Case: Dr. Satyabrata Dutta Choudhury Vs. State of Assam and Others

Appointments made under Regulations 3(e) and 3(f) of the A.P.S.C. (Limitations of Functions) Regulations and later regularised though the A.P.S.C. :Normally the appointments made under these two Regulations should be regularised within the time specified in the Regulation itself. The seniority of the persons whose appointment have been regularised should be determined as follows :(i) If the appointments of two persons are regularised, earlier should be considered senior to the persons whose appointments were regularised later.(ii) If the appointments of a number of persons are regularised on one batch, then the inter se seniority of these persons should be according to the merit list of A.P.S.C. Even if the A.P.S.C. does not give any merit list, the appointing authority should request the A.P.S.C. to indicate the order of preference of these persons."The High Court has stated in its judgment that the inter se seniority of the appellants and the respondents "was fixed on the recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission" under the notification, and that fact has not been controverted before us.

Court's reasoning:
4. What has been argued is that as the appellants joined earlier as Assistant Professors, they were entitled to rank senior to the respondents who joined later. Reference in this connection has been made to Art. 16 of the Constitution.5. It is not in dispute that the appellants and respondents 4, 5, and 6 were initially appointed Assistant Professors under Regulation 3(e) of the Regulations, on an officiating basis, to avoid delay, and it was obligatory, in terms of that regulation, to consult the Service Commission as soon as possible. The appointments were the defeasible, and could not give rise to any legal right in favour of the parties. It is therefore futile be contend that as the appellants jointed as Assistant Professors on an earlier date, they were entitled to rank senior to respondents 4, 5 and 6 irrespective of the result of the final recruitment through the Service Commission.6. It is no doubt true that no rule had been made to govern the seniority of Assistant Professors, but it is not in controversy that Government had notified the aforesaid instructions dated February 2, 1964 in regard to the seniority of the persons appointed under Regulations 3(e) and 3(f) of the Regulations. As the appointments of the appellants and respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were admittedly regularised in one batch, after reference to the Service Commission, by the order dated December 9, 1963, their inter se seniority had to be determined according to the merit list of the Commission. As has been pointed out, it is not in dispute that the impugned seniority list has been fixed on the recommendation of the Commission, so that it is in accordance with the instructions of the Government. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held that the instructions would hold the field in the absence of the service rules.