1991 PLP 530 (SCMR)

Agronomy, Sugarcane and Sugar-beet Agricultural Botany Agricultural Technology Food Technologist: Assistant Technologist (Food). Assistant Oil Technologist: Assistant Technologist (Oil). Cereal Technologist; Assistant Technologist (Cereals). Assistant Sugar Technologist: Assistant Technologist (Sugar). Assistant Food Technologist (Cold Assistant Technologist Storage). (Cold Storage). Assistant Food Technologist Assistant Technologist (Processing). (Processing). Tobacco Curing Officer: Assistant Technologist (Tobacco). Microbiologist (Food Technology). Assistant Technologist (Microbiology) Horticulture Agricultural Economic Agricultural Statistics Publicity Metriology Assistant Meteriologist. Meteriologist: Assistant Materiologist." 3: Up to the year 1971, the seniority list that issued from the Department was the Service Seniority List, a combined seniority list of all the persons in Class‑11 service, In 1972, the groupings, as were made by redesignation by Governor's Order dated 30‑8‑1968, were made the basis and Group Seniority was allocated. The civil servants concerned were placed in Group Seniority without asking for their options. Not only was the seniority allocated group wise but these groups were .made the basis for promotion. The basis for adopting such a course contrary to the Order of the Governor dated 30‑8‑1968, appears to be a decision of the meeting of the Directors, Agricultural Research Institutes held on 30th and 31st October, 1967 which was presided over by the Secretary, Agriculture wherein the following questions were discussed:‑‑ "

1. Considering amendments to the Rules of promotions from Class 11 to Class I and from the Research Assistants to Class‑11.

2. Reorganization of Agricultural Research Institute for uniformity and streamlining of designations and grouping of various kinds of specialization.

3. Evolving a system of coordination and evaluation of the activities of the various Research Institutes." The following decisions were taken:‑ "(i) That promotions from Research Assistants to Class‑11 may be made on the basis of experience "in the line" as in the case of promotions from Class‑11 to Class‑1. (ii) In order to accommodate claims of seniority and minimize the chances of heart‑burning caused by the promotion of junior officers before their seniors, the word "line" should be liberally interpreted so as not to insist on experience on a particular crop. While making promotions from Class‑II to Class‑1, however, experience in the particular crop may be insisted upon in the case of Botanists. (iii) The rules should be amended on the above lines. The question of grouping of various specialisations was then taken up and after a detailed discussion, it was decided to group Class‑I and Class‑11 posts into `Lines' detailed in Annexures `A' and `B'." The only amendment that was effected after this meeting was one that on 26‑4‑1908, the 1963 rules were amended slightly to substitute experience in the line in the schedule and omitting the words "as such" after it. The other effect given to the proposal was that, the Governor's Order of redesignation issued. Nothing beyond was done.

4. The appellants did not at first question their redesignation and groupings because they considered, as indicated in Order of the Governor itself, that this was not to affect any of their rights with regard to status etc. When the Department started restricting the eligibility of the candidates for promotion to the respective groups, then they felt aggrieved and challenged such group seniority and such utilisation of it for the purposes of promotion etc. The Service Tribunal noticed this grievance of the appellants in the following words:‑‑ "Officers in the joint seniority list were selected to these various Groups and further promotions were restricted to the Groups formed in 1968. As a result, they are being promoted within the respective groups. An officer may have been senior in the joint seniority group list but his chances of promotion because of the bifurcation and occurrence of vacancy in the group may delay his promotion to Grade

18. This has led to lot of heart burning. The Government's position is that the grouping was justified and in accordance with the law and the allocations made once and not protested against have become final. Thus the appellants have no case whatsoever and promotions are being maintained in accordance with the seniority list in the various Groups. It disposed of the matter by holding as hereunder:‑ "It is too late for Muhammad Ibrahim Azad and Malik Muhammad Zaman to protest against their placing in the Chemistry Group and being in the Chemistry Group they could not be considered for posts in the Food and Cereal Technology Group." It is such a disposal of their controverted claim that the appellants have challenged in appeals before us.

5. There are serious questions of law which arise in this case and some part of it and principles governing it have been settled by this Court in the case of Inayat Ali and another (1987 SCMR 407) and other decisions. The first of these propositions is that in the Punjab unlike any other Province or the Federation, seniority of a civil servant is a vested right of which he cannot be deprived except I and strictly in accordance with the law. Even Governor's power of remedial dispensation has been found to be limited so as not to extend over the seniority rights of others. This is vide our judgment delivered on 2‑10‑1990 in Mr. Mohammad lqba1 Khokhar and 3 others v. The Government of the Punjab and 2 others (Civil Appeal No.530 of 1980: P L D 1991 SC 35).

6. The second very important feature of this case is that the redesignation and the groupings were guaranteed to "not in any way affect the pay scales, status and other terms of service in respect of the said posts." Therefore, the seniority, as such and the eligibility for promotion, could not be affected on the strength of the Governor's dispensation made on 30th August, 1968, extensively reproduced above. The Groupings could not be frozen, nor the seniority therein and eligibility restricted to those groups ignoring altogether the Service Seniority list.

7. In the third place, the decisions of the meeting of the Directory, Agricultural Research Institutes held on 30th and 31st October, 1967 found recognition of the competent authority namely, the Governor only in two matters i.e., an innocuous but a valuable functional redesignation of the posts and slight amendment in 1963 Service Rules. That part of the minutes of the meeting which related to confining the promotion to the Groups was evidently not accepted by the Governor. Hence, the Department was in error in making the groupings rigid, operating the seniority within the groups as it was not only contrary to the Orders of the Governor but also against the law which binds both the civil servant as well 'as the competent authority in the matter.

8. The Rules of 1963 provide for only one service seniority list and no other. Subsection (3) of section 7 of these rules provides for one seniority list for the service or cadre. As there was no cadre within the service prescribed under the Rules of 1963, the seniority list on the basis of groups was outside the purview of the law. In 1974, came to be enforced the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and sub‑rule (1) of rule 14 thereof prescribes the eligibility conditions for promotion in the following words:‑‑ "All persons holding posts in a functional unit in the same grade who possess the minimum qualifications and experience prescribed for promotion shall be eligible to compete for promotion and take part in the test to be held for the purpose." No functional units as such have been notified by the Governor under 1963 Rules which could justify such a treatment.

9. In the circumstances and for the foregoing discussion both the appeals are allowed and the claims made by the appellants are allowed namely, that there shall be a joint seniority list up to the enforcement of Rules of 1980 for all Agricultural Assistants as required under 1963 Rules, that the groupings shall not be availed of for freezing the seniority within the group or for determining eligibility for promotion. All the persons holding the post in service shall be reconsidered as per Service Seniority list and their experience in the line shall be made the basis by the Departmental Promotion Committee or the appropriate selecting authority and suitability determined afresh irrespective of the group to which they happen to belong. The entire exercise shall be done over again by the selecting authority as from 1970 onwards when a legally incorrect interpretation was given to the Order of the Governor dated 30‑8‑1968. No order is made as to costs. M.B.A./M‑1154/S Appeals allowed.