9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (12) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es was a post in Class I of that Service. The appellant and one Dr. Jagjit Singh were, until their promotion with retrospective effect from 25th April, 1964, District Medical Officers of Health in Class II of Public Health Service. Dr. Jagjit Singh was admittedly senior to the appellant in rank. Respondents, Nos. 3 to 19 were' until their promotion by an order dated 8th April, 1964, in Class II of PCMS. It appea rs that some posts in Class I of PCMS fell vacant and it was, therefore, decided to make promotions to these posts from amongst officers belonging to Class II of PCMS and an order dated 8th April, 1964 was accordingly issued by the State Government. promoting inter alia respondents Nos. 3 to 19 to Class 1, PCMS with immediate effect. Though this order was made on 8th April, 1964, it could not be conveyed to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 until 23rd April, 1964 and respondents Nos. 3 to 19 could, therefore, assume charge of the higher posts of promotion only after 27th April, 1964. In fact they took charge of the higher posts of promotion on different dates between 27th April, 1964 and 11th May, 1964. It may be pointed out that under the order dated 8th April, 1964 several oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view to protecting his right of promotion by virtue of his parent seniority which could not be disturbed passed an order dated 24th July, 1965 granting absentia promotion to Dr. Jagjit Singh to the post of Assistant Director, with effect from 25th April, 1964 and since Dr. Jagjit Singh was on deputation with the Defence Department, the State Government, by the same order, promoted the appellant to, the post of Assistant Director with effect from the same date vice Dr. Jagjit Singh Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant were thus promoted to the posts of Assistant Director with retrospective effect from 25th April, 1964 and they were accordingly Assistant Directors on 15th July, 1964 when integration took place and were, therefore, equated and absorbed as such in PCMS Class I cadre. Now, one question which arose consequent on the integration of Class I of Public Health Service with PCMS Class I was as to how the inter se seniority of the officers coming from the two services should be determined in the integrated service. The State Government by a memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 decided that the inter se seniority of officers belonging to the two integrating services should be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority laid down by the State Government in clause 2(ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 the inter se seniority of the integrating officers was to be determined with reference to the length of continuous service from the date of appointment and if this principle was properly applied, Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant would be senior to respondents Nos. 3 to, 19 as their continuous service in the posts of Assistant Director commenced from 25th April, 1964, while the continuous service of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 in the corresponding posts in PCMS Class I did not commence until after 25th April, 1964 when they took charge of their respective posts and the continuous service put in by them was, therefore, longer in duration that that put in by respondents Nos. 3 to 19. This ground was accepted by the learned Single Judge who heard the petition and taking the view that Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant were senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed that the seniority list should revised by the State Government so as to give seniority to the appellant over respondents Nos. 3 to 19. The State Government and the Director of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Health Service, consisting of the posts of Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors, was integrated with PCMS Class I and since officers coming from these two different services were to be absorbed and fitted into one integrated service, it was necessary to evolve a fair and just principle for determining their inter Se seniority in the integrated service. It was for this purpose that the State Government issued clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965. What clause (2) (ii) provided was that on integration in PCMS Class I, the seniority of Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors vis-a-vis the other officer in that service should be determined by reference to the length of continuous service from the date of appointmentthat is, the continuous service of such integrating officer shouldbe reckoned from the date of his appointment in his group-whether it be in PCMS Class I or in Public Health Service Class I-and the inter se seniority should be arranged according to the length of such continuous service. The measure or yard-stick for adjusting inter se seniority of the officers coming from the two services should be the length of continuous service of each from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e([1966] 3 S.C.R. 682.) and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan Anr. ([1968] 1 S.C.R. 111) It was, therefore, competent to the State Government to issue clause (2)(ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 in exercise of its executive power laying down the principle to be followed in adjusting inter se seniority of the officers in the integrated service. But the question then arises whether the State Government could issue the order dated 4th December, 1967 providing that the seniority of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 shall be reckoned from the date of issue of their order of appointment, namely, 8th April, 1964 irrespective as to when they assumed charge of the higher posts, if such order was in contravention of the principle of seniority laid down in clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965. The argument urged on behalf of the State Government was that it was competent toit to fix an assumed date on which the continuous service of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 should be deemed to have commenced for the purpose of determining their seniority in the integrated service, and the order dated 4th December, 1967 was, therefore, not beyond its power. But we do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent dates and it was thus in con- travention of the principle of seniority laid down in clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965, it would have to be held to be void as being violative of articles 14 and 16. We do not, however, think that the order dated 4th December, 1967 providing that the seniority of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 shall be reckoned from the date of their appointment, namely, 8th April, 1964 constituted a departure from the principle of seniority laid down in clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965. The test for determining seniority in the integrated cadre laid down by clause (2) (ii) of the memorandum dated 25th October, 1965 was the length of continuous service from the date of appointment in the group. The appellant contended that continuous service in a post could commence only when the incumbent took charge of the post and not earlier and, therefore, though respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were promoted under the order dated 8th April, 1964, their continuous service (1) 359 U.S. 535 at 546-5473 Law. Sd. (Second Series) 1012. in the posts of promotion in PCMS Class I did not commence until after 25th April, 1964 when they too ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
