1991 (3) TMI 397 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the administrative orders dated November 16, 1976, and June 15, 1977, regarding seniority fixation.
2. Requirement of a hearing before passing the order dated March 3, 1980.
3. Alleged arbitrary discrimination in seniority fixation between ECOs/SSRCOs in medical/engineering services and those in non-technical services.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Administrative Orders Dated November 16, 1976, and June 15, 1977:

The primary contention was whether the State Government could issue administrative instructions to determine the seniority of ECOs/SSRCOs recruited to the Tamil Nadu Commercial Tax Service. The petitioners argued that these orders were issued to fill the gaps in the existing rules and were valid administrative instructions. The Court, however, held that Rule 35 of the General Rules explicitly provided that seniority should be based on the date of appointment. The orders dated November 16, 1976, and June 15, 1977, sought to alter this principle by fixing seniority based on the year the officers would have been appointed after joining military duty, which was inconsistent with Rule 35. The Court concluded that such changes could only be made through an amendment to the rules and not through administrative instructions, rendering the orders invalid.

2. Requirement of a Hearing Before Passing the Order Dated March 3, 1980:

The petitioners contended that the order dated March 3, 1980, which canceled the earlier orders, was passed without affording them a hearing, thus violating their rights. The Court found that since the orders dated November 16, 1976, and June 15, 1977, were invalid, the petitioners could not claim any rights based on these orders. Consequently, there was no requirement to provide a hearing before passing the order dated March 3, 1980, which merely rectified the invalid administrative instructions.

3. Alleged Arbitrary Discrimination in Seniority Fixation:

The petitioners argued that they were subjected to arbitrary discrimination as ECOs/SSRCOs in medical and engineering services were given the benefit of their Army service in seniority fixation, while they were denied similar benefits. The Court noted that the duties performed by ECOs/SSRCOs in medical and engineering services were similar to their roles in the Army, justifying the benefit of seniority. In contrast, the petitioners' roles in the Army were different from their duties as Commercial Tax Officers, negating the claim of being similarly situated. The Court referenced the decision in Union of India v. Dr. S. Krishna Murthy, which upheld the classification of ECOs/SSRCOs as a distinct class for seniority benefits in specific services. The Court concluded that the petitioners could not claim arbitrary discrimination as no similar rule existed for non-technical services like the Commercial Tax Service.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, affirming that the administrative orders dated November 16, 1976, and June 15, 1977, were invalid as they contradicted Rule 35 of the General Rules. The petitioners did not have a vested right to a hearing before the order dated March 3, 1980, was passed. Furthermore, the Court found no arbitrary discrimination in seniority fixation between ECOs/SSRCOs in different services, given the distinct nature of their duties. The appeal and special leave petitions were dismissed without any orders as to costs.