Supreme Court Directs Larger Bench to Reconsider Seniority Rules for Madhya Pradesh Civil Servants

Date of the Judgment: 15 June 2020

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2601 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14036 of 2019)

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a civil servant who fails to pass departmental examinations within their probation period claim seniority over those who cleared the exams in subsequent selections? The Supreme Court of India grapples with this complex issue in a case concerning the seniority of Madhya Pradesh civil servants. This judgment directs a larger bench of the High Court to re-evaluate the matter due to conflicting interpretations of the applicable service rules.

The core issue revolves around how to determine the seniority of civil servants in Madhya Pradesh who were appointed through direct recruitment but failed to clear their departmental examinations within the initial or extended probation period. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has referred the matter to a larger bench of the High Court for reconsideration.

The bench comprised of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra. The judgment was authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The appellant, Warad Murti Mishra, joined the Madhya Pradesh civil services as a Deputy Collector on July 1, 1996, after being selected by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. He was placed on a two-year probation, during which he was required to pass a departmental examination. The probation period could be extended by one year, but the examination had to be cleared within this extended period. The appellant, however, cleared the examination on January 28, 2001, more than three years after his initial appointment.

This situation led to a dispute regarding the seniority of the appellant and others similarly situated. The question arose whether individuals selected in subsequent selection processes, who cleared their departmental examinations within the stipulated time, should be ranked senior to the appellant and others who cleared the exam after the extended probation period.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Madhya Pradesh government issued a seniority list on August 8, 2001, which declared the appellant and similarly situated persons as confirmed on the date they cleared the departmental examination. This meant that they were placed below officers from subsequent selections who had cleared the exam within the stipulated time.

Aggrieved by this, some candidates challenged the seniority list. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its judgment dated December 17, 2009, ruled that those appointed in an earlier selection process should be senior to those appointed in a subsequent selection, irrespective of when they cleared the departmental exam. The State’s challenge to this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 13, 2010, and the review petition was also dismissed on April 13, 2011.

Subsequently, due to conflicting views between two Division Benches, the matter was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court. The Full Bench, on February 17, 2012, held that a probationer who passes the departmental exam at the end of the extended probation period is deemed confirmed and should be assigned seniority accordingly. The State’s challenge to this decision was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 1, 2017, and the review petition was dismissed on September 18, 2018.

Despite these prior rulings, the Division Bench in the current case, in its judgment dated May 30, 2019, noted that the Full Bench had not considered Rule 13 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975. This led the Division Bench to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the following rules:

• Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (‘1961 Rules’): These rules apply to most civil servants in the state. Rule 8 deals with probation, and Rule 12 deals with seniority.
  • Rule 8(1): “A person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed.”
  • Rule 8(2): “The appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year.”
  • Rule 8(3): “A probationer shall undergo such training and pass such departmental examination during the period of his probation as may be prescribed.”
  • Rule 8(7): “A probationer, who has neither been confirmed, nor a certificate issued in his favour under sub-rule (6), nor discharged from service under sub-rule (4), shall be deemed to have been appointed as a temporary Government servant with effect from the date of expiry of probation and his conditions of service shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960.”
  • Rule 12(1)(a): “The seniority of persons directly appointed to a post according to rules shall be determined on the basis of the order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment irrespective of the date of joining. Persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.”
  • Rule 12(1)(f): “If the period of probation of any direct recruit or the testing period of any promotee is extended, the appointing authority shall determine whether he should be assigned the same seniority as would have been assigned to him if he had completed the normal period of probation testing period successfully, or whether he should be assigned a lower seniority.”
• Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 (‘1975 Rules’): These rules apply specifically to members of the State Administrative Service. Rule 13 deals with probation, and Rule 23 states that seniority will be regulated as per Rule 12 of the 1961 Rules.
  • Rule 13(1): “Every person directly recruited to the service shall be appointed on probation for a period of two years.”
  • Rule 13(2): “The appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year.”
  • Rule 13(3): “The probationer shall undergo the prescribed training and pass the prescribed departmental examination by the higher standard during the period of his probation.”
  • Rule 13(7): “A probationer who has neither been confirmed, nor a certificate issued in his favour under sub-rule (6) above nor discharged from service under sub-rules (4) and (5) above, shall be deemed to have been appointed as a temporary government servant with effect from the date of expiry of probation and his conditions of service shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960.”
  • Rule 23: “The seniority of persons appointed to the service shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961.”
• Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (‘1960 Rules’): These rules apply to temporary and quasi-permanent government servants. Rule 2 defines terms, and Rule 3 specifies when a government servant is deemed to be in quasi-permanent service.
  • Rule 3: “A Government servant shall be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service. (i) If he has been in temporary service in the same service or post continuously for more than three years; and (ii) If the appointing authority being satisfied as to his suitability in respect of age, qualifications, work and character for employment in a quasi-permanent capacity, has issued a declaration to that effect, in accordance with such instructions as the Governor may issue from time to time.”

These rules are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the state government to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the issue of seniority for direct recruits who failed to pass the departmental examination within the initial probation period is no longer open for debate. They contended that the High Court had already decided the matter twice in their favor.
• They submitted that the High Court should not have referred the matter to a larger bench, as the legal issues had been settled in previous rounds of litigation, including the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and review petitions by the Supreme Court.
• The appellants emphasized that the principle of seniority should be based on the order of merit in which they were recommended for appointment, irrespective of when they cleared the departmental examination.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that probationers who do not clear the departmental examination within the prescribed period (two years plus an extended year) are deemed temporary government servants.
• The State contended that allowing those who clear the exam after the extended period to claim seniority with their original batch would lead to chaos and discourage those who clear the exam within the stipulated time.
• The State emphasized that passing the departmental examination is crucial for officers to perform their duties, particularly in a quasi-judicial capacity.
• The State relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in M.P. Chandoria vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [(1996) 11 SCC 173], State of M.P. vs. Ramkinkar Gupta & Ors. [(2000) 10 SCC 77], and Om Prakash Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [(2005) 11 SCC 488], to submit that passing the departmental exam is a relevant criterion for determining seniority.

