2011 (3) TMI 1590 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether seniority is to be determined by the date of first effective advice made by the Public Service Commission to the State Government for appointment?

Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority between general category candidates and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of Block Development Officer.
2. Interpretation and application of Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959.
3. Conflict between law and equity in determining seniority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter se Seniority:
The primary dispute in this appeal revolves around the inter se seniority between general category candidates (respondent Nos. 1 to 5) and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates (the appellants) for the post of Block Development Officer. The appellants argued that they should be considered senior based on the date of first effective advice made by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for their appointments, which was earlier than that of the respondents.

2. Interpretation and Application of Rule 27(c):
Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959, is central to this case. It states:
"27(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list."
The Supreme Court emphasized that the seniority is determined by the date of first effective advice made by the PSC to the State Government for appointment. In this case, the PSC's advice for the appellants was on 8.7.1992, and they joined between 13.8.1992 and 22.10.1992, whereas the advice for the respondents was on 6.4.1993, and they joined between 6.10.1993 and 17.11.1993. Therefore, under Rule 27(c), the appellants are senior to the respondents.

3. Conflict Between Law and Equity:
The Full Bench and Single Judge of the High Court had ruled in favor of the respondents based on equity, justice, and good conscience. However, the Supreme Court held that this approach was incorrect. The Court stated, "When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which is to prevail. Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant the law." The Court reiterated that Rule 27(c) clearly favors the appellants, as the advice for their appointments was made prior to that for the respondents. The Court also rejected the respondents' argument that certain obstructions delayed their first effective advice, stating that the date when the advice was sent is what determines seniority under Rule 27(c).

Additional Legal Interpretations:
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of the literal rule of interpretation, citing various precedents. It held that "the literal rule of interpretation will apply to it," and "the language of Rule 27(c) of the Rules is clear and hence we have to follow that language." The Court cited several cases to support the principle that where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning must be given effect, regardless of the consequences. The Court emphasized that judicial interpretation should not amend the law, which is the prerogative of the legislature.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Full Bench and the learned Single Judge of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the private respondents. The Court concluded that the appellants are senior to the respondents based on the clear language of Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959. No costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →