UNION OF INDIA ETCversusTARA CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.

                        UNION OF INDIA ETC.                                         A
                                v.
                 TARA CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. ETC.

                               AUGUST 13, 1998

         [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B PATTANAIK, JJ.]                            B

          SERVICE LAW-Seniority-Post of Computors-Ad hoc appointments
    for 1981 Census-Regularisation of services of respondents 5 to 37-
    Respondents 1 to 4 temporarily promoted to those posts reverted from that
    cadre on abolition of posts-Reversion order upheld by this Court-               C
     Respondents 5 to 37 still continuing as Computers held as senior in the
    cadre.

          For 1981 Census certain posts were created in the cadre of Computors.
    Respondents 5 to 37 were appointed against those posts but were continued D
    even after the Census operation. Their services were regularised by the
    order of Registrar General in consultation with the Department of Personnel
    and Training by an order dated 12-3-1991, indicating that the past services
,   rendered by them before regularisation would also count for their seniority
    as well as eligibility for promotion to the higher grade. Respondents 1 to 4
    were promoted as Computors on regular basis between the period 20-8-1990 E
    to 10-10-1990. In the seniority list drawn up on 12-4-1993, respondents 5
    to 37 having been placed above respondents 1 to 4 , a representation was
    made by respondents 1 to 4 which was rejected. However, the Administrative
    Tribunal holding that the ad hoc appointees were not entitled to get their
    services as ad hoc for the purpose of counting the seniority since the
    appointment itself was dehors the rules, held respondents 1 to 4 to be senior F
    to respondents 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computors. These appeals had been
    filed against the decision of the Tribunal, the inter se seniority between
    respondents 1 to 4 and respondents 5 to 37 being the subject matter for
    consideration in the appeals.
                                                                                    G
          The promotion of respondents 1 to 4 to the post of computor being not
    on a substantive basis, after expiry of the sanction of the posts of Computor
    created for 1991 census, they were reverted on account of non availability
    of posts of Computor in the cadre. Though the Tribunal annulled the order
    of reversion, in appeal, this Court approved reversion of respondents 1 to 4,
    holding that the fact of abolition of posts having been established and         H
                                        1179
    1180                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A   respondents 1 to 4 having been temporarily promoted to those posts, which
    had been abolished, they could not raise any objection for the consequential
    reversal order.

           Allowing the appeals, this Court

B         HELD : 1.1. Respondents 1 to 4 were no longer continuing as computors,
    their order of reversion having been upheld by this Court, the question of
    determining their inter se seniority with respondents 5 to 37 in the cadre
    of Computor would not arise. While respondents 5 to 37 are still continuing      ..
    as Computors their services having been regularised by the order of Registrar
C   General in consultation with the Department of Personnel, respondents 1 to
    4 have been reverted from that cadre and therefore respondents 5 to 37 would
    be held to be senior in the cadre of Computors. [1182-A-C)

          1.2. In view of the above, the question as to whether the order of
    Registrar General directing that the services of respondents 5 to 37 even
D   prior to regularisation can be counted for the purpose of their seniority in
    the cadre need not be examined. [1182-B)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3946-
    3949 of 1988 Etc.

E        From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.95 of the Central Administrative
    1ribunal, Jaipur in 0.A. Nos. 93, 121-122 and 172 of1994.

         Raju Ramachandran, (Heman! Sharma) for P. Parmeshwaran, for the
    Appellants in C.A. No. 3946-49/98.

           Surya Kant for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 3950-53/98.
F
           M.N. Krishnamani and Sudarsh Menon for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
G
          The inter se seniority between respondents nos. I to 4 who had been
    promoted to the post ofComputors on regular basis on 20.8.90 and 10.10.90
    and the ad hoc appointees to the said posts respondent nos. 5 to 37 herein
    whose services were regularised on 14.3.1991 is the subject matter for
    consideration in these appeals. It transpires from the available materials on
H   record that certain posts having been created for 1981 Census in the cadre
                 U.0.1. v. T. C. SHARMA [PATTANAIK, J.]                   1181
 of Computors respondents nos. 5 to 3 7 were appointed against those posts A
 but even after the Census operation was over those posts continued and
 respondents nos. 5 to 37 were also continued. Ultimately the Registrar General
 of India after due consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training
 regularised those appointees by letter dated 12th March, 1991, and it was also
 indicated that the past services rendered by them before regularisation would
 also count for their seniority as well as eligibility for promotion to the higher B
 grade. Respondents nos. I to 4, on the other hand, had been promoted as
 Computors on regular basis between the period 20th August, 1990 to 10th
 October, 1990. When the seniority list was drawn up on 12th April, 1993
 respondents nos. 5 to 37 having been placed above respondents nos. I to
 4 a representation was made by the said respondents nos. I to 4. The C
 representation having been rejected they approached the Central
 Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur by filing OA Nos. 93, 121, 122 and 172 of
 1994. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment being of the view that the ad
 hoc appointees are not entitled to get their services as ad hoc for the purpose
 of counting the seniority since the appointment itself was dehors the rules
 allowed these OAs and held that respondent nos. I to 4 to be senior to D
respondents nos. 5 to 37 in the cadre of Computor. It may be noticed at this
stage that the promotion of respondents nos. 1 to 4 to the post of Computor
was not on a substantive basis and after expiry of the sanction of the posts
of Computor created for 1991 census on account of non availability of posts
of Computor in the cadre, respondents nos. I to 4 were reverted. The said E
order of reversion was assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal
and the Tribunal had annulled the order of reversion. But the aforesaid order
of the Tribunal being assailed in this Court by the Union oflndia in C.A. Nos.
9572-75 of 1995 by judgment dated 19th October, 1995 this Court came to hold
that the fact of abolition of posts having been established and the respondents
nos. I to 4 herein having been temporarily promoted to those posts, which F
have been abolished, they cannot raise any objection for the consequential
reversal order. The order of the Tribunal was accordingly set aside and the
appeal of the Union of India was allowed thereby. The order of reversion of
respondents nos. I to 4 herein from the posts of Computor to their substantive
post was approved by this Court. Though opportunity has been given to said
respondents nos. I to 4 to .indicate whether they are still continuing as G
Computor but no such assertion has been made. Though Mr. Krishnamani,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondents nos. I to 4 contended that
that would be a matter which would ultimately be decided only when the
seniority matter is finalised we are unable to accept this contention since we
find that the respondents nos. I to 4 are no longer continuing as Computors, H
    1182                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A their order of reversion having been upheld by this Court, as already referred
    to, and therefore, the question of determining their inter se seniority with
    respondent nos. 5 to 37 in the cadre of Cornputor would not arise.

          In the aforesa:d premises, it is not necessary for us to examine the larger
    question as to whether the order of Registrar General directing that the
B   services of respondents nos. 5 to 37 even prior to regularisation can be
    counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre. On the admitted
    position, therefore, while the respondents nos. 5 to 37 are still continuing
    as Cornputor their services having been regularised by the order of Registrar
    General in consultation with the Department of Personnel respondents nos.
C   I to 4 have been reverted from the said cadre and necessarily therefore,
    respondents nos. 5 to 37 would be held to be senior in the cadre of Computers.
    The impugned judgment of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs is set aside and
    the appeals of the Union of India are allowed and the OAs stand dismissed.

          The appeals arising out of SLP (c) Nos. I I 13-1116 of 1996 for the
D   reasons already indicated are also allowed. But in the circumstances there will
    be no order as to costs.

    R.A.                                                          Appeals allowed.