Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interim order staying the reversion of the promotee officer was invalid and vacated it, directing that the direct recruits be appointed to the IAS subject to pending writ petitions and the existence of twelve vacancies.

Summary

The dispute concerned inter‑se seniority between direct recruits and promotee officers in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976, and the consequent promotion of direct recruits to the Indian Administrative Service. The Punjab High Court had stayed the reversion of a promotee officer without a specific prayer, hearing, or consideration of public interest, thereby obstructing the promotion of the direct recruits. The Supreme Court examined whether such an interim order was valid, emphasizing the need to assess prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest in public‑law matters. It reaffirmed the interpretation of Rules 18 and 21 given in *Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab* and held that the High Court’s order was unlawful and was vacated. The Court directed that the direct recruits be appointed to the IAS cadre subject to the outcome of pending writ petitions and the existence of twelve identified vacancies, and it exercised its Article 142 jurisdiction to order the Union of India to requisition those vacancies.

Issues considered

The High Court's authority to stay the reversion of promotee officers without a specific prayer, hearing, or consideration of public interest.
Whether an interim order in a public‑law matter must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest.
The binding effect of the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rules 18 and 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 on all promotee officers.
The feasibility of promoting direct recruits to the IAS cadre given vacancy constraints and the doctrine of comity and amity.
The scope of the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 to direct the Union of India to fill identified vacancies.

Subjects

service lawinter‑se seniorityPunjab Civil Services Rulespromotioninterim orderpublic interestdoctrine of comityArticle 142Article 141seniority listIAS promotion

Judgment

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 143

PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. A
v.
BHAGWANT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6253 of 2008)
JULY 29, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Service Law:

Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 c
Rules 18, 21 - lnter-se seniority between direct recruits and
promotees - In first round of litigation, direct recruits held to

-
be entitled to be promoted to /AS, by Supreme Court - UPSC
recommending appointment of direct recruit and reversion of
promotee's wrongly appointed- Promotees application before 0
Central Administrative Tribunal - Interim relief denied - In writ
petition High Court staying the reversion of promotee, _though
no such relief sought for - On appeal, held: Order of stay of
reversion vacated - Direct recruits were entitled to be
promoted as of right - They could not be denied promotion E
by another interim order directing that the promotees could
not be reverted - Reversion of promoteees was necessary in
public interest as well as to give effect to the doctrine of comity
and/or amity - 12 vacancies of /AS stated to be existing -
Direction to adjust the promotee to one of the vacant posts -
Doctrines - Doctrines of comity and amity. F

Interlocutory Order - Criteria for passing such order - In
respect of matters involving public interest - Held: An interim
order involving public interest in public law cases must
receive different consideration - Instant case involved matter G
of public interest - Interim order was passed without
considering whether the appellant had any prima facie case
or was there any balance of convenience in his favour.

143 H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A The dispute in the instant case relates to inter-se
dispute between direct recruits and promotees. The
posts of Punjab Civil Services (PCS) were required to be
filled in the ratio of 50-50 as per the existing Rules.
Promotee Officers were brought into PCS in the Year
B 1984. Appellants were appointed in 1986 by direct
recruitment w.e.f. 1985. Seniority List in respect of the
officers appointed from 1976 to 1985 was finalized in 1993.
Direct recruits were not included therein. Seniority List in
respect of direct recruits of 1986 was finalized in 1994. ~

c They were placed below the last officer in the seniority
list of 1993.

Appellant No. 3 filed a writ petition challenging the
1994 seniority list which was dismissed by High court. In
SLP thereagainst, an interim order was passed to the
D effect that any action would be subject to outcome of the
appeal. Appeal was eventually allowed holding that
seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees should
be fixed by applying roster as per Rule 18 r/w Rule 21 of
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976.
E
A contempt petition was filed on the premise that the
State failed to revise the list. Thereafter, final seniority list
was prepared in 2007, wherein all the direct recruits
·(appellants) were placed before respondent No. 1. State
F Government forwarded a proposal to UPSC for review of
the Select List.

Some promotees, including respondent No. 1 filed
writ petitions challenging the seniority List of 2007. An
interim order was passed by High Court to the effect that
G the selection process would not be stopped, but writ
petitioners would not be reverted till further orders. .\.

Review Selection Committee of UPSC found six
officers eligible for promotion under the new seniority list.
H
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 145
SINGH & ORS.
The six other officers, including respondent No. 1, who A
were promoted on the basis of old seniority list of 1993
and as the promotion was subject to the decision of
Supreme Court, were required to be reverted back.
Respondent No. 1 filed application before Central
Administrative Tribunal challenging the recommendation B
of UPSC. Tribunal directed that promotions would be
subject to final outcome of the applications.

Respondent No. 1 filed writ petition. High Court
granted stay on the reversion, though no such prayer C
was made. The order was further modified to the effect
that the order would not affect the officers who were
recommended for promotion. Hence the present appeals
against the interim order. This court by order dated
22.10.2008 allowed the appeals modifying the impugned
order. Stay of reversion was vacated. However, it was D
directed to adjust them against any of the 12 vacancies
(stated to be existing). Direction was issued to appoint
the appellants to the cadre of IAS. The directions,
however, were subject to final result of pending writ
petition before High Court filed by the respondents. E

Giving reason in support of its order dated
22.10.2008, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The High Court could not have passed an F
interim order which had a serious civil consequence so
far as the appellants are concerned and that too without
giving any opportunity of hearing to them. If the
contention that the original applicants did not pray for
stay of reversion is correct, the High Court ought not to
have passed the impugned order. It is one thing to say G
that judgment delivered by this Court in the case filed by
respondent No. 3, is not a judgment in rem but prima
facie this Court has interpreted the Rules, which would
be a law declared in terms of Article 141 of the
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A Constitution of India. [Para 28] [158-H; 159-A-B]

1.2. The High Court before arriving at a finding that
the first respondent would be entitled to be promoted to
the cadre of Indian Administrative Service, should have
bestowed serious consideration in regard to the
8
implementation of the said judgment and the effect
thereof. It was for the said purpose, the High Court should
have assigned some reasons in support of its order.
[Para 28] [159-8-C]

C 1.3. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that before
passing an interim order, the courts should not only
consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and
irreparable injury but also its effect on public interest. The
public interest demands that the process should be -
D continued. The Rules have been interpreted by this Court
in the case filed by appellant No. 3 and review petition
filed thereagainst had been dismissed. In the said review
application, contentions have been raised which are
similar to the ones raised by the first respondent in his
E original application. Furthermore, although this court
dismissed the contempt application by making certain
observations, the same should have been given effect to.
In these matters not only the seniority list but also the
selection process has been under challenge. But, no
F interim relief qua reversion has been sought for. [Para 28]
[159-D-G]

1.4. T'ie Tribunal refused to pass an interim order but
observed that any action taken would be subject to
ultimate result of the original application. Thus, in a
G situation of this nature, the High Court should have
considered the question as to whether the respondent
No.1 had any prima facie case or is there any balance of
convenience in his favour. It is not a case where the
dispute is between the private parties. Appointment to the
H cadre of l.A.S. is a matter of public interest. An interim
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 147
SINGH & ORS.
order involving public interest in public law cases must A
receive different considerations. [Para 30) [160-C-D],

1.5. The effect of the interim order vis-a-vis the
clarificatory order passed by the High Court in the earlier
writ application resuifed in a piquant situation in lhe sense
8
that whereas the appellants were entitled to be promoted
to l.A.S., the Union of India in their counter affidavit raised
the questions of difficulties contending that unless the
posts fall vacant, no appointment therein could be made.
It may be true that when an employee is reverted to a
lower post, he would suffer civil consequences but then C
it was necessary not only in public interest, but also to

- give effect to the doctrine of comity and/or amity. The
appellants were entitled to be promoted as of right
subject to the result of writ petition. They could not be
denied promotion by another interim order passed in D
favour of the first respondent directing that they could not
be reverted as a result whereof the vacancy would not
occur. [Para 31] [160-E-G]

1.6. The Court is informed at the bar that 12 E
vacancies existed. Only in that view of the matter
directions were issued to consider the cases of the
respondents for promotion to the cadre of l.A.S. against
any of those vacancies if they are found ultimately eligible
therefor. It is only with that in view, in exercise of F
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
the Court by its order dated 22.10.2008 directed the Union
of India to make requisition therefor. [Para 35] [162-C-E]

M. Gurudas vs. Rasaranjan (2006) 8 SCC 367; India
Household and Healthcare Ltd. vs. LG Household and G
Healthcare Ltd. 2007 (5) SCC 510, relied on.

