1975 (9) TMI 194 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "vacancies" in the 1957 Recruitment Rules.
2. Seniority claims of direct recruits versus promotees.
3. Counting seniority from the date of recruitment.
4. Determination of inter se seniority based on length of service.
5. Application of Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.
6. Confirmation and seniority of temporary appointees versus officiating promotees.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of the term "vacancies" in the 1957 Recruitment Rules:
The appellants contended that "vacancies" in the 1957 Recruitment Rules include both permanent and temporary posts, thus the quota rule should apply to all posts. The Court held that the cadre consists only of permanent posts, excluding temporary posts from the quota rule. The substantive vacancies were classified according to the 1957 Recruitment Rules and the 1959 Probationers Rules, confirming that the quota rule applies only to permanent posts.

2. Seniority claims of direct recruits versus promotees:
The appellants argued that direct recruits appointed on 26 October 1962 against temporary vacancies should not claim seniority over promotees. The Court found that the direct recruits were appointed to permanent vacancies within their quota and were entitled to seniority over the appellants. The promotees who were in excess of their quota were not entitled to confirmation against the vacancies within the direct recruits' quota.

3. Counting seniority from the date of recruitment:
The appellants contended that direct recruits should not count their seniority from a date before their actual recruitment. The Court held that direct recruits are entitled to their quota of vacancies from the date the vacancies arose, even if they were filled later. The confirmation of direct recruits on 26 October 1964 did not affect their entitlement to vacancies within their quota from 2 December 1957.

4. Determination of inter se seniority based on length of service:
The appellants argued that inter se seniority should be based on the length of service in the category. The Court maintained that seniority is determined by the date of confirmation as a full member of the service in a substantive vacancy, adhering to the quota rule.

5. Application of Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957:
The appellants claimed that seniority should be determined by continuous officiation in the grade. The Court clarified that Rule 2(c) applies only to temporary appointments and does not affect the seniority of confirmed members. The respondents were confirmed in substantive vacancies within their quota, thus their seniority was valid.

6. Confirmation and seniority of temporary appointees versus officiating promotees:
The appellants argued that respondents appointed on a temporary basis could not claim seniority over officiating promotees. The Court held that the respondents were appointed as probationers under the 1959 Probationers Rules and confirmed in substantive vacancies. The temporary posts created for their training did not affect their seniority. The implementation of the quota rule ensured proper adjustment of seniority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, holding that respondents Nos. 2 to 24 were entitled to the vacancies within their quota and were senior to the appellants. The appeals were dismissed, and each party was to bear its own costs.