Holding

Where statutory recruitment rules are silent, the Government may validly issue executive instructions to determine seniority, and such instructions are enforceable, meaning seniority is not to be reckoned from the date of appointment but as per the executive instructions.

Summary

The appellants, directly recruited Section Officers (Commercial Audit), challenged the method of fixing their seniority, arguing that their probationary appointment should count towards seniority for promotion. The Recruitment Rules, 1988 were silent on inter se seniority of direct recruits, and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Manual of Standing Orders (Administrative) issued by executive instruction provided a method for determining seniority. The Supreme Court examined whether such executive instructions could validly fill the statutory gap and be enforceable. Relying on precedents, the Court held that the Government may supplement silent statutory rules with non‑inconsistent executive instructions, and that seniority is to be fixed as per those instructions, not from the date of appointment. Consequently, the appellants' claims were dismissed and the appeals were rejected.

Issues considered

Can executive instructions/standing orders validly fill gaps in statutory recruitment rules when the rules are silent on seniority of direct recruits?
Is seniority of direct recruits to be reckoned from the date of probationary appointment or as determined by the executive instructions?
Are such executive instructions enforceable despite the acceptance of terms and conditions of appointment?

Subjects

seniorityexecutive instructionsrecruitment rulesdirect recruitmentstanding ordersservice lawseniority determinationstatutory interpretation

Judgment

A M. SRINIVASA PRASAD AND ORS.
v.
THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 29, 2007

B [H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

Service Law:

Seniority-Determination of-Seniority of direct recruits to the post of
C Section Officer on passing examination-Claim that the initial appointment
on probation to be reckoned towards the seniority-Recruitment Rules silent
about the determination of inter se seniority-standing Orders issued by
executive instruction to fill the gap unfilled by statutory Rules-Enforceability
of-Held: Executive instructions can supplement the statutory Rules-Furth~r.
D it cannot be said that seniority is to be reckoned from the date ofappointment.
Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual of Standing Orders
(Administrative) Volume J~Indian Audit and Accounts Department Section
Officer (Commercial Audit) Recruitment Rules, 1988.

Appellants were appointed to the post of Section Officer (Commercial
E Audit) by direct recruitment process. Their services are governed by Indian
Audit and Accounts Department Section Officer (Commercial Audit)
Recruitment Rules, 1988. As per the Rules, the appellants were to be on
probation for two years and during the period of probation they were to qualify
in the Section Officer's Grade Examination for appointment as regular Section
Officers. The seniority of the appellants as Section Officer was reckoned from
F the date they qualified in the Section Officer Grade Examination for
appointment as regular Section Officers. Aggrieved appellants filed O.A.
claiming that the initial appointment on probation was to be reckoned towards
the seniority for the purpose of promotion from Section Officer to AAO. The
Recruitment Rules of 1988 was silent regarding fixation ofseniority of the
G direct recruits. The Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual of Standing
Orders (Administrative) Volume 1 was issued by an executive instruction.
This was challenged before the High Court. Unable to succeed there, the
appellants have approached this Court

The question which arose for consideration was as to whether by
fl 520
M. SRINIVASA PRASAD v. THE COMPTROLLER & Jl.UDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 521

r- executive instructions/standing orders the gap not covered by the Rules and A
not inconsistent with the Rules if framed can be filled and whether they are
valid and enforceable.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules B
by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular
point the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue
instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.
(Para 17) (528-G)

1.2. The statutory rules are silent about the determination of inter se C
seniority. In order to supplement the Rules, the standing orders by executive
instructions, have been brought out to fill the gap unfilled by the statutory
Rules. This was made clear by the Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual
of Standing Orders (Administrative). Paragraph 5.6.6. of the executive
instructions provides for the method for regulation of the seniority of the D
direct recruits to the post of Section Officers on passing Part II of the Section
Officers Grade Examination. (Paras 9, 13 and 19) (527-B; 523-H; 524-A)

Sant Ram Sharma v. State ofRajasthan, AIR (1967) SC 1910, followed.

Union ofIndia v. H. R. Patankar, (1984) (supp.) SCC 359, relied on. E
Mohan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1997] 4 SCC 416,
distinguished.

2. The submissions that the seniority be reckoned from the date of
appointment, that the executive instructions cannot supplement the rules, and F
that merely accepting the terms and conditions of appointment would not debar
the appellants from claiming seniority from the date of appointment, cannot
be accepted. (Para 14]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5013 of 2000.
G
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2002 of the High Court
of Delhi in CWP No. 984 of 2002.

Civil Appeal No. 5504 of2003. H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A M.N. Krishnamani, N.K. Neeraj, R, Santhanan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, 4-_
P. Vijaya Kumar, Praveen K. Pandey, C. Tulari Krishna, D. Mahesh Babu, Anil
Gautam, V.K. Singh, Onkar Prasad, Saumyajit Pani and M.P. Shorawala for the
Appellants. ·

Yashraj Singh Deora, Harshvardhan Jha, Dhruv Mehta, (for Mis K.L.
B Mehta & Co.) V.G. Pragasam, Krishan Mahajan, R.C. Kathia, Rajni Singh,
Neelam, Anil Katiyar, P.S. Narsimha (for MIS. P.S.N. & Co.) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H.K. SEMA, J. I. These two appeals raise a common question of facts
C and law and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the
sake of brevity, we are taking facts from Civil Appeal No.5504 of 2003.

2. The undisputed facts are that the appellants are direct recruits to the
post of Section Officer (Commercial Audit) in the Audit and Accounts
D department. Their services are governed by the recruitment Rules known as
Indian Audit and Accounts Department Section Officer (Commercial Audit)
Riecruitment Rules, 1988 framed by the President oflndia under Article I48(5) •
of the Constitution of India. »-

. 3. The Rule inter alia provides the method of recruitment is by promotion
E failing which by transfer/transfer on deputation and failing both, by direct
recruitment. The Rule also provides that the period of probation is two years.
Note to Rule I I provides that during the period of probation they should
qualify in the Section Officer's Grade Examination (SOGE) for appointment as
regular Section Officers.

F 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that having
accepted the terms and conditions of appointment they are stopped from
challenging the same.

5. The appellants were appointed on various dates on certain terms and
G conditions common to all. The terms and conditions inter a/ia read:-

1. The period of probation will be two years. This may however be
increased or decreased at the discretion of the appointing
authority. His/her appointment will be purely temporary and will
be terminable at one months notice on either side.

H 2 During the period of probation he/she will have to undergo a
M. SRINIVASA PRASAD v. THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [SEMA, l.) 523

regular course of training for such a period at such place and in A
such manner as may be prescribed. He/she may also be assigned
regular duties during the period of training.
3. During training the Section Officers Grade Examination (SOGE)
will be conducted. He/She will have to qualify the SOGE (Both)
Part I and II Examination within the period of probation. Those B
who fail to qualify the above exam are liable to be discharged
from service. Candidates who pass this examination will be
posted as regular Section Officer (Audit).
4. xxx xxx xxx xxx
5. xxx xxx xxx xxx c
6. On satisfactory completion of probation he/she will be eligible for
confirmation in the office where he/she is posted on a regular
basis as Section Officer (Audit) subject to his/her being considered
fit in all respect for permanent retention in the service. His/her
confirmation in the Section Officer cadre will not however give D
him/her any special claim to seniority. The seniority of direct
recruits to the cadre vis-a-vis Departmental candidates passing
regular Section Officer (Audit) Grade Part II Examination will be
fixed in accordance with the seniority rules as at present viz that
a directly recruited Section Officer (Audit) shall rank immediately E
below the last Section Officer (Audit) Grade Examination passed
person officiating in the Section Officer (Audit) cadre on the date
on which he takes over charge as Section Officer (Audit)".

6. The controversy arose when the seniority of the appellants as Section .
Officer was reckoned w.e.f. the date they were qualified in the Section Officer F
Grade Examination for appointment as regular Section Officers. Aggrieved
thereby they preferred O.A. They claimed that the initial appointment as
probation be reckoned towards the seniority for the purpose of promotion
from Section Officer to AAO.

7. It is clear that in the Recruitment Rules of 1988 the Rule is silent as G
to how the seniority of the direct recruits be fixed.

8. The Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual of Standing Orders
(Administrative) Volume l was issued by an executive instruction.