Private Respondents’ Arguments:

• The private respondents argued that those who do not clear the departmental examination within the probation period become temporary government servants under Rule 13(7) of the 1975 Rules.
• They asserted that the “deeming fiction” created by Rule 13(7) means that such probationers cease to be members of the State Administrative Service and are governed by the 1960 Rules.
• They contended that, as temporary government servants, the probationers cannot claim seniority based on their original selection, and their seniority should be determined by the date they cleared the departmental exam.
• They cited M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, LIC, Machilipatnam & Anr. [(1994) 2 SCC 323] to emphasize the importance of treating a deemed fiction as real and considering its consequences.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted the following questions that were framed by the Division Bench of the High Court for consideration by a larger bench:

1. Whether the Full Bench’s judgment, which relied on Rule 8 of the 1961 Rules, requires reconsideration in light of Rule 13 of the 1975 Rules, given that the service of the petitioners is governed by the 1975 Rules?
2. Whether Rule 12 and Rule 12(1)(a) of the 1961 Rules, which apply to “members of the service,” can be applied to probationers who have not qualified in the departmental examination within the probation period or the extended probation period?
3. Whether the direction in the Full Bench’s judgment, which states that a probationer who has not qualified in the departmental examination within the probation period or the extended probation period shall be deemed a temporary government servant and governed by the 1960 Rules, is contrary to the spirit of the 1960 Rules, particularly with respect to the determination of seniority?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (1961 Rules): Specifically, Rules 8 and 12, which deal with probation and seniority respectively.
• Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 (1975 Rules): Specifically, Rules 13 and 23, which deal with probation and seniority respectively.
• Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (1960 Rules): Specifically, Rules 2 and 3, which define temporary and quasi-permanent service.
• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Which empowers the state government to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• M.P. Chandoria vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [(1996) 11 SCC 173]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that a probationer does not become a member of the service until the probation period is completed and the prescribed tests are passed. It also noted the appointing authority’s power to determine seniority if the probation period is extended.
• State of M.P. vs. Ramkinkar Gupta & Ors. [(2000) 10 SCC 77]*: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that if a person does not pass the test, the appointing authority can assign seniority at a lower level. It also highlighted that probationers who are not confirmed are deemed temporary government servants.
• Om Prakash Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [(2005) 11 SCC 488]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize the appointing authority’s power to determine the date from which a direct recruit is to be assigned seniority, especially if the probation period is extended.
• M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, LIC, Machilipatnam & Anr. [(1994) 2 SCC 323]*: The Court acknowledged the private respondents’ reliance on this case to emphasize the importance of treating a deemed fiction as real and considering its consequences.
• High Court of M.P. through Registrar and others vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar (2001) 7 SCC 161* and Rajindra Singh Chauhan (2005) 13 SCC 179*: The Court noted that these cases were relied upon by the Full Bench of the High Court to support its view that a probationer is deemed confirmed after the extended probation period if they have passed the departmental exam.
• Pradip Chandra Parija and others vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and others (2002) 1 SCC 1* and Sakshi vs. Union of India and others (2004) 5 SCC 518*: The Court noted that the appellants relied on these cases to argue that a reference to a larger bench is not justified unless the earlier decisions were “palpably wrong” or “very incorrect.”
• Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673*: The Court noted that the appellants relied on this case to argue that the reference should have been to a bench of equal strength (three judges).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was primarily influenced by the following:

• Non-consideration of Rule 13 of the 1975 Rules: The Court noted that the Division Bench had rightly pointed out that the Full Bench of the High Court had not considered Rule 13 of the 1975 Rules, which specifically deals with probation for members of the State Administrative Service. This omission was a significant factor in the Court’s decision to refer the matter.
• Conflicting Interpretations: The Court recognized that there were conflicting interpretations of the relevant rules, particularly regarding the status of probationers who do not clear the departmental examination within the stipulated time. The Court felt that a larger bench was necessary to resolve these conflicting interpretations.
• Need for Clarity: The Court emphasized the need for clarity on the issue of seniority, especially for those who become temporary government servants after the expiry of their probation period. The Court felt that a larger bench was necessary to provide clarity on this issue.
• Impact of Supreme Court Judgments: The Court also noted that the High Court needed to consider theimpact of the Supreme Court’s judgments in M.P. Chandoria vs. State of M.P. & Ors. [(1996) 11 SCC 173], State of M.P. vs. Ramkinkar Gupta & Ors. [(2000) 10 SCC 77], and Om Prakash Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [(2005) 11 SCC 488], which dealt with the status and seniority of probationers.

Flowchart

Ratio of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment did not lay down any specific ratio decidendi but rather directed the High Court to reconsider the matter. However, the following principles can be inferred from the judgment:

Sentiment of the Judgment

The sentiment of the judgment can be categorized as follows:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Warad Murti Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. is significant because it directs a larger bench of the High Court to reconsider the complex issue of seniority for Madhya Pradesh civil servants who fail to clear their departmental examinations within the stipulated probation period. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to reconcile conflicting interpretations of the relevant service rules and to ensure that all relevant rules, especially Rule 13 of the 1975 Rules, are considered. The judgment does not provide a definitive answer to the seniority issue but rather sets the stage for a thorough re-evaluation by the High Court. This decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive and consistent interpretation of service rules and highlights the challenges in determining seniority for civil servants, especially in cases where probation periods and departmental examinations are involved.