Jurisprudentee the Assistants having been promoted to the Grade of Superintendents Grade 11 after those already working as Superintendents Grade 11 would naturally rank junior to them
There is no rule of seniority vis a vis for promotes to Superintendent Grade 11 with effect from 1st August 1981 for calculating seniority and normal rule of service Jurisprudence of length of service will apply
718 D  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos
4604 to 4609 of 1992
From the Judgment and Order dated 228
1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras in OA
No 145 to 15087
AS Nambiar PK Manohar and Shanti Vasudevan for the Appellant
R Venkataramni VG Praoasani and SM Garg for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 714 YOGESHWAR DAYALJ
These six appeals have been filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench dated 22nd August 1989 while disposing of Original Application Nos
145 to 150 of 1987
Those were filed in seriatem by B Jayaraman A Kanakasena Rao M Venkatachalam A Sherfudeen K Viswanathan and P Madhavan Adiyodi
The respondents in all these six matters before the Tribunal were the same namely respondent No 1 was Union of India whereas respondent Nos 2 to 13 were the erstwhile Secretarial Assistants promoted as Superintendents Grade 11 and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry and governed by the Government of Pondicherry Group C  Non Gazetted Ministerial Posts Recruitment Rules 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Rules 
The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them inspite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade II prior to the promotion of the erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade II
The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent No 1 had included the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between 1 1 1973 and 3171981 for computing the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade 11
The plea of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that from 181981 respondents 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distinctly lower scale of pay as compared to the applicants they could not be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I before the petitioners
The Tribunal allowed the applications OA Nos
145 to 150 of 1987 and held  It appears to us that there has been some confusion between a liberal provision which has been deliberately made for conferring eligibility for consideration for promotion to the next higher post with reckoning of the period of service rendered in the post of Assistant for the purpose of counting seniority in the post of Superintendent Grade II
The tentative seniority lists based on which promotions of respondents 2 to 13 have been made as Superintendents
Grade I are based on the application of an erroneous principle of determining seniority which is not backed up any statutory provision
That has led to a situation where persons promoted to a higher grade of Superintendent Grade 11 before the Assistants and in which posts they were also confirmed being 715 placed below respondents 2 onwards
 The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13 before it contained in various orders of the Government of Pondichery dated 781986 2081986 19 1986 and 17111986
Respondent No 1 was further directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade II on the basis of the length of service rendered in that grade and thereafter all the eligible persons may be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and that should include persons like respondents 2 to 13 before it who would Get the benefit of service rendered by them as Assistant between 1 
1973 to 31111981 for determining the period of eligibility and not for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade 11
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals
It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period 1 1 1973 to 317
1981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade 11
For appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties were may give a statement showing the dates of appointments in various grades and ranking assigned in respect of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13 in OA Nos
145 to 150 of 1987 before the Tribunal Name of Date of Appointment Seniority in the Asstt
SupdtNS Supdt
Supdt
Supdt
Supdt
official Gr
II Gr
I GRIIGr
I Applicant in OA 14587 A Kanakasena 101273 1881
171186 113197 Rao Applicant in OA 14687 M Venkatachal 2873 1881 131086 103188 716 am Applicant in OA 14787 A
Sherfudeen 30878 1881 7987 140Not Applicant in Assigned OA 14887 K Vishwanathan 7477 1881 20387126207 Applicant in OA 14987 PMadhavan 10276 1881 171286 119 201 AdiyodiAppli cant in OA 15087 R2appointed KC Kumaran 811264 do 14582 7886184176 R3 GRanganathan 11365 do 13182 7886186177 R4 SPushparaj 25565 do 13182 7886187178 R5 Kmeenakshi 9567 do 9783 7886208179 R6 GRadha 19567 do 121827886188180 Krishnan R7 SSethuraman 231168 do 12182 20886190183 R8 section Felixraj 7469 do 1218222886191184 R9 SKuppusamy 14469 do 12182 1986 193185 R 10 RChandra 29170 do 22883 1986212186 sekaranR 11 JPandurangan 9374 Not 21682 171186 195198 R 12appointed SSundarasan Nov 1964 do 30986 171186 183175 The scales of pay for various period for the posts of Assistant Superintendent Grade 11 and Superintendent Grade I may also be noticed  NAME OF THE POSTS SCALE OF PAY Pre revised Revised Revised On  from 717 prior to wef 181981 1973 1173 Assistant 210 425 425 700 425 700 Superintendent 325 475 550 750 Grade II who have 550 750 Supdt
NS passed Hr
Accounts Test
