SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and Doraiswamy Rajju, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1998 with C.A. No. 3020 of 1999. D/d. 30.3.2000

Anand Kumar - Appellant

Versus

Prem Singh - Respondent

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 136 - Appointment - Ad hoc service - Regularisation - Seniority - Promotion - Appellant was given benefit of ad hoc service rendered earlier to his regularisation and consequently he was promoted, while fixing his seniority - The benefit denied to respondent who was placed under similar circumstances - High Court set aside the promotion of appellant holding it to be based on wrong seniority - Uneven treatment shown to the respondent in the matter of seniority not correct - Held, order of High Court, proper.

[Para 2]

ORDER

V.N. Khare, J. - It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Account Clerk on 10.7.1972 through Employment Exchange. It is also not disputed that on the recommendation of the Subordinate Selection Board, the services of respondent No. 1 was regularised on 18.7.1973. The appellant herein was also appointed as Accounts Clerk on 21.10.1972 through Employment Exchange and, subsequently, his services were regularised and while fixing his seniority the temporary ad hoc service rendered by him prior to regularisation was taken into account. But in the case of respondent No. 1, the ad hoc service was not included for the purpose of counting his seniority. It is under such circumstances/respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the fixation of seniority as well as consequent promotion of the appellant to the post of Excise and Taxation Officer. The High Court was of the view that since the respondent Government has counted the ad hoc service of the appellant, while fixing his seniority, the ad hoc service rendered by respondent No. 1 ought to have been also included for the purpose of giving him seniority and as a result of which the High Court set aside the promotion of the appellate herein and further directed the Government to consider the case of the appellant and the respondent for promotion after giving credit of ad hoc service to respondent No. 1 for purposes of fixing his seniority. It is against the said judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant while conceding that the ad hoc service rendered by respondent No. 1 ought to have been included while fixing his seniority, urged that in view of the fact that the appellant has been working on the promoted post for last several years, the High Court ought not to have interfered with by the promotion of the appellant. We do not find any basis for such an argument. Once it is found that the respondent was treated with uneven hands in the matter of fixation of seniority, the promotion of the appellant on the basis of wrong seniority cannot be upheld. We, therefore, find that the High Court was justified in setting aside the promotion of the appellant.

3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

C.A. No. 3020/99 :

In view of the decision in C.A. No. 104/98, this appeal is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.