9. Paragraph 5.6.6. provides that the seniority of the direct recruits to H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A the post of Section Officers on passing Part II of the Section Officers Grade
Examination shall be regulated by the following method:

"(i) A directly recruited Section Officer shall rank immediately below
the last Section Officers Examination passed member of the staff
officiating in the Section Officers grade on the date on which he
B takes over charge as a regular Section Officer. If an officiating
Section Officer reverts at any time to his previous post, the
reversion not being on account of his proceeding on leave, he
shall lose his seniority vis-a-vis all those recruited directly, who
are appointed as Section Officer upto the date on which he again
begins to officiate continuously.
c
(it) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(iii) A direct recruit is appointed a Section Officer on regular basis
only on satisfactory completion of the period of probation
prescribed in the recruitment rules even though he passes the
D examination before that period his seniority is also effective on
his actual taking over charge as a regular section officer".

l 0. Rule 12 of Indian Audit & Accounts Deptt. Recruitment Rules, 1989
deals with the recruitment by promotion and it provides, 'Section Officers
(Audit) who have qualified Section Officers Grade Examination and have three
E years of regular service in the grade'.

11. The seniority in Section Officers cadre is governed by paragraph 5.6
of the executive instructions. It reads:-

"5.6.l(i) Each Civil Audit Office and Civil Accounts Office and each
F Railway Audit Office has its own Section Officers cadre except where
any such office is re-organized into two or more independent offices
and so long as the cadre is not separated for the offices into which
it has been reorganized.

(ii) The interse seniority of Section Offic~rs (Commercial) is based on
G All India basis under separate orders issued by the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India.

(iii) Similarly the seniority Section Officers (Defence Audit each) and
Section Officers (posts and Telecommunications Audit) each is fixed
separately.
H
M. SRINIVASA PRASAD v. THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [SEMA, J.] 525

5.6.2 xxx xxx xxx xxx A
5.6.3 xxx xxx xxx xxx

5.6.4 xxx xxx xxx xxx

5.6.5 xxx xxx xxx xxx
B
5.6.6. The seniority of the direct recruits to the post of Section
Officers on passing Part II of the Section Officers Grade Examination
shall be regulated by the following principles:

(i) A directly recruited Section Officer shall rank immediately
below the last Section Officers Examination passed member of the C
staff officiating in the Section Officers grade on the date on
which he takes over charge as a regular Section Officer. If an
officiating Section Officer reverts at any time to his previous
post, the reversion not being on account of his proceeding on
leave, he shall lose his seniority vis-a-vis all those recruited
directly, who are appointed as Section officers up to the date on D
which he again begins to officiate continuously.
Note : The terms last Section Officer's Grade Examination passed
member of the staff refers to one who has passed in an earlier
examination and not in the examination in which the direct recruit has
come out successful. E
(ii) As between direct recruits themselves.

(a) One who completely passes the Section officers' Grade
Examination earlier shall rank senior to those who pass the
examination at a later date, irrespective of the date of their F
recruitment of or of the date of passing Part I of the Section
officers Grade Examination.
(b) Amongst the persons who pass in the same Section Officers'
Grade Examination, relative seniority shall be determined according
to the year of recruitment i.e. those belonging to an earlier batch G
of recruitment shall be senior to those belonging to a subsequent
batch.
(c) Where the direct recruits belonging to the same batch of
recruitment pass the same Section Officers' Grade Examination,
the Chartered Accountants as a class will rank senior most, H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. ~

-<_,
A interse seniority among them being fixed with reference to the
date of passing the Chartered Accountants (final) examination,
the person passing in an earlier examination ranking senior to the
one passing in subsequent examination. The cost and works
Accountants as a class will be ranked below the Chartered
Accountants, the interse seniority among them being determined
B on the same lines as for Chartered Accountants. Whe!l the date
of passing the Chartered Accountants (final)/ICWA (final)
examination is the same, the relative seniority within the relevant ,..
-(
class of persons will be determined according to seniority in age. -:
All other persons will rank as a class below the Chartered
c Accountants and Cost and Works Accountants, the interse
seniority among them being fixed in accordance with the rank
secured at the time of selection for appointment. If for the .....
purposes of ranking, two or more of them have been bracketed,
the older person shall be the senior.

D (iii) A direct recruit is appointed as a Section Officer on regular
basis only on satisfactory completion of the period of probation
~
prescribed in the Recruitment Rules even though he passes the _.._
examination before that period, his seniority is also effective on
his actually taking over charge as a regular Section Officer.

E (iv) Once the seniority of a directly recruited Section Officer is
fixed in an office he is for further advancement, governed by the
same provisions as laid down for other Section Officers."

