1998 (4) TMI 498 - SC - Indian Laws

Recruitment v/s appointment - Both in the case of direct recruits as well as in the case of promotees the final selection vests with the State Government under rules 15 and 18 respectively and until such final selection is made and appropriate orders passed thereon no person can be said to have been recruited to the service. In this view of the matter the only appropriate and logical construction that can be made of Rule 26 is the date of the order under which the persons are appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer. It the crucial date for determination of seniority under the said rule. Seniority would be determined with reference to the date of recruitment

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's review of its earlier decision.
3. Interpretation of the terms "recruitment" and "appointment" in service jurisprudence.
4. Relevance of the year of vacancy for determining seniority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Seniority Between Direct Recruits and Promotees:
The appellants, direct recruits to the post of Assistant Engineers, argued that their seniority should be based on the year of vacancy (1978) against which they were recruited, despite their actual appointment being in 1980. The Tribunal initially accepted this contention, but upon review, it concluded that seniority should be determined based on the actual year of appointment, not the year of vacancy. Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, states that promoted officers recruited during the year would be considered senior to directly recruited officers of the same year. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, stating that the language of Rule 26 is clear and unambiguous, and seniority should be based on the calendar year of appointment.

2. Validity of the Tribunal's Review of Its Earlier Decision:
The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the direct recruits but later reviewed its decision upon realizing that the affected promotees were not parties to the original proceedings. The Tribunal's review concluded that the direct recruits could not claim seniority from 1978 as they were appointed in 1980. The Supreme Court found the review to be justified, as the promotees were indeed affected by the initial decision and had not been given an opportunity to present their case.

3. Interpretation of the Terms "Recruitment" and "Appointment" in Service Jurisprudence:
The appellants contended that "recruitment" and "appointment" are distinct concepts, with recruitment referring to the process before the actual appointment. They argued that seniority should be based on the year the recruitment process started. However, the Supreme Court held that under the scheme of the Rules, a person is considered recruited only upon appointment. The terms "recruited" and "appointed" were interpreted to mean the same in the context of determining seniority, emphasizing the final selection and appointment date as the crucial factor.

4. Relevance of the Year of Vacancy for Determining Seniority:
The appellants argued that the year of vacancy (1978) should determine their seniority, as the recruitment process was delayed due to administrative reasons. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Rule 26 does not consider the year of vacancy but rather the calendar year of appointment. The Court emphasized that it is not within its purview to legislate new rules or import concepts not present in the existing Rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's interpretation that seniority should be based on the actual year of appointment. The Court reinforced the principle that clear and unambiguous statutory language should be given its plain grammatical meaning, and any deviation would constitute judicial overreach. The appeal arising out of SLP No. 7017 of 1998 was also dismissed as it did not survive in light of the decision in C.A. No. 9180 of 1995.

← Previous Next →