1989 (3) TMI 403 - SC - Indian Laws

Government's Seniority List Recasting Upheld; Exam Rules Relaxed

State of Maharashtra Versus Jagannath Achyut Karandikar

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversing the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petitions. The Court held that the Government's actions ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of recasting the Revised/Final seniority list dated 20.12.1982.2. Validity of considering seniority in the Superintendent's cadre for further promotions.3. Impact of non-holding of departmental examinations in 1968, 1969, and 1970.4. Government's power to relax rules and extend the period for passing examinations.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of recasting the Revised/Final seniority list dated 20.12.1982:The High Court directed the State Government to recast the Revised/Final seniority list dated 20.12.1982, assigning seniority strictly in accordance with Rule 2 and other Government orders. The core issue was whether the Government was justified in re-arranging the seniority by giving benefit to persons in the category of 'Late Passing.' The Supreme Court observed that the Government had the power to relax the conditions for passing the examination. The 1955 Rules preserved the power of the Government to dispense with or relax the operation of any rule regulating the conditions of service of Government servants if it caused undue hardship. The High Court's interpretation that the 1962 circular restricted this power was incorrect, as the circular was an executive instruction, whereas the 1955 Rules were statutory.2. Validity of considering seniority in the Superintendent's cadre for further promotions:The High Court's directive that the seniority fixed in the Superintendent's cadre should be considered for further promotions was challenged. The Supreme Court held that the Government's action to restore the legitimate seniority of those who passed the examination late due to the Government's failure to hold the examination was justified. The Court emphasized that it would be unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary to penalize a person for the Government's default in holding the examination.3. Impact of non-holding of departmental examinations in 1968, 1969, and 1970:The non-holding of examinations in 1968, 1969, and 1970 resulted in hardship for candidates who lost their chances to appear for the examination. The Supreme Court noted that the 1962 Rules required the Government to hold the examination every year. The candidates who did not exhaust all permissible chances could not be denied their seniority due to the Government's failure to conduct the examinations. The Court found that the Government's decision to promote such candidates and restore their seniority was in harmony with the object of the 1962 Rules.4. Government's power to relax rules and extend the period for passing examinations:The Supreme Court upheld the Government's power to relax the period for passing the examination in individual cases. It was stated that the Government made orders extending the period for individuals to pass the examination on administrative grounds or genuine hardships. These orders were made upon recommendations by the respective departments, and the individuals passed the examination within the extended period. The Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of these statements and concluded that the power to relax the conditions of the rules to avoid undue hardship could not be gainsaid.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversing the judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the contesting respondents. The Court found that the Government's actions in recasting the seniority list and considering seniority for further promotions were justified and in accordance with the rules. The Government's power to relax the conditions for passing the examination was upheld, and the actions taken to address the hardships caused by the non-holding of examinations were deemed appropriate.