2009 (7) TMI 1317 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court modifies orders, directs IAS cadre appointment per seniority list, emphasizes judicial comity and public interest.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court's orders to vacate the stay on reversion and directed the appointment of appellants to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees.2. Legality of interim orders affecting reversion and promotions.3. Interpretation and application of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976.Summary:1. Seniority Dispute Between Direct Recruits and Promotees:The core issue revolves around the seniority between direct recruits and promotees governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976. Initially, the 1930 Rules allocated 68% slots for direct recruits, but the 1976 Rules reduced this to 50%. The State's requisition to the Punjab Public Service Commission for filling vacancies was modified, leading to a dispute over seniority lists finalized in 1993 and 1994, which excluded direct recruits who joined in 1986.2. Legality of Interim Orders Affecting Reversion and Promotions:The High Court's interim order dated 25th March 2008 stayed the reversion of the first respondent, which was challenged. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not have passed an interim order with serious civil consequences without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest before granting interim orders.3. Interpretation and Application of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976:The Supreme Court in its earlier judgment (Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and Ors.) interpreted Rules 7, 8, 18, and 21 of the 1976 Rules. It held that seniority must be determined by reading Rule 18 with Rule 21, reflecting the rota-quota rule in the seniority list. The Court directed that the seniority list should be revised accordingly, and any action taken would be subject to the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court could not grant an order of stay contrary to the law laid down in the previous judgment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court's orders to vacate the stay on reversion and directed the appointment of appellants to the IAS cadre as per the seniority list dated 4th April 2007. The Court also directed the State of Punjab to send requisition for filling up vacancies to the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission. The High Court was requested to expedite the disposal of pending writ petitions. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicial comity and the importance of public interest in such matters.