270 435 425 700 for others for others Superintendent 350 550 550 900 550 900 Grade I It may be noticed that most of the respondents before the Tribunal were working in the grade of 425 700 when they were promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade II in the pay scale of 550 750
It is thus clear that on general principles of service jurisprudence the Assistants having been promoted to the grade of Superintendent Grade II after those already working Superintendent Grade 11 would naturally rank junior to them
The confusion in the Government appears to have been created in view of note and the provision occurring in Schedule VII of the Rules relating to the recruitment to the post of Superintendent Grade 1
In column 11 thereof the recruitment is provided by Promotion  from among the Superintendent Grade 11 who have completed five years of service in the said post
There is a note and the proviso to the following effect in column 11 Note For computing the five years service the service rendered in the post of Superintendent Non Secretariat and the service rendered after 1st January 1973 and upto 3 1st July 1981 in the post of Assistant shall be taken into account Provided that the Superintendents Non Secretariat in service as on 31st December 1972 Shall enbloc be Seniors to Assistants in service on that date and the Superintendents Non Secretariat and Assistants appointed on or after 1st January 1973 and upto 3 1st July 1981 shall rank inter se with reference to their dates of appointment in the respective posts
 It is clear that the note merely allows the erstwhile Assistants who were 718 promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade 11 for purposes of counting the period of five years service as Superintendent Grade 11 to include their service rendered as Assistants after 1 1
1973 to 3 17198 1
This note is for no purpose other than for giving them eligibility for consideration for promotion from the cadre of Superintendent Grade II to the cadre of Superintendent Grade I
The proviso again is very clear when it says that Superintendents Non Secretariat in service as on 31st December 1972 shall enbloc be seniors to Assistants in service on that date and the Superintendents Non Secretariat and Assistants appointed on or after 1st January 1973 and upto 3 1 St July 1981 shall rank inter se with reference to the dates of appointment in their respective posts
All the Superintendents in Grade II who were appointed after 3 1st July 1981 would naturally rank in the seniority on the basis of respective dates of appointment as Superintendent Grade II
We are thus in complete agreement with the reasonings and conclusion of the Tribunal and it is declared that the note in column 11 is only for purposes of giving eligibility to the erstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade II for purposes of being considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and not for the purpose of seniority at all
There is no rule of seniority viz a viz for promotes to Superintendent Grade II with effect from 1st August 1981 for calculating seniority and normal rule of service jurisprudence of length of service will apply
With these observations the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs
GS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The election of the appellant as a member of the Bihar State Assembly was challenged under section 7d of the Representation of the People Act 951 by the first respondent who was also a candidate for election for the same constituency on the ground that at the date of the nomination the appellant had an interest in contracts for execution of works undertaken by the Bihar Government and that his nomination had been improperly accepted
The appellant s plea inter alia was that he had executed the contracts not in his individual capacity but as the Mukhiya of the Village Panchayat and therefore the disqualification imposed by section 7d of the Act could not be invoked against him
The contracts in question related to community projects undertaken in pursuance of the Second Five Year Plan under which the execution of different works adopted under the plan was to be by popular local agencies like Village Panchayats
The contracts were all in the prescribed form and the appellant at the com 536 mencement of the contract described himself by his name stating that he belonged to the village
The preamble to the contract showed that the appellant undertook to carry out the construction of the development project under local works programme mentioned in the contract as per estimate attached thereto that he agreed to execute the work
according to and subject to the terms and conditions contained therein and that he undertook to contribute 50 of the cost in cash and labour
At the end of the contract he signed as Mukhiya giving his address as the Gram Panchayat
The Election Tribunal found in favour of the appellant and dismissed the election petition but on appeal the High Court took the view 1 that the description of the appellant given by him at the time when he signed the contracts was not a term of the contract and could not therefore support his plea that he had executed the contract as Mukhiya of the Panchayat and 2 that the fact that he undertook liability to execute the contracts as required and to become liable for payment of any fine imposed by the local government officer in case of his default showed obligations of a personal character inconsistent with his plea
Held that on a proper construction of the contracts taking into account all the terms and conditions as a whole and considering them in the light of the background of the Second Five Year Plan when the appellant signed the contracts as the Mukhiya of the Village Panchayat he acted as its agent and not as an individual acting in his personal capacity