Case: Union of India &amp; Others Vs. M. Ravi Varma &amp; Others

accordance with the Ministry of Home Affairs O. Ms. referred to above."It would follow from the above that so far as the non-grazetted staff in the Central Excise, Customs and Narcotics Departments and other subordinate officers of the Central Board of Revenue are concerned, the question of seniority would have to be decided in accordance with the office Memorandum dated 19-10-1959. As the said office Memorandum has, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned, applied the rule of seniority contained in the Annexure thereto only to employees appointed after the date of that Memorandum, there is no escape from the conclusion that the seniority of Ganapthi Kini and Ravi Varma, respondents, who were appointed prior to December 22, 1959, would have to be determined on the basis of their length of service in accordance with office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and not on the basis of the date of their confirmation.14. In Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1969 the learned Solicitor General has referred to office Memorandum dated January 28, 1952, April 20, 1961 and March 27, 1963 issued by the Ministry of Home affairs to show a departure from the rule of seniority for the benefit of members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Office Memorandum dated January 28, 1952 makes provision for communal representation in services for candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as also the Anglo-Indian community The Memorandum gives a model roster which should be applied in filling the vacancies. Perusal of the Memorandum shows that it relates only to recruitment and has nothing to do with the rule of seniority.15. Office Memorandum dated April 20, 1961 deals with the question of seniority of direct recruits who were confirmed in an order different from the original order of merit. According to the Memorandum, it often happens that a candidate occupying a lower position in the merit list is appointed permanently to a reserved vacancy, while candidates above him in the merit list are no appointed at that time. If such candidates are appointed in the following year, they are not entitled to a higher seniority on the ground that in the previous year they had obtained a higher position in the merit list. It is plain that the above office Memorandum did not deal with the question of seniority on the basis of length of service as contained in Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 but with the question as to what would be the effect if a direct recruit scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate though occupying a lower position in the merit list, is confirmed earlier in a reserved vacancy. We are in the present case not concerned with any merit list nor with any question of seniority based on such a list. As such, Office Memorandum dated April 20, 1961 is also of not any material help to the appellants. It may be stated that the counsel for the appellants in the High Court conceded that the above Memorandum had no direct relevance in the present controversy.16. The third office Memorandum dated March 27, 1963 referred to by the learned Solicitor General deals with the subject of maintenance of roster for giving effect to the reservations provided for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in Central Government services. The Memorandum has a bearing only on the question of recruitment and provides no guidelines for determining seniority. We, thus, find that none of the three Office Memoranda relied upon by the Solicitor General is of any material assistance to the appellants.17. We may now advert to the Memorandum dated June, 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services. As mentioned earlier, it was after the receipt of this Memorandum that the seniority list of Class III employees of the Government Medical Stores Deport, Karnal was revised and the seniority was determined on the basis of the date of confirmation and not on the basis of length of service. The above Memorandum from the Directorate General of Health Services expressly refers to the Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and seeks implementation of that. It is no doubt true that a direction was given in the Memorandum of the Directorate General of Health Services that scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates confirmed in reserved vacancies should be ranked senior to temporary, including quasi-permanent persons, irrespective of their position in the seniority list, but such a direction went beyond the rule of seniority contained in the office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect of employees appointed before that date. As mentioned earlier office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 did not disturb the seniority of Central Government employees who had been appointed prior to the date of that Memorandum, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned. It is not disputed that according to the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 general questions relating to recruitment, promotion and seniority in Central services like the one with which we are concerned, have to be dealt with by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain, respondent, were appointed prior to December 22, 1959 their seniority was governed by the rule of length of the service as contained in Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and not by the rule based upon date of confirmation as contained in the Annexure to the Memorandum dated December 22, 1959.18. Reference was made by the learned Solicitor General to the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 185 = (Air 1967 SC 1889 ). Wherein it has been laid down that the service rules may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. No occasion for invoking the above dictum arises in this case because the learned counsel for the contesting respondents have not questioned the right of the Government to frame and alter unilaterally service rules.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]2. The question has been raised whether it is necessary to continue to apply the instructions contained in the Office Memoranda cited above. Displaced Government servants have by and large been absorbed in the various Central services and their seniority has been fixed with reference to the previous service rendered by them. Similarly, the seniority of ex-employees of the Government of Burma and of Part B States as well as of candidates with war service has already been determined in accordance with the instructions cited above. As the specific objects underlying the instructions cited above have been achieved, there is no longer any reason to apply those instructions in preference to the normal principles for determination of seniority. It has, therefore, been decided in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, that hereafter the seniority of all persons appointed to the various Central Services after the date of these instructions should be determined in accordance with the general principles annexed hereto.The matter was reviewed thereafter in 1959. The Government then found that displaced Government servants had by and large been absorbed in the various Central services and their seniority had been fixed with reference to the previous service rendered by them. Same was found to be the position of other Government servants who had been given the benefit of the principles contained in Memorandum dated June 22, 1949. As the objects underlying the instructions of June 22, 1949 had been achieved and it was no longer considered necessary to apply those instructions in preference to the normal principle for determination of seniority it was decided that the seniority of Central Government employees would henceforth be determined in accordance with the general principles contained in Annexure to the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on December 22, 1959. One of those principles was that permanent officers of each grade would be ranked senior to persons who were officiating in that grade. The effect of that, as submitted by the learned Solicitor General, was that the seniority was to be determined by the date of confirmation and not on the basis of length of service as was the rule contained in the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949.11. The Office Memorandum dated December 2, 1959, however, expressly made it clear that the general principles embodied in the Annexure thereto were not