Para 4.8 of the said Manual of Standing Orders Vol.I provides:

"Recruitment to the grade of Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) in the IA 04
F & AD is made by promotion from the grade of Section Officers who
have qualified in Section Officer Grade Examination and have three -r
years of regular service in the grade as on the crucial date on the
basis of seniority subject to fitness.

Note: The direct recruits will be selected on the basis of an entrance
G examination conducted by Comptroller and Auditor General of India
or any authority specified by him. During the period of probation they
should qualify in the Section Officers Grade Examination (SOGE) for
-..,,.....
appointment as regular Section Officers". I

12. A fascicule reading of the Rules and the Manual two things clearly
H
M. SRINIVASA PRASAD v. THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [SEMA, J.) 527

emerge: (a) The passing of qualifying examination/departmental examination A
(SOGE) prescribed for the purpose of determining the seniority and (b) A
Section Officer passing an examination first would have precedent over a
person who passes the examination later.

13. We have already noticed that the Rules are silent insofar as with
regard to the determination of seniority. In order to supplement the Rules, the B
standing orders by executive instructions, as noticed above, have been brought
out to fill the gap unfilled by the statutory Rules.

14. It is vehemently ~ontended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, leaned senior
counsel for the appellants that the general principle is that the seniority be C
reckoned from the date of appointment. He further contended that the
executive instructions cannot suppleme11t the rules. He also contended that
merely accepting the terms and conditions of appointment would not debar
the appellants from claiming seniority from the date of appointment. We do
not agree with these contentions. It is also contended by Mr. Krishnamani
that once the incumbent passed the departmental/qualifying examination his D
seniority would relate back t.o the date of appointment. To support his
contention, Mr. Krishnamani learned senior counsel, referred to the decision
of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [ 1997)
4 SCC 416, where this Court pointed out in paragraph 8 as under:-

"8. A reading of this rule relating to conduct of examination would E
indicate that the Government shall hold the examinations twice a year
between 3rd week of April and lst week of November, or on such
other dates as are notified by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner.
The exami1.ation so conducted by the Institute of Public
Administration, Shimla shall be in the manner prescribed in Paragraph
(ii) of Rule 4 of the Rules. It is, therefore, clear that the Government
f
is required to conduct the examinations twice a year and the candidates
are required to pass the examinations within two years from the date
of joining the post on probation. The Rule does not give four chances
to every candidates. They shall pass the departmental examination
within two years. On successful completion of probation and declaration G
thereof, his seniority would relate back to the date of appointment".

(emphasis supplied)

15. This Court has taken that view because in that case the Rule itself
provides namely Rule 11(3)(i) of the H.P. Excise and Taxation Department H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A (Inspectorate Staff, Class III) Service. Rule l l(3)(i) reads:-
11.(3) On the completion of the period of probation of a person and
passing the prescribed examination the appointment authority may

(a) if his work and.conduct is found satisfactory-
B (i) confirm such person from the date of his appointment if appointed
against a permanenf vacancy; or

The facts of that case have no application in the present case.
c
16. The sole controversy to be determined is that as to whether by an
executive instructions/standing orders to fill the. gap not covered by the Rules
and not inconsistent with the Rules if framed can be validly made and
enforceable?
-
·"

D 17. The question posed is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench
of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State ofRajasthan, AIR ( 1967) SC 1910,
has considered the similar question and held in paragraph 7 as under:- ~

"We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr. N.C. Chatterjee
that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to
E selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative
instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any
restrictions not found in the Rules already framed. We are unable to
accept this argument as correct. It is true that there is no specific
provisions in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of
F junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does
not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the ..
Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the
principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to
selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or
supersede statutory Rules by administrative instructions, but if the
G rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the
gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent
with the rules already framed. "

(emphasis supplied) y

H 18. In Union ofIndia v. H.R. Patankar, [1984] supp. SCC 359, a similar
M. SRINIVASA PRASAD v. THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA [SJ.'MA. J) 529
view was taken by this Court. It was held that even if there are no statutory A
rules in force for determining seniority in a Service or even if there are
statutory rules but they are silent on any particular subject, it is competent
to the Government by an executive order to make appropriate Seniority Rules
or to fill in the lacuna in the statutory rules by making an appropriate seniority
rule in regard to the subject· on which the statutory rules are silent.
B
19. We have already noticed that the statutory rules are silent about the
determination of inter se seniority. This was made clear by the Comptroller
and Auditor General's Manual of Standing Orders (Administrative). In view
thereof, these appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No
costs.

N.J. Appeals dismissed.