So far as respondent Nos.
Moreover, on the date when the first respondent was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service, the principle of seniority which was in force was one set out in the original sub rule 3 of rule 4 and according to this principle if respondent Nos.
3 to 9.
3 to 9.
3 to 9 had been appointed prior to 11th April, 1958 but subsequent to the appointment, of the first respondent, the first respondent would have been entitled to claim seniority over respondent Nos.
8 and 9 were companycerned.
Similarly neither the new sub rule 3 introduced by the amendment of 11th April 1958 number the new sub rule 3 introduced by the amendment of 13th August 1958 would apply for determining inter se seniority between the first respondent and respondent Nos.
From the Judgment and order dated the 28th July, 1969 o the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Respondent No.
The first respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging the validity of the gradation list showing him as junior to respondent Nos.
3 to 9 were appointed on 9th June 1961 and 29 August, 1961 that is after 11th April 1958.
The first respondent thereupon made several representations to the Government of India against the fixation of his seniority vis a vis respondent Nos.
The seniority amongst direct recruits through companypetitive examination and promotees from the State Civil Service was governed by the Seniority Rules and according to the first respondent, since they were all assigned the same year of allotment, the first respondent as a direct recruit through a companypetitive examination was entitled to rank higher in seniority than respondent Nos.
3 to 9 be assigned seniority over the first respondent when they came to be appointed subsequent to 11th April 1958.
3 to 9 and between them, the first respondent was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service earlier than respondent Nos.
3 to 9 but the Government of India ultimately rejected his representation by a companymunication dated 7th October, 1966.
3 to 9 in the gradation list.
3 to 9.
3 to 9 were on the other hand members of the Gujarat State Civil Service and they were promoted to the Indian Administrative Service and they started officiating companytinuously in the senior post in the Service w.e.f.
3 to 9.
The Union of India thereupon preferred the present appeal on the basis of certificate granted under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution.
The year of allotment given to respondent Nos.
3 to 9 all have the same year of allotment and the first respondent was appointed to the service after the companymencement of the Seniority Rules and before 11th April 1958, respondent Nos.
The writ petition came up for hearing before a single Judge of Delhi High Court and the learned Judge rejected the companytentions of the first respondent and dismissed the writ petition.
Respondent Nos.
3 to 9 as senior to him in the gradation list, on the ground that they had started of officiating in a senior post in the Service earlier than the first respondent.
1 thereupon preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the Division Bench did number agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge and held that the first respondent was entitled to seniority over respondent Nos.
3 to 9 who were promoted from the State Civil Service.
9th June.
The first respondent was recruited to the Indian Administrative Service through a companypetitive examination held in 955 and according to Rule 3 3 a of the Indian Administrative Service Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Seniority Rules , he was assigned the year 1956 as the year a of allotment to the Service He was posted in a junior post on recruitment through companypetitive examination for the Indian Administrative Service and on 21st August, 1961 he started officiating in a senior post.
3 to 9 and that the Government of India was wrong in placing him below respondent Nos.
The old sub rule 3 as also the new sub rule 3 introduced by the amendment of 13th August 1958 apply only when the inter se seniority to be determined is that between officers appointed to the service prior to 11th April 1958 and if any one or more of the companypeting officers is appointed to the service or on after 11th April 1958 this provision on its plain terms would number apply.
How then, can respondent Nos.
21 of 1969.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
But, when the gradation list as on 1st January 1963 was issued by the Government of India, the first respondent found that the Government of India had placed respondent Nos.
3 to 7 were companycerned and with effect from 29th August 1961 so far as the remaining respondents, namely, respondent Nos.
The Division Bench on this view allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and issued a writ directing that the gradation list be companyrected by showing the first respondent as senior to respondent Nos.
The companytroversy arising in the appeal lies in a narrow companypass but in order to arrive at its companyrect determination, it is necessary to state briefly a few facts leading to the filing of the appeal.
173 of 1978.
3 to 9 was the same as that of respondent No.
Harbans Lal and R.N. Poddar for the Appellant.
K. Bagga for the Intervener.
3 to 9 in the seniority list.
1 and striking down the validity of the seniority list issued by the appellant placing the first respondent below respondent Nos.
Anil Naliriya and K.H. Hathi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi allowing the writ petition of respondent No.
