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 seniority in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service for specialists had to be fixed with reference to entry into the Central Health Service or in accordance with the seniority scheme under the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules; (ii) whether the selection made on 3.11.1979 and the consequential appointments and reversion were valid, including the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the use of annual confidential reports; (iii) whether the roster for promotion to Director of Health Services could properly be started with the category of Specialists.
Issue (i): whether seniority in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service for specialists had to be fixed with reference to entry into the Central Health Service or in accordance with the seniority scheme under the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules.
Analysis: The service had been reconstituted after reorganisation, and the relevant rules specifically provided the basis on which inter se seniority of absorbed departmental candidates was to be determined. The governing governmental directions and the scheme of integration showed that officers drawn into the newly formed State service could not claim seniority merely because of earlier service outside the cadre if the rules prescribed a different basis. The Court treated the rule-based scheme for specialists as controlling and held that the prior entry into the Central Health Service did not override the express seniority formula under the Himachal Pradesh rules.
Conclusion: The seniority of the specialists had to be fixed under Rule 10(a)(iii) of the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, 1974, and not merely by reference to the date of entry into the Central Health Service.
Issue (ii): whether the selection made on 3.11.1979 and the consequential appointments and reversion were valid, including the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the use of annual confidential reports.
Analysis: Although the Committee's composition was formally justified because the regular Secretary was on leave, the entire exercise was completed with unusual haste immediately after publication of the final seniority list. The Court found that the confidential reports of a competing officer should not have been treated as wholly unproblematic in the selection process and held that the matter warranted reconsideration. The challenge to the appointments therefore succeeded to the extent that the promotions and reversions made on that date could not stand as finally settled on the existing record.
Conclusion: The selection and appointments made on 3.11.1979 required fresh consideration according to the rules and the Court's seniority ruling.
Issue (iii): whether the roster for promotion to Director of Health Services could properly be started with the category of Specialists.
Analysis: The promotion rule did not specify the category with which the roster was to begin, and the Court accepted that the Government could remove the practical difficulty by supplementing the rule under the enabling provision. In the circumstances, starting the roster with Specialists was upheld because the senior-most Specialist had the longer qualifying service relevant to the promotional process.
Conclusion: Starting the roster with Specialists was valid.
Final Conclusion: The appeal concerning seniority and the promotional exercise succeeded in part, the governing seniority principle was settled under the State service rules, and the selection for the higher posts was directed to be reconsidered accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a reconstituted State service contains an express seniority formula for absorbed officers, inter se seniority must be determined by that rule-based scheme and not simply by the date of entry into the predecessor or parent service; procedural gaps in promotion rules may be filled under an enabling provision if the supplementation is consistent with the rules.
TaxTMI 
