1986 (10) TMI 330 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fixation of seniority.
2. Nature of initial appointment.
3. Equivalence of posts between Madras and Mysore State Services.
4. Validity of regularisation under the "Regularisation Rules."
5. Claims of fraud and misrepresentation by the Government.
6. Res judicata effect of previous judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fixation of Seniority:
The appellant challenged the fixation of his seniority from the date of regularisation (21.10.1967) rather than from his initial temporary appointment (17.10.1960). The High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the seniority list published on 30.7.1981, which reckoned the appellant's seniority from the date of regularisation. The appellant's contention that his seniority should be from the date of his initial appointment was rejected, as his initial appointment was on a temporary basis and not equivalent to the posts of Assistant Inspector of Labour transferred from Madras State Service.

2. Nature of Initial Appointment:
The appellant argued that his initial appointment as Assistant Inspector of Labour in 1960 was not as a local candidate but a regular appointment to a higher category post. However, the Court found that his appointment was purely temporary and as a local candidate, as evidenced by his service register and his own declarations at the time of regularisation in 1967. The Court noted that the appellant had accepted his status as a local candidate and had benefited from the regularisation under the "Regularisation Rules."

3. Equivalence of Posts Between Madras and Mysore State Services:
The appellant claimed that his appointment was to one of the posts transferred from the Madras State Service and should have been in a higher category. The Court found that the posts of Assistant Inspector of Labour in Mysore were equated with the posts of Inspectors of Shops and Establishments in the scale of Rs. 80-200, and not with the higher pay scale posts from Madras. The Court emphasized that the mere continuation of the designation "Assistant Inspector of Labour" did not equate the posts with those transferred from Madras.

4. Validity of Regularisation Under the "Regularisation Rules":
The appellant argued that his regularisation in 1967 should not have been as a local candidate. The Court found that the appellant had given a solemn declaration at the time of regularisation, stating that he was a local candidate and eligible for regularisation under the "Regularisation Rules." The Court held that the appellant could not now claim otherwise after having benefited from the regularisation process.

5. Claims of Fraud and Misrepresentation by the Government:
The appellant alleged that there was fraudulent representation by the Government in previous proceedings (W.P. No. 153/66). The Court found no merit in this argument, noting that the Government's consistent stand was that the appellant's appointment was temporary and not equivalent to the posts held by the allottees from Madras. The Court found no conflict or suppression of material facts in the Government's representations in different writ petitions.

6. Res Judicata Effect of Previous Judgments:
The appellant's repeated attempts to challenge the fixation of his seniority and the nature of his appointment had been consistently rejected by various courts, including the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the appellant's contentions had been fully considered and rejected time and again, and the principle of res judicata barred him from re-litigating the same issues.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding all the appellant's contentions to be without merit. The Court upheld the fixation of the appellant's seniority from the date of regularisation and rejected his claims for higher seniority and equivalence with the posts transferred from Madras. The Court also condemned the appellant's reckless allegations against the High Court and expressed disapproval of his conduct, though it did not impose costs on him.