Arvinder Singh Bains vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2006)
6 SCC 673; Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. vs. Lanco
H.
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R

.....
A Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. 2006 (1) SCC 540, referred t.o.
Case Law Reference:

(2006) 6 sec 673 Referred to. Para 8

(2006) s sec 367 Relied on. Para 29
B
2006 (1) sec 540 Referred to. Para 32

2001 (5) sec 510 Relied on. Para 33

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
C 6253 of 2008.

From the Judgment & Order dated 25.3.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 4806 CAT of 2008.
D
WITH

C.A. Nos. 6254, 6255-6259 of 2008. ,
Raju Ramachandran, P.S. Patwalia, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,
E D.V. Sharma, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Rachana Joshi lssar,
Bina Madhavan, Hemal K. Sheth (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.),
Gurminder Singh, R.D. Bawa, Dhiraj, Reeta Dewan Puri, P.N.
Puri, Ajay Pal, Nikhil Jain, Gagan, Deep Sharma, Shikha Roy
Pabbi, Ajit Kumar, S.K. Sabharwal, Binu Tamta for the
F appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an
interim order dated 25th March, 2008 passed by a learned
G single judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby and
whereunder while issuing notice of motion, the reversion of the
first respondent was stayed.

2. The matter has a chequered career. The dispute
H involved in the present appeals revolves round the seniority
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 149
SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

petween the direct recruits and the promotees. Indisputably, the A
conditions of service of the employees hereto are governed by
· the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976. It
repealed and replaced the Rul?s framed in the year 1930. By
·~ reason of 1930 Rules, 68% slots were fixed in the roster for
s
direct recruits. Rule 1 of 1976 Rules, however, provided for B
50% of the slots to be filled by direct recruits.

3. The State sent requisition to the Punjab Public Service
Commission for filling up the vc:ic:ancies of 48 officers; 24 by
-· direct recruitment through examination and 24 by nominating
c
officers from the existing services to Punjab Civil Services
(PCS). Advertisements were issµed by the State of Punjab for
direct recruitment to the PCS.

4. However, the said requisition was modified in the year
1982 whereby the number of officers to be selected was raised D
to 80 wherefor a revised advertisement was also issued. The
Promotee Officers were brought into the PCS in the year 1984.
Appellants, however, were appointed in the year 1986 by direct
recruitment with effect from 1985. Seniority list was finalized in
1~93 in respect of the officers appointed to PCS from 1976- E
1!385 wherein the direct recruits who joined in 1986 were not
inc:luded. Seniority list in respect of officers directly recruited
and appointed in 1986 was finalized in 1994 and they were
7'
placed below the last officer in the seniority list of 1993.
> F
5. Arvinder Singh Bains, the appellant no.3 herein, along
with one Dipinder Singh filed a writ petition (marked as Writ

-
Petition No. 16516of1995) before the Punjab & Haryana High
Court questioning the correctness of the said 1994 seniority list.
The said writ petition was dismissed. An intra-court appeal
preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by an order dated G
,, 12.12.2000.

6. A Special Leave Petition was filed thereagainst before
this Court on which leave was granted by an order dated
3.9.2001 and the appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A 6373 of 2001. An interim order was passed to the effect that
any action taken would be subject to the outcome of the appeal.

7. An interlocutory application, however. was filed on or
about 12.1.2006 marked as I.A. No. 2 of 2006 inter alia praying
that no promotion be made to the Indian Administrative
8
Services (l.J\.S.) cadre from the cadre of P.C.S. which was
dismissed by an order dated 12.01.2006 with the following
observations:

"In view of the fact that the order of this Court dated 3rd of
C September 2001 granting leave unambiguously states that
any action taken will be subject to the outcome of the
appeal, we do not find that a case for modification thereof
is made out."

D 8. The said Civil Appeal was allowed by this Court by
reason of judgment and order dated 24.5.2006 [since reported
in (2006) 6 SCC 673 (Arvinder Singh Bains vs. State of
Punjab & Ors.)]. inter alia opining:

"37. The appellant is not seeking any antedated promotion.
E The case of the appellant is that the inter se seniority of
80 officers (40 direct recruits + 40 promotees) should be
fixed by applying roster provided for in Rule 18 of the PCS
(EB) Rules, 1976 by reading Rules 18 and 21 together."

F 9. In arriving at the said finding, this Court took into
consideration Rules 7, 8, 18 and 21 of the 1976 Rules.

