Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 – Appendix IX – Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 – r.5 – Appellant was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent by order dated 22.10.2007, however, w.e.f 07.10.2005 – Respondent No.3-Junior Assistant was undergoing a departmental enquiry, however he was exonerated in departmental enquiry on 15.06.2006 – Considering r.5 of 1982 rules, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 06.11.1999 and thereafter, he was promoted as Office Superintendent on 22.10.2007 – Respondent No.3 was granted deemed date of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f 07.10.2005 – Respondent No.3 was placed in the higher position in the seniority list above the appellant and was consequently promoted as Section Officer on 01.02.2008 – Writ Petition by the appellant – High Court directed appellant to approach the Additional Divisional Commissioner – Additional Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of promotion of respondent no.3 – Writ petition by respondent no.3 – High Court set aside the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner – On appeal, held: Respondent no.3 was granted the deemed date of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 07.10.2005 – However, he was actually promoted as Office Superintendent on 22.10.2007 – Therefore, in fact, he has rendered service as Office Superintendent only from 22.10.2007 – As per Appendix IX to the Recruitment rules, 1967, the eligibility for appointment to the promotional post of Section Officer requires three years continuous service – The language used in Appendix IX is unambiguous, simple and plain – Therefore, on a fair reading of Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules, 1967, to become eligible for the promotional post of Section Officer, a person ought to have rendered continuous service of not less than three years – In the instant case, respondent no.3 had not completed three years of service for a continuous period of not less than three years in the feeder cadre in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade II, therefore, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer – The High Court committed a grave error in holding otherwise – Thus, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of promotion of respondent no.3.
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 – Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 – Distinction between the rules – Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 both are different rules and enacted under the different provisions and they operate in different fields. The Recruitment Rules, 1967 are enacted/framed in exercise of powers conferred by clause xxxix of subsection 2 of Section 274 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961. The said Rules shall apply to the recruitment to all posts in District Technical Service (Class III), District Service (Class III) and District Service (Class IV). On the other hand, the Seniority Rules, 1982 are framed/enacted in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As per the Seniority Rules, 1982, the seniority of government servants shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Seniority Rules, 1982. The said Seniority Rules, 1982 are made applicable to the District Service also. Therefore, the Seniority Rules, 1982 shall govern the seniority only and not with respect to the recruitment. The recruitment shall be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 1967 only. [Para 8] [890-H; 891-A-C]
2. In the present case, the High Court has considered Rule
5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982 and has not at all considered the Recruitment Rules, 1967. Respondent no.3 might have been granted the deemed date of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 07.10.2005. However, he was actually promoted as Office Superintendent on 22.10.2007. Therefore, in fact, he has rendered service as Office Superintendent only from 22.10.2007. As per Appendix IX to the Recruitment rules, 1967, the eligibility for appointment to the promotional post of Section Officer requires three years continuous service. The language used in Appendix IX is unambiguous, simple and plain. Therefore, on a fair reading of Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules, 1967, to become eligible for the promotional post of Section Officer, a person ought to have rendered continuous service of not less than three years. “Continuous service” might have been defined under the Seniority Rules, 1982. However, the same shall be for the purpose of seniority and the Seniority Rules only. Therefore, if any employee is granted the deemed date of promotion, his seniority shall be considered accordingly from the deemed date of promotion. However, that shall be only for the purpose of inter se seniority only and the same shall not be applicable while considering the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules. In the Recruitment Rules, “continuous service” is not defined. Therefore, one has to consider the ordinary dictionary meaning of “continuous” which means “uninterrupted or unbroken”. The High Court has added the word “actual” which as such is not there in Appendix IX. While considering the relevant provisions and as per the rule of interpretation, when the language used is unambiguous, plain and simple, the provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is to be added. Therefore, when in Appendix IX, the eligibility criteria is that no person shall be eligible for promotion unless he has completed service for a continuous service of not less than three years means he has to render/complete service for a continuous period of uninterrupted/unbroken three years service. Therefore, when respondent no.3 has not completed three years of service for a continuous period of not less than three years in the feeder cadre in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade II, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer. The High Court has committed a grave error in holding otherwise. Therefore, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, rightly allowed the appeal and rightly set aside the order of promotion of respondent no.3 dated 1.2.2008 to the post of Section Officer. [Para 9] [891-D-H; 892-A-C]
3. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner is hereby restored and it is held that respondent no.3 is not entitled to be promoted to the post of Section Officer and instead action should be taken to promote the appellant to the post of Section Officer, as directed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. [Para 10] [892-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.