SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

C.A. No. 3056, 3055, 3054 of 1998. D/d. 14.12.2000.

P. Mohan Reddy - Petitioner

Versus

E.A.A. Charles & ors. - Respondents

Constitution of India, 1950 Article 309 Seniority - Re-determination - Earlier court has upheld validity of Rule 4E of rules 1961 in case reported (1988)2 SCC 201 regarding determination of seniority and stuck down only retrospective operation of provision by holding that Rule should be given prospective effect - Entire principle changed by amended rules of 1992 - Question before court is to re-determination of inter-se-seniority of petitioner in pursuance to amended rule of 1992 - Amendment rule purport prospective effect - Matter directed to be listed before 3 Judge Bench.

[Para 1]

Cases Referred :-

K.V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of A.P., (1988) 2 SCC 201.

Wing Commander J. Kumar v. U.O.I., (1982) 2 SCC 116.

JUDGMENT

1. The question of re-determination of inter-se-seniority of the Deputy Tehsildar in Andhra Pradesh pursuance to the amended Rules 1992 is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. This Court upheld the validity of the Rule 4-E of the earlier Rules of 1961 and only struck down the retrospective operation of the provision and directed that the Rules should be given prospective effect as reported in K V. Subba Rao & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 201. By the subsequent Rule of 1992 which is also amended Rule under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the entire principle appears to have been changed and the question for determination is whether the seniority of officers in the cadre already determined pursuance 'to the 1961 Rules is required to be re-determined in accordance with Rules of 1992. On the face of it, the Rule does not purport to have been given any retrospective effect. Mr. Mishra appearing for the promotees, however, brought to our notice a 3-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Wing Commander J. Kumar v. U.O.I. & Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 116 in which certain observations have been made in paragraph 17 which stipulates that if there has not been any promotion from the cadre then the seniority of the officers concerned in the cadre could he determined in accordance with the amended Rules which had already been determined in accordance with previous orders/rules. Be it stated that in that case there was no rules under proviso to Article 309 for determination of seniority prior to the impugned rule under consideration but the seniority was being determined under certain administrative orders and the same principle has been incorporated in the rule. In view of the aforesaid judgment of a 3-Judge Bench, we think it appropriate that this case also should be listed before a 3-Judge Bench as early as possible.

.