10. Rule 7 lays down that the appointment to the service
shall be made from amongst the accepted candidates whose
names have been duly entered in the prescribed Registers.
G Rule 8 provides for various Registers of accepted candidates,
-
which are in the following terms:

A-1: Tahsildars

H A-II: Ministerial employees of the State Government
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 151
SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

(Classes II and Ill) A
A-Ill: ETOs/BODs/DDPOs

8: Direct recruits

C: Other government servants B

Rules 18 and 21 of the 1976 Rules read thus:

..
·~
"18. Appointment of accepted candidates to the
service.-The Government shall make appointments to the
service in pursuance of Rule 7 from amongst the c
candidates entered in the various Registers in a slab· of
100 vacancies as follows:

\ (i) the first vacancy and thereafter every alternative
'.
vacancy shall be filled from amongst candidates borne on D
,. Register 'B';

.,. ' (ii) the 2nd, 8th, 14th, 20th, 26th, 32nd, 38th, 44th,
50th, 56th, 62nd, 68th, 74th, 80th, 86th, 92nd, 96th and
1OOth vacancies shall be filled from amongst the
E
candidates borne on Register A-I;

(iii) the 4th, 10th, 16th, 22nd, 28th, 34th, 40th, 46th,
v 52nd, 58th, 64th, 70th, 76th, 82nd, 88th and 98th vacancies
shall be filled from amongst candidates borne on Register
A-II; F
(iv) the 12th, 30th, 42nd, 54th, 66th, 78th and 90th
vacancies shall be filled from amongst the Excise and
Taxation Officers accepted as candidates on Register A-
Ill;
G
.. , (v) the 18th, 36th, 60th and 84th vacancies shall be
filled from amongst the District Development and
Panchayat Officers or Block Development and Panchayat
Officers accepted as candidates on Register A-Ill; and
H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A (vi) the 6th, 24th, 48th, 72nd and 94th vacancies shall
be filled from amongst the candidates on Register 'C':" ~ . '

21. Seniority of the members of the service.-The
seniority of officers appointed to the service shall be
determined in accordance with the order of their
B
appointm,mt to the service; provided that-

(a) if the order of appointment of any candidate is
cancelled under the provisions of Rule 20 and such
~
candidate is subsequently appointed to the service, the '
c order of appointment for the purpose of this rule shall be
determined by the date of such subsequent appointment;

(b) if any officer appointed to the service fails to
qualify himself for substantive permanent appointment
D within the prescribed period of probation, the Government
may determine whether the date of his appointment for the

E
purpose of this rule shall be postponed by a period not
exceeding the period by which such officer's substantive
permanent appointment is delayed beyond the prescribed
period of probation;
-
(c) the persons appointed as a result of earlier
selection from a Register shall be senior to those
appointed as a result of subsequent selection from the ..;
same Register."
F
11. It was held that appointment is made in terms of Rule
18 laying down that the first vacancy and thereafter every
alternative vacancy shall be filled from amongst the candidates
borne on Register 'B'. In other words, the first officer has to be
G appointed from Register 'B' only. The stand of the State that
direct recruits have preference over others was also noticed.
In that view of the matter, it was opined that such a procedure
must be reflected in the matter of seniority also.

12. This Court held that Rule 18 should be read with Rule
H 21 for the purpose of determining the seniority. It was held that
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 153
SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

as the selection process for the promotees was shorter as A
compared to direct recruits and as the prcunotees had enjoyed
more perks by way of pay etc., the direct recruits should not
suffer any injustice in the matter of seniority also especially
when both the category of employees were selected against
the same requisition sent by the Government to the Punjab B
Public Service Commission. On the basis of the
aforementioned findings, this Court directed:

"59. We have also referred to the decisions rendered
by this Court. This Court· said rota and quota must
necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any C
seniority list prepared in violation of rota and quota is
bound to be negated. The action of the respondents in
determining the seniority is clearly in total disregard of rota-
quota rule prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. The
action is, therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid down D
by this Court. Thus, we hold:

1. that the action of the State is contrary to the 1976
Rules;
E
2. the seniority under the 1976 Rules must be based
on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the
-J
' 1976 Rules;

3. the action of the authorities is negation of Rule 18
of the 1976 Rules in determining the seniority by the F
impugned order. Since the action is contrary to law laid
down by this Court, we have no hesitation in allowing the
appeal and grant the relief as prayed for by the appellant."

