In view of the war service rendered by Ganapathi Kini, his service for purposes of seniority was companyputed with effect from 10 10 46 and he was companyfirmed on 7 4 56.
The above petitions were resisted by the appellants and were dismissed by the learned single judge.
Assuch the Memorandum issued by the Directorate General of Health Services, according to the learned judges, companyld number affect the seniority of Suresh Kumar and Tara Chalid Jain.
Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 was companysequently issued.
Subsequently on the directions of the Central Board of Revenue companytained in letter dated October 19, 1962, a revised seniority list was prepared in 1963 by companyputing seniority from the date, of companyifirmation.
40 and 42 in the revised seniority list Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain thereafter filed petition tinder article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the instructions companytained in the Memorandum dated June 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services is well its the revised seniority list and other companysequential reliefs.
The above mentioned writ petitions were resisted by the appellants.
1 and Tara Chand Jain, res pondent No 2 in civil appeal No.
Suresh Kumar, respondent No.
The matter was reviewed thereafter in 1959.
On Letters Patent appeal the judgment of the single judge was reversed and it was held thatSuresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain having been appointed prior to December 22, 1959 were Governed by the rule of seniority companytained in the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
So far asthe Memorandum dated June 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services was companycerned, it was found to be number in companysonance with the Office Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on June 22, 1949 and December 22, 1959.
Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain were thus shown at serial Nos.
Both of them were company firmed on March 31, 1960.
In the Seniority list which was Prepared in accordance with Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain, respondents, were shown at serial Nos.
149 and 150, junior to persons to whom they had been shown senior in the earlier seniority list.
Employees of the Central Government who were displaced from their offices in Pakistan, according to the memorandum, had been absorbed in offices under the companytrol of the same administrative ministry or on numberination by the Transfer Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs in other offices.
In the revised list Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma were shown at serial, Nos.
It was mentioned in this memorandum that the Government of India had under companysideration the question of the fixation of seniority of displaced government servants and temporary employees in the various grades.
A revised seniority list was thereafter prepared and a number of scheduled castes candidates who had been recruited later but had been companyfirmed earlier than Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain were shown senior.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 10, 1968 and October 20, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ PetitiOns Nos.
Subsequently Memorandum dated June 19, 1963 Was received from the Directorate General of Health Services in which there was a reference to the Ministry of Home Affairs office Memorandum date December 22, 1959.
The main ground taken in the writ petitions was that the seniority should be determined according to length of service in terms of Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
In the petition filed Ravi Varma the High Court made a short order when, after referring the decision in the case of Ganapathi Kini, the learned judges granted similar relief to Ravi Varma.
1 in civil appeal No.
1845 and 1846 of 1968 which have been filed by the Union of India and two others by special leave against the judgment of Mysore High Court.
32 and 34 in accordance with their length of Service.
The Government then found that displaced Government servants had by and large been absorbed in the various Central services and their seniority had been fixed with reference to the previous service rendered by them.
Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma were shown at serial Nos.
115 and 141 in accordance with the length of service in seniority list of inspectors prepared in 1959.
K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the Intervener in C.A. No.
50 of 1969.
All those persons had been appointed, with a few exceptions, on tem porary basis.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Jagdish Swarup, Solicitor General of India and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants in all the appeals .
Same was found to be the position of other Government servants who had been given the benefit of the principles companytained in Memorandum dated June 22,.1949.
50 of 1969 were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the Medical Stores Depot, Karnal under the Directorate General of High Services on October 9, 1950 and November 26 1951 respectively.
was appointed as an Inspector in the Central Excise Collectors in Madras on 27 5 47 and was companyfirmed on 7 4 56.
50 of 1969 which has been filed by the Union of India and two others on a ,certificate granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the judgment of that Court reversing in Letters Patent appeal the ,decision of the single judge and issuing a writ in favour of those respondents.
Impleaded is respondents in the petition were the Union or India, the Director General of Health Services, the Deputy Assistant Director General Medical Stores, as well astoother schedule castes employees of the Medical Stores Depot Karnal who had been shown senior to the petitioners in the revised seniority list.
The above principles were also extended to other category of Government employees, including those with war service.
1845 of 1968.
Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma thereupon filed petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the revised seniority list prepared in 1963.
The learned judges of the Mysore High Court referred to the memoranda dated June 22, 1949 and December 22, 1959 L736SupCI/72 and held that the altered rule embodied in the Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 for the determination of seniority would be inapplicable to persons appointed before June 22, 1949 like Ganapathi Kini.
This position, in the opinionof the learned judges, was number affected by the subsequent OfficeMemorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
1519 of 1067 and 1216 of 1965 respectively.
Ganapathi Kini respondent No.
1846, was appointed as an inspector in the Central Excise Collectorate in Madras on 28 5 47.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. Whether the criterion to determine the seniority of R avi Varma and Ganapathi Kini respondents should be length of service in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, as claimed by the said respondents, or whether it should be the date of companyfirmation, as claimed by the appellants, is the main question which arises for decision in civil appeals Nos.
L. Bhatia for respondents Nos.
In the result the revised seniority list was held to be invalid and theUnion of India and two other appellants were directed to prepare a revised seniority list in accordance with the original seniority of Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain.
1845 and 1846 of 1968.
184 1 and 1946 of 1968 .
Impleaded in the writ petitions as respondents were the Union of India, the Central Board of Revenue and the Collector of Central Excise as also those inspectors of Central Excise who, according to the petitioners, were junior to them but who on account of being shown senior to the petitioners in the revised seniority list, had been appointed as Senior Grade Inspectors of Central Excise.
1 and 2 in C.A. No.
1845 of 1968 .
1 in civil appeal No.
1 in As.
S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for respondent No.
Similar question arises in respect of the seniority of Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain, respondents in civil appeal No.
