Supreme Court clarifies seniority based on effective date of advice: K.R. Babu vs. State of Kerala (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2017

Citation: 2017 INSC 817

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.

Can the date of actual appointment be the basis of seniority when the rules specify the date of advice for appointment? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a dispute concerning seniority of an Excise Inspector in Kerala. The court clarified that seniority is to be determined by the effective date of advice from the Public Service Commission, not the date of actual appointment or joining. This judgment emphasizes the importance of the date of advice in determining seniority under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. The bench comprised of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

T. Raju, the respondent, was a candidate for the post of Excise Inspector. He was ranked 86th in the rank list published on 12.06.1992, under the reserved quota for Ezhava. He approached the High Court of Kerala in 1996, seeking to be advised from the rank list. The High Court, on 17.01.2001, directed the Public Service Commission to revise the advice list and include T. Raju in the appropriate Ezhava turn against the next advisable vacancy. The High Court also clarified that the seniority and service conditions of the 83 candidates already advised and appointed should not be disturbed. The Kerala Public Service Commission appealed this decision, but the appeal was dismissed on 13.11.2002. The Division Bench of the High Court directed the implementation of the judgment within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala initially ruled in favor of T. Raju, directing the Public Service Commission to revise the advice list and include him in the next advisable vacancy. The Kerala Public Service Commission filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench emphasized that the Single Judge was careful not to disturb the seniority of those already advised and appointed. It also directed that the judgment be implemented within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute revolves around Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. This rule specifies how seniority is determined. Rule 27(c) states:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class , category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list.”

This rule clearly indicates that seniority is determined by the effective date of advice from the Public Service Commission, not the date of actual appointment or joining. The explanation to Rule 27(a) clarifies that “appointment” does not include appointment under rule 9 or appointment by promotion under rule 31.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Kerala and other Appellants:

• The State argued that the actual date of advice for appointment, which in T. Raju’s case was 16.01.2003, should be taken as the date for all purposes, including the determination of seniority.
• They contended that the Division Bench’s grant of three months for implementation of the judgment meant that the actual date of advice should be the basis for seniority.
• The State’s argument was essentially that the date on which the advice was actually issued to T. Raju should be the date considered for seniority.

Arguments by T. Raju (Respondent):

• T. Raju contended that he was entitled to be advised from the rank list published on 12.06.1992, based on his position at No. 86 under the reserved quota for Ezhava.
• He argued that the High Court’s order of 17.01.2001, as upheld by the Division Bench, meant that he should have been advised in the next advisable vacancy after the last advice as on the date of the judgment.
• T. Raju’s position was that the effective date of advice should be considered for seniority, which would be based on the next advisable vacancy after the last advice from the 1992 list.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the seniority of T. Raju should be determined based on the actual date of advice (16.01.2003) or the effective date of advice based on the next advisable vacancy after the last advice from the 1992 list.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958: This rule was the central legal provision in the case. The court interpreted the rule to mean that seniority is determined by the effective date of advice, not the actual date of appointment or joining.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958: The Court relied on this rule to determine that the effective date of advice is the basis for seniority.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following points:

• The clear distinction between “advice” and “appointment” as per the service rules.
• The importance of the “effective date of advice” as the basis for determining seniority.
• The need to implement the High Court’s judgment in favor of T. Raju without disturbing the seniority of those already appointed before 17.01.2001.
• The factual position that the first vacancy for direct recruits arose on 01.04.1999, making it the effective date of advice for T. Raju.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, and the factual context of the case. The Court emphasized that the effective date of advice is the key factor in determining seniority, not the actual date of appointment or joining. The Court also considered the High Court’s earlier judgments and the need to implement them without disturbing the seniority of those already appointed before 17.01.2001.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a careful interpretation of the service rules and the factual context of the case. The court emphasized the importance of the effective date of advice in determining seniority and clarified that the actual date of appointment or joining is not relevant for this purpose.

The court observed:

“There is a lot of difference, as we have already referred to above, between advice and appointment and also there is a lot of difference between the effective date of advice and actual date of appointment.”

“In the case of T. Raju, the judgment dated 17.01.2001, as confirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 13.11.2002 has become final.”

“Therefore, T. Raju is entitled to his seniority based on the effective date of advice in the next advisable vacancy namely, 01.04.1999.”

Key Takeaways

• Seniority in Kerala State services is determined by the effective date of advice from the Public Service Commission, not the date of actual appointment or joining.
• The effective date of advice is the date when the advice should have been given based on the rules and the availability of vacancies.
• Monetary benefits for T. Raju would only be notional, meaning he would not receive back pay for the period before his actual appointment.
• Reversion of any candidate due to the revision of seniority would be deferred until T. Raju retires from service.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• T. Raju’s seniority shall be re-fixed, treating the date of advice for appointment as Excise Inspector as 01.04.1999.
• T. Raju shall be given the appropriate appointments and promotions within a period of one month from the date of the judgment.
• For all purposes, T. Raju shall be treated to be in the promoted positions after the expiry of one month from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that under Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, seniority is determined by the effective date of advice from the Public Service Commission, not the date of actual appointment or joining. This clarifies the interpretation of the rule and provides a clear guideline for determining seniority in similar cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the importance of the effective date of advice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Kerala and K.R. Babu, affirming that seniority is determined by the effective date of advice from the Public Service Commission. The Court held that T. Raju’s seniority should be fixed based on the effective date of advice, which is 01.04.1999. This judgment emphasizes the importance of the effective date of advice over the actual date of appointment and clarifies the interpretation of Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.