TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the period of continuous officiation by promotee Deputy Engineers appointed according to the rules had to be counted for seniority instead of waiting for confirmation; (ii) whether the temporary/officiating Deputy Engineers formed a separate cadre from the permanent Deputy Engineers; (iii) whether the quota rule in the 1960 Rules continued to govern seniority when direct recruits were not available and promotions in excess of quota were made after following the prescribed procedure; (iv) whether the 1982 Rules, as amended by the 1984 Rules, were valid; and (v) whether the writ petition challenging the 1978 Rules was barred by res judicata.
Issue (i): whether the period of continuous officiation by promotee Deputy Engineers appointed according to the rules had to be counted for seniority instead of waiting for confirmation.
Analysis: Seniority under service rules depends on the date of appointment made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, not merely on the date of confirmation, where the initial appointment is made according to rules for regular substantive appointments. The Court reaffirmed the principle that uninterrupted officiating service, when preceded by a proper appointment and followed by regular continuance, cannot be ignored for seniority. The contrary view would create arbitrariness and discrimination in the service structure.
Conclusion: The period of continuous officiation was required to be counted for seniority, and not excluded until confirmation.
Issue (ii): whether the temporary/officiating Deputy Engineers formed a separate cadre from the permanent Deputy Engineers.
Analysis: Reading the 1960 and 1970 Rules together, the Court found that the language of the rules did not support a two-cadre theory. The references to categories, lists, and officiating Deputy Engineers, the inclusion of some officiating Deputy Engineers within the Deputy Engineers cadre, and the Government resolutions treating temporary posts as temporary additions to the respective cadres all indicated a single integrated cadre. The Court also treated the earlier interpretation in related decisions as binding and declined to unsettle the settled position.
Conclusion: The officiating Deputy Engineers belonged to the same cadre as the permanent Deputy Engineers.
Issue (iii): whether the quota rule in the 1960 Rules continued to govern seniority when direct recruits were not available and promotions in excess of quota were made after following the prescribed procedure.
Analysis: The quota provision was framed for appointments and was qualified by the words making it operative only so far as practicable. Where direct recruits were unavailable for a long period and the administration filled vacancies by regular promotions after following the prescribed procedure and obtaining the Public Service Commission's opinion, the quota rule had, in substance, broken down. In that situation, later direct recruits could not displace earlier promotees who had been regularly appointed and had continuously officiated. The Court held that the quota rule could not be used mechanically to defeat seniority based on lawful continuous officiation.
Conclusion: Excess promotions made in the circumstances of the case did not destroy the promotees' claim to seniority based on continuous officiation.
Issue (iv): whether the 1982 Rules, as amended by the 1984 Rules, were valid.
Analysis: The Court upheld the High Court's view that the offending retrospective quota provisions in Rules 4 and 9 of the 1982 Rules were invalid, while the amended regime under the 1984 Rules properly gave effect to the governing principles recognised in earlier decisions. The remaining framework of the 1982 Rules, as modified, was held to be consistent with the settled law on seniority and did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Conclusion: The 1982 Rules, as amended by the 1984 Rules, were upheld in the manner indicated, and the invalid quota provisions were correctly struck down.
Issue (v): whether the writ petition challenging the 1978 Rules was barred by res judicata.
Analysis: A writ petition under Article 32 is barred where the same controversy has already been decided on merits by a competent court and the earlier decision has become final. The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata, including constructive res judicata, to the earlier High Court judgment that had attained finality and held that the petitioner could not reagitate the same challenge in a fresh writ petition. The dismissal of the earlier special leave petition did not itself create the bar, but the finality of the High Court's adjudication did.
Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by res judicata.
Final Conclusion: The Court reaffirmed seniority by continuous officiation, rejected the two-cadre and strict quota theories on the facts, upheld the relevant seniority rules as modified, and held that the collateral writ challenge was precluded by finality of the earlier adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an appointment is made according to the service rules and the incumbent continues uninterruptedly, seniority runs from the date of such appointment, and a quota rule that has become impracticable through long non-observance cannot be used to deny seniority to regularly appointed officiating officers in the same cadre.
TaxTMI 