13. Indisputably, review applications filed by some G
promotee officers thereagainst was also dismissed by this
Court on 17.8.2006.

14. Inter alia, on the premise that the State has failed and/
or neglected to the time frame for revising the seniority list, a
Contempt Petition marked as Contempt Petition (C) No. 214 H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A of 2006 was filed on or about 15.10.2006. Thereafter, a
tentative seniority list was prepared on 15.12.2006. A final ~·
seniority list was prepared on 4.4.2007 in terms whereof all the
direct recruits (appellants) were placed before the first
respondent.
B
15. On or about 26.4.2007, the State Government
forwarded a proposal to the Union Public Service Commission
(U.P.S.C.) to call a meeting of the Review Selection Committee
to review the select iists prepared for promotion to I.AS. from
C the P.C.S. for the years 1998-2006.

16. This Court by an order dated 20.8.2007 while
dismissing the contempt petition observed as under:

"Despite the dismissal of the contempt petition it is
D expected that the Union Public Service Commission should
hold the meeting pursuant to the direction of this Court."

17. On or about 12.10.2007, the State Government wrote
to the U.P.S.C. that it had been decided to review the select
lists from 1992-1993 onwards for the purpose of appointment
E to the I.AS. cadre. A second round of litigation thereafter
started as some promotees including the first respondent filed
writ petitions against the final seniority list of 2007 raising
almost similar grounds which had been taken in the review
petitions filed before this Court. An interim order was passed
F in the said writ petitions on 15.10.2007 directing that the
selection process would go on but the writ petitioners therein
would not be reverted till further orders. Evidently, in view of
such order of stay, the direct recruits could not be promoted to
IAS Cadre.
G
18. U.P.S.C. reviewed the select list from 1992 to 2006. It
was found by the Committee that six officers were eligible for
promotion under the new seniority list and made
recommendations to the same effect. Six officers who were
H promoted on the basis of the incorrect seniority list, and subject
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 155
SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
to the final outcome of the decision in Arvinder Singh Bains A
(supra), were required to be reverted as either they had
become over-aged or too junior. Respondent No.1 was one of
them. The respondent No.1, however, filed an application
mar.ked as O.A. No. 185 of 2008 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh, inter alia, praying for the B
following reliefs:

"1. Summon the records of the case and after perusal of
the same quash the selection made of Respondent No.4
to 9 to the Indian Administrative Service by conducting
review DPC ,held on 25.2.2008 for the period 1992 to C
2006, without,determining the vacancies, afresh as the
applicant along with others was promoted to the IAS from
PCS on the basis of seniority list determined in 1993 and
the applicant and others were appointed and are still
holding the post of Indian Administrative Service, with D
further direction to the officials Respondent not to appoint
the selected candidates from Sr. No.4 to 9, as IAS against
the posts against which the applicant and others are
working.
E
2. Direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arvinder
Singh Bains' case only to the applicant therein, if it is
admissible to him, and not to the private respondents who
never challenged the seniority of the applicant settled in
F
1993 and 1994."

19. By an order dated 18.3.2008, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh while issuing notice
directed that the promotions made to the I.AS. would be subject
to the final outcome of the said O.A. G

20. The first respondent filed a writ petition against the said
order before the High Court. The High Court by reason of an
Order dated 25.3.2008 granted stay on the reversion of the first
respondent although no such prayer was made in the original H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A application. It is the said order which is being impugned herein.
21. Before, however, adverting to the propriety and/or
~ . ..
legality of the said order dated 25.3.2008, we may notice that
on an application filed by the State Government for vacation of
stay granted on 15.10.2007 in C.W.P.No. 6857 of 2007, the
B High Court, by its order dated 3.4.2008, modified its interim
order dated 15.10.2007 to the effect that the same would not
affect the right of six persons who have been found eligible to
be promoted to the l.A.S. and recommended by the U.P.S.C.
on or about 25.2.2007. However, no order of appointment has ~

c been issued to that effect.
22. Two direct recruits recommended for promotion to the
l.A.S. have also filed Special Leave Petition before this Court
against the said interim order dated 3.4.2008.
D
23. The stand of the Union of India in the matter appears
to be that t~e said order is an obstacle in the matter of
implementation of the judgment of this Court in Arvinder Singh
Bains (supra) as the order of reversion has been stayed.

