, (1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217 known as Mandal's case. They were not
  recruited according to rules. He also contended that he was not made a
  party to the earlier proceedings which culminated in the aforesaid judg-
  ment. Therefore, the decision passed by this Court is violative of the
  principles of natural justice. He also contended that the third respondent E
  in this case is a direct recruit and has concealed several material facts
  which led to the open judgment by this Court. Shri Raju Ramachandran,
  learned senior counsel appearing for some of the promotees, contended
  that in the earlier case, this Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment has
  specifically stated the premises that specific material has not been placed F
  on record of the appointment of the promotees, viz., whether their promo-
  tions were fortuitous or not. The quota rules was broken down between
  the direct recruits and the promotees. Even under Rule 4 of the Civil
 Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982, the second proviso thereto
 gives a power to the Government to certify that the direct recruitment
 could not be made. In view of the stand taken by the Gove~nment in the G
 counter-affidavit filed in the Tribunal that the so-called rule· of quota has
 been broken down, it would amount to certification that it did not make
 regular recruitment; as a result, promotees gain seniority which has to be
 counted from the date of the regular promotion. Thereby, they would be
 senior to the direct recruits.                                                   H
    646                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A         In view of these contentions, the question that arises is : whether the
  judgment of this Court has been vitiated by any error of law warranting
  reconsideration at the behest of some of the persons who aie not parties
  to the earlier proceedings? It is undoubted that they were not parties to
  their earlier petition but this Court has laid down the general principle of
B law and, therefore, whether or not they are parties to the earlier proceed-
  ings, the general principle of law stands applicable to every person ir-
  respective of the fact whether he is party to the earlier order or not. It is
  not in dispute that there is a ratio prescribed for the direct recruits and
  the promotees, namely, 1:1. In other words, for every 100 vacancies the
C promotees are entitled only to 50 vacancies. It is not in dispute that these
   promotees have been promoted in excess of the quota. Under those
  circumstances, it is settled law that the promotees who are appointed in
   excess of the quota cannot get the entire length of service. Therefore, they
   are required to be fitted into seniority according to the rules. As to what
  is the date on which the promotees or the direct recruits came. to be
D appointed into the respective quota is a matter of record and the seniority
   is required to be determined according to the law laid down by this Court.
   In several judgments of this Court, it is now firmly settled that merely
   because of the fact that the State Government could not make direct
   recruitment due to its inaction, it cannot be said that the rule of quota has
E been broken down. Therefore, as and when the direct recruitment has been
   made, the direct recruits are entitled to placement of their seniority into
   the vacancies reserved for them as per the ratio and the seniority deter-
   mined as per the rules within the respective quota. Similarly, when the
   promotees came to be promoted in accordance with the rules in excess of
F their quota, this Court stated in KC. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
   AIR (1991) SC 284 though a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges, that the
   promotees in excess of the quota cannot be given seniority from the
   respective dates of their promotions. They have to be considered only from
   the respective dates on which their respective quota is available. The same
    decision was followed and reiterated in A.N. Sehgal v. Raje Ram Sheoran,
G [1992] Supp. 1 sec 304. Under these circumstances, we do not think that
    the judgment of this Court is vitiated by any error of law for reconsidera-
    tion. Even Rule 4, second proviso has no application to the facts in this
    case. Rule 4 contemplates the seniority and second proviso postulates that
    when the recruitment could not be made, they have to certify the ground
H on which it could not be made and thereafter the seniority has to be
                          M.S.L PAfil v. STATE                          647
determined. In view of the law now laid down, the certification of the A
non-making of direct recruitment according to rules, bears no relevance.
The question of carry forward in this case, as laid down in Mandal's case,
has no application for the reason that the recruitment in proportion is one
of the methods of recruitment and is required to be made. The balance
posts are recruited by subsequent publication and the promotees have no B
right to get into the post reserved for the direct recruits. Mandal's case
concerns carry forward posts reserved under Article 16(4) for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes which has nothing
to do in this case. Though some of the grcunds will be available to argue
the case on merits, that is no ground to reopen the settled law laid by this
Court in earlier decision.                                                   C
       The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

G.N.                                                    Petitions dismissed.