1986 (4) TMI 351 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reorganization of States and its impact on state services.
2. Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Deputy Collectors.
3. Validity of promotions made during the period 1960-1962.
4. Interpretation of the term "regularly appointed" in the context of promotions.
5. Application of the principle of res judicata in writ petitions under Article 226.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reorganization of States and its Impact on State Services:
The judgment discusses the reorganization of states under the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, which divided the State of Bombay into Maharashtra and Gujarat. This reorganization led to various administrative issues, particularly concerning the allocation and seniority of state service personnel. The Act provided specific provisions for the provisional and final allotment of personnel to the newly formed states, ensuring their conditions of service were not varied to their disadvantage without the Central Government's approval.

2. Inter se Seniority Between Direct Recruits and Promotees in the Cadre of Deputy Collectors:
The dispute in the appeals relates to the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Deputy Collectors. The cadre was recognized for recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service. Historically, the seniority was determined based on continuous officiation for promotees and the date of appointment on probation for direct recruits. The government resolutions from 1941 and 1959 played a crucial role in determining this seniority.

3. Validity of Promotions Made During the Period 1960-1962:
The promotions of Mamlatdars to Deputy Collectors between 1960 and 1962 were challenged by direct recruits. The court in Chauhan's case validated these promotions under the "as far as practicable" proviso, acknowledging the State's inability to hold competitive examinations due to administrative queries. The court held that the promotions during this period were regular and saved by the proviso.

4. Interpretation of the Term "Regularly Appointed":
A significant point of contention was the interpretation of "regularly appointed" in the context of promotions. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court interpreted this term to mean appointments to substantive vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Collectors. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation erroneous, stating that the appointments made during period A (1960-1962) were regular, including those to temporary and ex-cadre posts, as they were made in accordance with the rules and were not ad hoc or fortuitous.

5. Application of the Principle of Res Judicata in Writ Petitions Under Article 226:
The principle of res judicata was applied to bar the direct recruits from re-agitating the issue of the validity of promotions made during 1960-1962. The Supreme Court emphasized that this issue had already been decided in the earlier writ petition and was not disturbed in subsequent appeals, including Chauhan's case. Therefore, the High Court should not have allowed this point to be raised again.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the promoters, confirming the dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 2199 of 1978 and setting aside the order making absolute the rule issued in Special Civil Application No. 1407 of 1978. The court held that the promotions made during period A were regular and that the principle of continuous officiation applied to determine seniority. The appeals highlighted the complexities arising from state reorganization and the challenges in maintaining administrative fairness and consistency in service matters.