E 24. We may also furthermore place on record that the
applications were filed in Writ Petition No. 4806-CAT of 2008
for vacation of the interim order which appears to have been
withdrawn in view of the Special Leave Petition filed herein. We
have, however, heretobefore noticed that one Special Leave
F Petition was dismissed by this Court with which we are not
concerned hereat.

25. The stand of the appellants as also the State of Punjab
is that the matter in regard to the interpretation of 1976 Rules
as regards seniority between direct recruits and promotees
G
having been finally determined by this Court in Arvinder Singh
Bains (supra) wherein the relevant Rules have been interpreted,
the High Court could not have granted an order of stay.

26. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing
H on behalf of the respondent No.1, on the other hand, would
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 157
SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

contend that the first respondent being not a party to the A
. ~\
litigation and he having been appointed in December 1984, the
decision of this Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra) would
not be binding on him. It was contended that as the relief has
been granted only to the appellant therein and keeping in view
the fact that the seniority list dated 19.3.1993 having not been B
challenged, the High Court could have granted an order of stay.

22. This Court passed an order dated 22.10.2008 in the
~
present appeals, which reads thus:

"Leave is granted in all the SLPs . c
• The Union of India and the Union Public Service
Commission are parties before us. Although the Union of
..... India has filed counter affidavit, nobody has appeared on
its behalf. The Union Public Service Commission is D
represented by Ms. Binu Tamta.

" Heard the learnea counsel for the parties quite at
length.

As all these appeals are preferred against the E
interim orders passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh, being orders dated 25.3.2008,
... 3.4.2008 and 10.4.2008 and having regard to the fact that
a large number of contentions have been raised before us,
we are of the opinion that the operative portion of the F
judgment may be pronounced here and now. Detailed
reasons therefor, however, would be assigned later on.

'(1) The appeals are allowed, modifying the
impugned orders of the High Court to the following extent:
G
. (a) That portion of the impugned orders whereby and
whereunder the High Court has stayed the reversion of the
writ petitioners, who are respondents in these appeals,
shall stand vacated. However, they shall be adjusted
against any of the 12 vacancies which are stated to be H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A existing and in respect of which steps are being taken to
send requisition to the Union of India for making
appointment. The writ petitioners - respondents will be
entitled to continue against those vacancies only till
appointment against those vacancies notified by the Union
B of India.

(b) The appellants before us must be appointed to
the cadre of IAS in terms of the seniority list dated 4th
April, 2007.
c (c) The above directions shall, however, be subject
to the ultimate result of the writ petitions which are pending
before the High Court

(2) We in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of
D the Constitution of India, further direct the State of Punjab
to send the requisition for filling up all the above mentioned
12 vacancies in the cadre of IAS, to the Union of India and
the Union Public Service Commission, as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of three weeks
from today. Both Union of India and Union Public Service
E
Commission are hereby directed to consider the
requisition sent by the State of Punjab in respect of the
aforementioned 12 vacancies as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of 16 weeks from
the date of communication of the requisition.
F
(3) We would request the High Court to consider the
desirability of disposing of the pending writ petitions as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
three weeks from today."
G
28. The question as to whether the promotee officers who
have filed original applications before the Central
Administrative Tribunal would be entitled to obtain any relief
awaits consideration. At the outset, we may observe that the
H High court could not have passed an interim order which had
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 159
SINGH & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
a serious civil consequence so far as the appellants are A
, "·j
concerned and that too without giving any opportunity of hearing
to them. If the contention raised before us that the original
applicants did not pray for stay of reversion is correct, in our
opinion, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned
order. It is one thing to say that judgment delivered by this Court B
in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra) is not a judgment in rem but
prima facie this Court has interpreted the Rules, which would
be a law declared in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of
,.. India. The High Court before arriving at a finding that the first
respondent would be entitled to be promoted to the cadre of
Indian Administrative Service, in our considered opinion, should
c
have bestowed serious consideration in regard to the
implementation of the said judgment and the effect thereof. It
... was for the said purpose, the High Court should have assigned
some reasons in support of its order. We need not delve upon
D
the said question in great detail. But it is beyond any cavil of
doubt that before passing an interim order, the courts should
not only consider prima facie case, balance of convenience,
and irreparable injury but also its effect on public interest also.
The public interest demands that the process should be
continued. The Rules have been interpreted by this Court in E
Arvinder Singh Bains (supra), and review petition filed
thereagainst had been dismissed. In the said review
.... application, contentions have been raised which are similar to
the ones raised by the first respondent in his original
application. Furthermore, although this court dismissed the F
contempt application by an order dated 20.8.2007 by making
certain observations, the same should have been given effect
to. We are not unmindful of the fact that in these matters not
only the seniority list but also the selection process has been
under challenge. But, as noticed hereinbefore, no interim relief G
,,. qua reversion has been ·sought for.

