Supreme Court Upholds Seniority Based on Date of Appointment in Rajasthan Tax Department: Manohar Lal Jat & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (26 November 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 896

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a delay in the appointment of direct recruits affect their seniority compared to departmental promotees? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department. The core issue revolved around whether seniority should be determined by the date of selection or the date of appointment, particularly when recruitment processes for different categories of employees occur around the same time. The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, favoring seniority based on the date of appointment.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the creation of 554 posts of Tax Assistants in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department. The department decided to fill 80% of these posts through direct recruitment (DRs) and 20% through departmental promotions (DPs). The recruitment process started with an advertisement for DRs on 25 January 2011, followed by a written exam and typing test. Subsequently, an advertisement for DPs was issued on 24 May 2011, with the departmental exam conducted in June 2011. The DPs were promoted and took charge of their posts by 23 June 2011, while the DRs received their appointment letters on 4 July 2011, after police verification and medical tests. The Commercial Taxes Department published a seniority list on 5 June 2013, placing DPs above DRs, which led to objections and the subsequent legal battle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Direct Recruits (DRs) filed writ petitions challenging the seniority lists that placed Departmental Promotees (DPs) above them. A single judge of the Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the DRs, citing Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975, which stated that those selected in an earlier process would rank senior. The High Court noted that the advertisement for DRs was issued earlier, thus making them senior. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, stating that the amended Rule 27 gave seniority based on the date of appointment. The Division Bench also noted that the proviso of Rule 27 would apply when two selections are for the same category. The DRs then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975. Initially, Rule 27 stated that seniority would be determined from the date of appointment for the lowest posts and from the date of regular selection for higher posts. The rule also had a proviso:

• “That the persons selected and appointed as a result of a selection, which is not subject to review and revision, shall rank senior to the persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection.”

This rule was amended on 10 October 2002, to state that seniority would be fixed from the date of appointment. The provisos were retained. The amended Rule 27 states:

• “Seniority in respect of persons appointed on the posts included in the cadre of service shall be as per the provisions of these rules and shall be fixed from the date of their appointment. Those appointed on ad hoc or urgent temporary basis, they shall not be considered after their regular selection.”

The second proviso to Rule 27(1) remained the same after the amendment:

• “That the persons selected and appointed as a result of a selection, which is not subject to review and revision, shall rank senior to the persons who are selected and appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Seniority inter se of persons selected on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and on the basis of merit in the same selection shall be the same as in the next below grade.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Direct Recruits (DRs):

• The DRs argued that they were selected through an earlier recruitment process because the advertisement for their posts was issued on 25 January 2011, before the advertisement for DPs on 24 May 2011.
• They contended that the department deliberately delayed their appointment to give an unfair advantage to the DPs, who were promoted earlier.
• The DRs emphasized that the selection process for their quota began earlier, with the written test on 17 April 2011 and the provisional results on 16 May 2011, while the DPs’ exam was held in June 2011.
• They argued that the second proviso of Rule 27 should apply, which states that those selected earlier should rank senior to those selected later.
• The DRs also highlighted a letter dated 19 May 2011, from the Departmental Employees Association, which pressured the Commercial Tax Department to recruit DPs earlier.
• The DRs submitted that the explanation given by the State for the delay in issuing appointment letters to the DR quota candidates (police verification and medical check up) was not justified.
• They argued that the amended Rule 27 only speaks about seniority on the basis of the date of appointment, but the second proviso clarifies the rule for reckoning seniority when there are two advertisements for the same post, filled through different sources.
• They argued that the main rule will only apply when the recruitment is through the same advertisement.

Arguments of the State of Rajasthan and Departmental Promotees (DPs):

• The State argued that the recruitment in 2011 was the first attempt to fill newly created posts, and the two advertisements were part of a single recruitment drive.
• The State explained that the delay in DR appointments was due to the large number of applications (15,352), the need for screening, written exams, typing tests, and police verification, which took time.
• The DPs did not require police verification or medical tests, as they were already government employees, which expedited their appointment process.
• The State contended that the principle of seniority based on earlier selection applied only to recruits from the same category.
• The State argued that the proviso of Rule 27 cannot nullify the main provision of the rule, which states that seniority is based on the date of appointment.
• The State submitted that the entire cadre was created for the first time by the single notification dated 01 December 2010, and that the recruitments to the two categories occurred as a first time measure.
• The State argued that the decision to conduct the recruitment and selection process was a composite one, though advertisements were issued on separate dates.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the seniority of the direct recruits should be determined based on the date of selection or the date of appointment, considering the two different advertisements for the same post.
2. Whether the second proviso of Rule 27 applies to the present case, where the selection processes were initiated at different times for different categories of employees.
3. Whether the delay in the appointment of DRs was a deliberate attempt to favor DPs.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• S. Sundaram Pillai and others Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman and Others [1985] 1 SCC 591, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to explain the role of a proviso to a rule, stating that a proviso is an exception to the main part of a section.
• J.K. Industries Ltd. and & Ors vs. Chief inspector of Factories and Boilers & Ors [1996] 6 SCC 665, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to explain that in exceptional cases a proviso may be a substantive provision itself.
• Casio India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2016] 6 SCC 209, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to emphasize that a proviso should be confined within its field of operation and not supplant the main provision.
• Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. [2013] 11 SCC 451, Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to emphasize that a proviso cannot be interpreted as nullifying the enactment or taking away something conferred by the main section.
• Prem Kumar Verma v. Union of India [1998] 5 SCC 457, Supreme Court of India: This case involved a similar issue of seniority under the Railway Establishment Manual. The court noted that seniority was determined by the merit obtained at the end of the training period.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975: The main rule governing seniority in the case. The court examined both the original and amended versions of the rule.

