1987 (5) TMI 383 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of seniority between temporary Assistant Engineers and probationary Assistant Engineers.
2. Validity of the seniority list and its preparation.
3. Interpretation and application of the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936.
4. Impact of delay and laches on the maintainability of the writ petition.
5. Effect of confirmation and substantive appointment on seniority determination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of seniority between temporary Assistant Engineers and probationary Assistant Engineers:
The core issue was the determination of seniority between respondents (temporary Assistant Engineers) and appellants (probationary Assistant Engineers). The respondents were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers in 1947-1948 and confirmed in 1950, while the appellants, who were toppers from Thomson College of Civil Engineering, were appointed on probation in 1951-1952 and confirmed in 1955. The court held that the seniority should be determined from the date of substantive appointment, not necessarily linked to permanent positions. Rule 23 of the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936, was pivotal in this determination.

2. Validity of the seniority list and its preparation:
The validity of the seniority list prepared by the government was challenged. The High Court had quashed the seniority list and directed the preparation of a fresh list in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court upheld that the seniority list prepared in 1956 was arbitrary and in contravention of Rule 23, which mandates that seniority be determined based on the date of substantive appointment.

3. Interpretation and application of the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936:
The court extensively analyzed the rules, particularly Rule 3(b), Rule 5, Rule 16, Rule 17, Rule 19, and Rule 23. It clarified that a member of the service is one appointed in a substantive capacity, which includes both permanent and temporary posts. The court emphasized that the appointment in a substantive capacity does not necessitate a permanent post but can include a temporary post of long duration.

4. Impact of delay and laches on the maintainability of the writ petition:
The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the writ petition. It noted that representations were made as early as 1959, and the writ petition was filed in 1973. Despite the delay, the court decided to consider the merits of the case due to the pending representations and the government's failure to address them timely. However, the court ultimately denied relief based on laches and delay, citing that the challenge to the seniority list after 17 years would cause administrative difficulties and injustice to the appellants who had already been promoted.

5. Effect of confirmation and substantive appointment on seniority determination:
The court clarified that confirmation is not the sole criterion for determining seniority. It held that substantive appointment, whether to a permanent or temporary post, is the key factor. The court cited previous rulings, including Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P., to support that an appointment in a substantive capacity, even to a temporary post, qualifies one as a member of the service for seniority purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside due to the inordinate delay and laches. The court directed that henceforth, seniority should be determined from the date of substantive appointment, irrespective of whether the post is permanent or temporary. No costs were awarded.