AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....requisition to the Punjab Public Service Commission for filling up the vacancies of 48 officers; 24 by direct recruitment through examination and 24 by nominating officers from the existing services to Punjab Civil Services (PCS). Advertisements were issued by the State of Punjab for direct recruitment to the PCS. 4. However, the said requisition was modified in the year 1982 whereby the number of officers to be selected was raised to 80 wherefore a revised advertisement was also issued. The Promotee Officers were brought into the PCS in the year 1984. Appellants, however, were appointed in the year 1986 by direct recruitment with effect from 1985. Seniority list was finalized in 1993 in respect of the officers appointed to PCS from 1976-1985 wherein the direct recruits who joined in 1986 were not included. Seniority list in respect of officers directly recruited and appointed in 1986 was finalized in 1994 and they were placed below the last officer in the seniority list of 1993. 5. Arvinder Singh Bains, the appellant No. 3 herein, along with one Dipinder Singh filed a writ petition (marked as Writ Petition No. 16516 of 1995) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court questioning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Rule 7 from amongst the candidates entered in the various Registers in a slab of 100 vacancies as follows: (i) the first vacancy and thereafter every alternative vacancy shall be filled from amongst candidates borne on Register `B'; (ii) the 2nd, 8th, 14th, 20th, 26th, 32nd, 38th, 44th, 50th, 56th, 62nd, 68th, 74th, 80th, 86th, 92nd, 96th and 100th vacancies shall be filled from amongst the candidates borne on Register A-I; (iii) the 4th, 10th, 16th, 22nd, 28th, 34th, 40th, 46th, 52nd, 58th, 64th, 70th, 76th, 82nd, 88th and 98th vacancies shall be filled from amongst candidates borne on Register A-II; (iv) the 12th, 30th, 42nd, 54th, 66th, 78th and 90th vacancies shall be filled from amongst the Excise and Taxation Officers accepted as candidates on Register A-III; (v) the 18th, 36th, 60th and 84th vacancies shall be filled from amongst the District Development and Panchayat Officers or Block Development and Panchayat Officers accepted as candidates on Register A-III; and (vi) the 6th, 24th, 48th, 72nd and 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt said rota and quota must necessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any seniority list prepared in violation of rota and quota is bound to be negated. The action of the respondents in determining the seniority is clearly in total disregard of rota-quota rule prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules. The action is, therefore, clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Thus, we hold: 1. that the action of the State is contrary to the 1976 Rules; 2. the seniority under the 1976 Rules must be based on a collective interpretation of Rule 18 and Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules; 3. the action of the authorities is negation of Rule 18 of the 1976 Rules in determining the seniority by the impugned order. Since the action is contrary to law laid down by this Court, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and grant the relief as prayed for by the appellant. 13. Indisputably, review applications filed by some promotee officers thereagainst was also dismissed by this Court on 17.8.2006. 14. Inter alia, on the premise that the State has failed and/or neglected to the time frame for revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me quash the selection made of Respondent No. 4 to 9 to the Indian Administrative Service by conducting review DPC held on 25.2.2008 for the period 1992 to 2006, without determining the vacancies, afresh as the applicant along with others was promoted to the IAS from PCS on the basis of seniority list determined in 1993 and the applicant and others were appointed and are still holding the post of Indian Administrative Service, with further direction to the officials Respondent not to appoint the selected candidates from Sr. No. 4 to 9, as IAS against the posts against which the applicant and others are working. 2. Direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arvinder Singh Bains' case only to the applicant therein, if it is admissible to him, and not to the private respondents who never challenged the seniority of the applicant settled in 1993 and 1994. 19. By an order dated 18.3.2008, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh while issuing notice directed that the promotions made to the I.A.S. would be subject to the final outcome of the said O.A. 20. The first respondent filed a writ petition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant therein and keeping in view the fact that the seniority list dated 19.3.1993 having not been challenged, the High Court could have granted an order of stay. 27. This Court passed an order dated 22.10.2008 in the present appeals, which reads thus: Leave is granted in all the SLPs. The Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission are parties before us. Although the Union of India has filed counter affidavit, nobody has appeared on its behalf. The Union Public Service Commission is represented by Ms. Binu Tamta. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties quite at length. As all these appeals are preferred against the interim orders passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, being orders dated 25.3.2008, 3.4.2008 and 10.4.2008 and having regard to the fact that a large number of contentions have been raised before us, we are of the opinion that the operative portion of the judgment may be pronounced here and now. Detailed reasons therefor, however, would be assigned later on. (1) The appeals are allowed, modifying the impugned orders of the High Court to the fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correct, in our opinion, the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned order. It is one thing to say that judgment delivered by this Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra) is not a judgment in rem but prima facie this Court has interpreted the Rules, which would be a law declared in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The High Court before arriving at a finding that the first respondent would be entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service, in our considered opinion, should have bestowed serious consideration in regard to the implementation of the said judgment and the effect thereof. It was for the said purpose, the High Court should have assigned some reasons in support of its order. We need not delve upon the said question in great detail. But it is beyond any cavil of doubt that before passing an interim order, the courts should not only consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury but also its effect on public interest also. The public interest demands that the process should be continued. The Rules have been interpreted by this Court in Arvinder Singh Bains (supra), and review petition filed thereagai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entitled to be promoted as of right subject to the result of writ petition. They could not be denied promotion by another interim order passed in favour of the first respondent directing that they could not be reverted as a result whereof the vacancy would not occur. {See Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 540} 32. This Court in India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 510 noticed: 17. This aspect of the matter has been considered in A Treatise on the Law Governing Injunctions by Spelling and Lewis wherein it is stated: Section 8. Conflict and loss of jurisdiction. --Where a court having general jurisdiction and having acquired jurisdiction of the subject- matter has issued an injunction, a court of concurrent jurisdiction will usually refuse to interfere by issuance of a second injunction. There is no established rule of exclusion which would deprive a court of jurisdiction to issue an injunction because of the issuance of an injunction between the same parties appertaining to the same subject-matter, but there is what may properly be termed a ....