1996 (2) TMI 533 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority between direct recruits and ad hoc promotees.
2. Validity of ad hoc appointments and their impact on seniority.
3. Necessity of including affected parties in the legal proceedings.
4. Delay and laches in challenging the seniority list.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter se Seniority Between Direct Recruits and Ad Hoc Promotees:
The appellants, direct recruits appointed as Assistant Directors of Industries on 29.09.1980, challenged the seniority list that placed ad hoc promotees, appointed on 27.09.1980, above them. The Madhya Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 and 1985, provided for recruitment but did not specify the determination of inter se seniority. The Tribunal erred by not applying the principles laid down in the Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association case, which stated that seniority should be counted from the date of appointment if the appointment is made according to rules. Since the promotees were appointed on an ad hoc basis without following the prescribed procedure, their officiation could not be considered for seniority.

2. Validity of Ad Hoc Appointments and Their Impact on Seniority:
The ad hoc promotees were appointed without the approval of the Public Service Commission, as required by the Recruitment Rules of 1965. The Supreme Court reiterated that ad hoc appointments made as stop-gap arrangements do not count towards seniority. The promotees' appointments were not regularized, and thus, their service period could not be considered for seniority. The appellants, having been appointed according to the rules, were entitled to seniority from their date of appointment.

3. Necessity of Including Affected Parties in the Legal Proceedings:
The Tribunal dismissed the application partly on the ground that not all affected promotees were impleaded as parties. The Supreme Court held that in cases challenging the principle of determination of seniority, the State is the necessary party. The Court cited precedents where the non-inclusion of all affected individuals was not considered fatal if the challenge was against the policy or principle rather than specific individuals. The presence of some promotees who could safeguard the interests of all was deemed sufficient.

4. Delay and Laches in Challenging the Seniority List:
The appellants filed objections to the provisional seniority lists issued in 1983 and 1986. The final seniority list was published on 23.12.1988, and the appellants approached the Tribunal in 1989. The Supreme Court found that there was no undue delay or laches, as the appellants challenged the final list promptly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the direct recruits were senior to the ad hoc promotees. The State was directed to redraw the seniority list within four months and provide consequential benefits to the appellants. The appellants' application before the Tribunal was allowed, with no order as to costs.