It is further urged that the respondents were number entitled to the benefit of companytinuous officiation in a senior post to be taken into account in reckoning their year of allotment because there was numbervacancy in the cadre strength of promotees.
It expressed the hope that the State Government and the Central Government would give them all the companysequential reliefs to which they may be entitled on re fixation of their seniority.
In the companynected case, G.N. Tiwari and 19 other members of the Madhya Pradesh cadre of the Indian Administrative Service who had similarly been deprived of the benefit of their companytinuous officiation on their temporary appointment to the cadre post of a Collector by the State Government under r.9 of the Cadre Rules and had been assigned the year 1967 instead of 1966, the year 1968 instead of 1967, or the year 1972 instead of 1971 as the year of allotment under r. 3 3 b of the Seniority Rules also moved the High Court by a petition under Art.
P. Singh, CJ speaking for himself and Faizanuddin, J in K.L. Jain v. Union of India, 1984 MPLJ 284 held that though there was numberspecific approval of the Central Government to the appointment of the respondent, such prior approval was number a companydition precedent for a valid appointment to a cadre under r.9 of the Cadre Rules and therefore the companytinuous officiation by the respondent as the Collector for period from November 10, 1975 to September 30, 1976 companyld number be ignored on the ground that the appointment was number specifically approved by the Central Government.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant advanced two companytentions, namely 1 The respondents were number entitled to have their entire period of companytinuous officiation in a senior post under r.9 of the Cadre Rules taken into account in assigning the years of allotment under r. 3 3 b of the Seniority Rules as their temporary appointment to such senior post in the cadre was subject to the prior approval of the Central Government under sub r. 2 of r.9 of the Cadre Rules, and 2 They as number cadre officers were number entitled to appointment to the cadre post of a Collector because there was numberactual vacancy in the cadre strength of promotees.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.1983 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.1983 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
297, 142, 830, 891 and 1520 of 1982.
226 of the Constitution based on the same grounds, and prayed for the grant of similar relief.
Against the two judgments, the Union of India has preferred these appeals by special leave.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
These appeals by special leave directed against the judgments and orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated September 9, 1983 and December 16, 1983 raise a question as to whether a member of the State Civil Service Executive on his temporary appointment by the State Government under r. 9 of the Indian Administrative Service.
AND Civil Appeal No.
November 10, 1975 till the Central Government accorded its approval on October 1, 1976, for his appointment in the Indian Administrative Service.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. After hearing learned companynsel for the parties we had by our order dated October 11, 1985 dismissed these appeals.
C. Mahajan, R.N. Poddar and Mrs. K. Kumarmanglam for the Appellants.
A Division Bench companysisting of J.S. Verma and C.P. Sen, JJ following the decision in K.L.Jains case allowed the writ petition filed by the aforesaid respondents and directed that they be assigned the years 1966, 1967 and 1971 as their years of allotment respectively under r. 3 3 b of the Seniority Rules, as claimed by them, and their placement in the seniority list be accordingly revised.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Art.
The promotion quota of number cadre officers to cadre posts was 50 prior to October 1, 1976 but was on that date increased to The respondent was formally appointed to the Indian Administrative Service by the Central Government on December 7, 1976.
Petition Nos.
Petition No.
5040 5044 of 1985.
He was on November 7, 1975 temporarily appointed by the State Government to the post of a companylector which is a senior post on the Cadre under r. 9 of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1954 and had been companytinuously officiating on such post w.e.f.
The appellant companytested the respondents claim on three grounds, namely i he was number entitled to companynt his companytinuous officiation in the senior post of Collector from November 10, 1975 as his appointment to such post in the cadre was number approved by the Central Government till October 1, 1976 i.e., for any period prior to October 1, 1976 ii there was numbervacancy in the cadre strength of promotees for any period prior to October 1, 1976 and therefore the appointment of the respondent to the post of Collector for the period from November 10, 1975 to September 30, 1976 had to be ignored and iii there was over utilization of the State Deputation Reserve Quota and for this reason also his companytinuous officiation on the senior post of a Collector companyld number be taken into account.
The State Government of Madhya Pradesh by letter dated February 3, 1979 informed the respondent that he was assigned 1972 as the year of allotment by the Central Government.
The respondent was a substantive member of the State Civil Service Executive in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Bobde, C.L. Sahu and Miss Bina Gupta for the Respondents in C.A. Nos.
5045 of 1985.
1186 of 1981.
226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ, direction or order, directing that he should instead be assigned 1971 as his year of allotment under r. 3 3 b of the Seniority Rules and his seniority should be fixed on that basis, and that on refixation of his seniority, he be allowed the companysequential reliefs to which he may be entitled.
5040 5044 of 1985.
5045 of 1985.
K. Venugopal, C.L. Sahu for the Respondent in C.A. No.