Authority Analysis Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• S. Sundaram Pillai and others Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman and Others [1985] 1 SCC 591*: The court used this case to understand the function of a proviso, noting it is generally an exception to the main provision.
• J.K. Industries Ltd. and & Ors vs. Chief inspector of Factories and Boilers & Ors [1996] 6 SCC 665*: The court used this case to explain that in exceptional cases a proviso may be a substantive provision itself.
• Casio India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2016] 6 SCC 209*: The court relied on this case to emphasize that a proviso cannot supplant the main provision and should be confined within its field of operation.
• Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. [2013] 11 SCC 451*: The court used this case to reiterate that a proviso cannot nullify the main provision.
• Prem Kumar Verma v. Union of India [1998] 5 SCC 457*: The court distinguished this case, noting that it dealt with a different set of rules, but used it to highlight the importance of the applicable rules at the time of selection.
• Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975: The court interpreted the rule, emphasizing that the amended version clearly states that seniority is based on the date of appointment. The court also clarified the application of the second proviso.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the date of appointment in determining seniority, as per the amended Rule 27. The court reasoned that the main provision of the rule clearly states that seniority should be fixed from the date of appointment. The court also clarified that the second proviso of Rule 27, which gives seniority to those selected earlier, applies only to selections within the same category, not across different categories like direct recruits and departmental promotees. The court also noted that the delay in the appointment of direct recruits was due to administrative exigencies and not a deliberate attempt to favor departmental promotees. The court also considered the fact that the entire cadre was created for the first time by the single notification dated 01 December 2010 and that the recruitments to the two categories occurred as a first time measure.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The court rejected the argument that the second proviso of Rule 27 should apply, clarifying that it is meant for situations where there are multiple selections within the same category of employees. The court also dismissed the claim that the delay in the appointment of direct recruits was a deliberate attempt to favor departmental promotees. The court emphasized that the main intention of the rule is to determine seniority based on the date of appointment, and it found no reason to deviate from this principle.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Plainly, the principal mandate of the rule is that seniority is determined on the basis of date of appointment (“shall be fixed from the date of their appointment” ).”
• “The High Court, in this case, was of the opinion that this rule (i.e. proviso) applied to selections from the same source, i.e. where two sets of direct recruits were appointed, those selected through a previous recruitment process, would rank senior to those recruited through a later recruitment process. This interpretation is, in this court’s opinion, salutary.”
• “Keeping in mind that the advertisements (for filling the entire cadre, in both the quotas or streams of recruitment) were issued one after the other, and more importantly, that this was the first selection and recruitment to a newly created cadre, the delay which occurred on account of administrative exigencies (and also the completion of procedure, such as verification of antecedents) the seniority of the promotees given on the basis of their dates of appointment, is justified by Rule 27 in this case.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The two-judge bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• Seniority in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department is determined by the date of appointment, as per the amended Rule 27.
• The second proviso of Rule 27, which gives seniority to those selected earlier, applies only to selections within the same category of employees.
• Delays in the appointment process due to administrative reasons do not affect the seniority of employees.
• This judgment clarifies the interpretation of seniority rules in cases where recruitments occur through different sources.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that seniority in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department is determined by the date of appointment as per the amended Rule 27. The court clarified that the second proviso of Rule 27 applies only to selections within the same category, not across different categories like direct recruits and departmental promotees. This ruling reinforces the importance of the date of appointment in determining seniority and provides clarity on the application of the second proviso of Rule 27. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the court clarified the interpretation of the existing rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the direct recruits, upholding the decision of the Rajasthan High Court. The court ruled that seniority in the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Department is determined by the date of appointment, as per the amended Rule 27. The court clarified that the second proviso of Rule 27 applies only to selections within the same category, not across different categories like direct recruits and departmental promotees. The judgment reinforces the principle that seniority is primarily based on the date of appointment, and it clarifies the application of the second proviso of Rule 27 in cases involving different categories of employees.