29. This Court in M. Gurudas vs. Rasaranjan [(2006) 8
sec 367] opined:
H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 12 S.C.R.

A "21. While considering the question of granting an order .1

of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart •
from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the
question in regard to the balance of convenience of the
parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered
B by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused.
The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide. The
question sought to be tried must be a serious question and
not only a mere triable issue."

30. The Tribunal refused to pass an interim order but
c observed that any action taken would be subject to ultimate
result of the original application. Thus, in a situation of this
nature, the High Court should have considered the question as
to whether the respondent No.1 had any prima facie case or
is there any balance of convenien_ce in his favour. It is not a case
..
D where the dispute is between the private parties. Appointment
to the cadre of l.A.S. is a matter of public interest. An interim
order involving public interest in public law cases must receive
different considerations.

E 31. The effect of the interim order vis-a-vis the clarificatory
order passed by the High Court in the earlier writ application
resulted in a piquant situation in the sense that whereas the
appellants were entitled to be promoted to l.A.S., the Union of
-.,j.
India in their counter affidavit raised the questions of difficulties
contending that unless the posts fall vacant, no appointment
F >--
therein could be made. It may be true that when an employee
is reverted to a lower post, he would suffer civil consequences
but then it was necessary not only in public interest, but also to
give effect to the doctrine of comity and/or amity. The appellants
were entitled to be promoted as of right subject to the result of
G writ petition. They could not be denied promotion by another
interim order passed in favour of the first respondent directing
that they could not be reverted as a result whereof the vacancy
would not occur.

H 32. {See Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. Vs. Lanco
PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. v. BHAGWANT 161
SINGH & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]

....
.
. i
Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. [(2006) 1 SCC 540]} A

33. This Court in India Household and Healthcare Ltd. vs.
LG Household and Healthcare Ltd [(2007) 5 SCC 510]
noticed:

"17. This aspect of the matter has been considered in A B
Treatise on the Law Governing Injunctions by Spelling and
Lewis wherein it is stated:

... _ "Section 8. Conflict and loss of jurisdiction.-Where
a court having general jurisdiction and having acquired C
jurisdiction of the subject-matter has issued an injunction,
a court of concurrent jurisdiction will usually refuse to
interfere by issuance of a second injunction. There is no
established rule of exclusion which would deprive a court
of jurisdiction to issue an injunction because of the o
issuance of an injunction between the same parties
appertaining to the same subject-matter, but there is what
may properly be termed a judicial comity on the subject.
And even where it is a case of one court having refused
to grant an injunction, while such refusal does not exclude E
another coordinate court or Judge from jurisdiction, yet the
granting of the injunction by a second Judge may lead to
complications and retaliatory action .... "

xxx xxx xxx
F
19. A court while exercising its judicial function would
ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the
parties to the !is violate a lawful order passed by another
court."
G
The impugned interim order clearly violates the
~ aforementioned rule.

34. We, however, need not consider the question as to
whether the rosters are different or whether the State and/or the
Commission were correct in preparing the select lists. We may, H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 12 S.C.R.

A however, at this stage, only notice that this Court issued direction
to prepare a new seniority list. We need not also go into the
questions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents that the appellants were not entitled to any
relief on the ground of latches or delay on their part. We may,
B however, observe that this Court in Arvinder Singh Bains
(supra) did not issue any direction and/or any specific
indication that the said decision would be confined to the
petitioners therein only.

35. We were, however, informed at the bar that 12
C vacancies existed. Only in that view of the matter directions were
issued to consider the cases of the respondents for promotion
to the cadre of I.AS. against any of those vacancies if they are
found ultimately eligible therefor. It is only with that in view, we
had in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the ..
D Constitution of India directed the Union of India to make
requisition therefor. We may furthermore observe that we have
not gone into some other questions which have been raised at
the bar as no observation made therein may prejudice one of
the parties hereto.
E
36. The above are the reasons in support of o.ur order
dated 22.10.2008.

K.K.T. Reasons given for allowing, the appeals.