to have retrospective effect. In order to put the matter beyond any pale of controversy, it was mentioned that hereafter the seniority of all persons appointed to the various Central Services after the date of these instructions should be determined in accordance with the general principles annexed hereto. It is, therefore, manifest that except in certain cases with which we are not concerned, the Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 and the provisions laid down in the Annexure thereto could not apply to persons appointed to the various Central services before the date of that Memorandum.12. It may also be mentioned that while dealing with the above Memorandum, this Court in the case of Mervyn Countinho v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 91966) 3 SCR 600  = (AIR 1967 SC 52 ), observed that these principles were not to apply retrospectively but were given effect to from the date of their issue, subject to certain reservations with which we are notattention in this connection has been invited to letter dated March 15, 1958 sent by the Central Board of Revenue to all Collectors of Central Excise. In this letter there was a reference to an earlier letter dated July 3, 1957 from the Board and it was mentioned that the instructions contained in the earlier letter that for purposes of promotion from ministerial grade to inspectors grade, permanent clerks would first be considered before considering persons who were non-permanent, should be followed is respect of promotions to other grades also. The Solicitor General accordingly contends that the directions contained in the Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 that it could not apply to employees appointed before that date would not hold good in the case of clerks, supervisors and inspectors functioning under the Central Board of Revenue. It is, in our opinion, not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter because we find that the Central Board of Revenue as per letter dated august 27, 1971 addressed to all collectors of Central Excise, gave fresh instructions regarding the principles of seniority. In this letter these was a reference to the Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of home Affairs and it wassuppression of all previous orders on the subject, it has now been decided that in so far as the non-gazetted staff in the Central Excise, Customs and Narcotics Departments and other subordinate officers are concerned, the seniority of persons appointed to various posts and services after receipt of these orders should be regulated in accordance with the Ministry of Home Affairs O. Ms. referred towould follow from the above that so far as the non-grazetted staff in the Central Excise, Customs and Narcotics Departments and other subordinate officers of the Central Board of Revenue are concerned, the question of seniority would have to be decided in accordance with the office Memorandum dated 19-10-1959. As the said office Memorandum has, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned, applied the rule of seniority contained in the Annexure thereto only to employees appointed after the date of that Memorandum, there is no escape from the conclusion that the seniority of Ganapthi Kini and Ravi Varma, respondents, who were appointed prior to December 22, 1959, would have to be determined on the basis of their length of service in accordance with office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and not on the basis of the date of their confirmation.14. In Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1969 the learned Solicitor General has referred to office Memorandum dated January 28, 1952, April 20, 1961 and March 27, 1963 issued by the Ministry of Home affairs to show a departure from the rule of seniority for the benefit of members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Office Memorandum dated January 28, 1952 makes provision for communal representation in services for candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as also the Anglo-Indian community The Memorandum gives a model roster which should be applied in filling the vacancies. Perusal of the Memorandum shows that it relates only to recruitment and has nothing to do with the rule of seniority.15. Office Memorandum dated April 20, 1961 deals with the question of seniority of direct recruits who were confirmed in an order different from the original order of merit. According to the Memorandum, it often happens that a candidate occupying a lower position in the merit list is appointed permanently to a reserved vacancy, while candidates above him in the merit list are no appointed at that time. If such candidates are appointed in the following year, they are not entitled to a higher seniority on the ground that in the previous year they had obtained a higher position in the merit list. It is plain that the above office Memorandum did not deal with the question of seniority on the basis of length of service as contained in Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 but with the question as to what would be the effect if a direct recruit scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate though occupying a lower position in the merit list, is confirmed earlier in a reserved vacancy. We are in the present case not concerned with any merit list nor with any question of seniority based on such a list. As such, Office Memorandum dated April 20, 1961 is also of not any material help to the appellants. It may be stated that the counsel for the appellants in the High Court conceded that the above Memorandum had no direct relevance in the present controversy.16. The third office Memorandum dated March 27, 1963 referred to by the learned Solicitor General deals with the subject of maintenance of roster for giving effect to the reservations provided for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in Central Government services. The Memorandum has a bearing only on the question of recruitment and provides no guidelines for determining seniority. We, thus, find that none of the three Office Memoranda relied upon by the Solicitor General is of any material assistance to the appellants.17. We may now advert to the Memorandum dated June, 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services. As mentioned earlier, it was after the receipt of this Memorandum that the seniority list of Class III employees of the Government Medical Stores Deport, Karnal was revised and the seniority was determined on the basis of the date of confirmation and not on the basis of length of service. The above Memorandum from the Directorate General of Health Services expressly refers to the Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and seeks implementation of that. It is no doubt true that a direction was given in the Memorandum of the Directorate General of Health Services that scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates confirmed in reserved vacancies should be ranked senior to temporary, including quasi-permanent persons, irrespective of their position in the seniority list, but such a direction went beyond the rule of seniority contained in the office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect of employees appointed before that date. As mentioned earlier office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 did not disturb the seniority of Central Government employees who had been appointed prior to the date of that Memorandum, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned. It is not disputed that according to the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 general questions relating to recruitment, promotion and seniority in Central services like the one with which we are concerned, have to be dealt with by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain, respondent, were appointed prior to December 22, 1959 their seniority was governed by the rule of length of the service as contained in Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and not by the rule based upon date of confirmation as contained in the Annexure to the Memorandum dated December 22, 1959.18. Reference was made by the learned Solicitor General to the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 185  = (Air 1967 SC 1889 ). Wherein it has been laid down that the service rules may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. No occasion for invoking the above dictum arises in this case because the learned counsel for the contesting respondents have not questioned the right of the Government to frame and alter unilaterally service rules.