1994 (9) TMI 352 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Merger of Junior and Senior Branches of Bihar Finance Service.
2. Retrospective seniority claims post-merger.
3. Validity of executive orders vis-a-vis statutory rules.
4. Impact of previous High Court decisions on current case.
5. Constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Merger of Junior and Senior Branches of Bihar Finance Service:
The appellants and original writ petitioners belong to the Bihar Finance Service, which was divided into Senior and Junior Branches. The State Government of Bihar decided to merge these branches effective from 1.4.1974, as per a Government Resolution dated 1.4.1975. The appellants were appointed to the Junior Branch, while the original writ petitioners were direct recruits to the Senior Branch on 12.5.1974 and 25.5.1974.

2. Retrospective Seniority Claims Post-Merger:
The appellants, appointed to the merged cadre on 2.11.1975, claimed seniority from 1.4.1974, arguing that the merger should be effective retrospectively. They contended that they should be senior to the original writ petitioners, who were appointed later in 1974. The High Court, however, concluded that the appellants' seniority should be reckoned from 2.11.1975, the actual date of their appointment to the merged cadre, and not retrospectively from 1.4.1974.

3. Validity of Executive Orders Vis-a-Vis Statutory Rules:
The High Court held that an executive order cannot operate retrospectively to affect vested rights under statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The statutory rules indicated that seniority was to be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment. The court referenced T.R. Kapur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., A.I.R. (1987) S.C. 415, affirming that statutory rules cannot be impaired by executive orders unless explicitly stated in the rules.

4. Impact of Previous High Court Decisions on Current Case:
The appellants referenced an earlier High Court decision in Kartik Charon Jha's case, which upheld the merger's retrospective effect. However, the Division Bench distinguished the present case, noting that in Jha's case, direct recruits were appointed in 1976, after the merger. In contrast, the respondents in the current case were appointed before the merger's implementation date of 2.11.1975. The Supreme Court's summary dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in Jha's case did not constitute an authoritative pronouncement, as per Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. (1986) S.C. 1780.

5. Constitutional Rights Under Articles 14 and 16:
The High Court found that treating the appellants as senior to the respondents would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment. The court emphasized that retrospective appointments through executive orders could not undermine the seniority of employees already appointed under statutory rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the appellants' seniority should be reckoned from 2.11.1975, not retrospectively from 1.4.1974. The appeals were dismissed, and the respondent-State of Bihar was directed to correct the gradation list accordingly. The court reiterated that executive orders cannot override statutory rules or affect vested rights retrospectively.