IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5130 OF 2009
State of Uttarakhand & Another ..Appellants
versus
Archana Shukla & Others ..Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1474 OF 2007
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No.5130 of 2009
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 06th March, 2006 passed by the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 140/2005.
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and
hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever
necessary.
The respondents herein were appointed on adhoc
officiating post in the year 1988 for a fixed term which was
continued. They were regularised in the year 2004 under the
Uttaranchal Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments (Posts
under the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002
( for short ‘the Rules’). The respondents claimed benefit
of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of
seniority and this has been granted by the High Court.
Hence, this appeal.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5130 OF 2009 etc.
-2-
We are afraid, we cannot agree with the view taken by the
High Court.
Rule 7(1) of the Rules states as under:
“A person appointed under these rules shall
be entitled to seniority only from the date
of order of appointment after selection in
accordance with these rules and shall, in
all cases, be placed below the persons
appointed in accordance with the relevant
service rules or as the case may be, the
regular prescribed procedure, prior in the
appointment of such person under these
rules.”
Admittedly, the respondents were appointed after a
selection under the Regularization Rules in the year 2004.
Hence, in our view, they can get seniority only from the
year 2004 and not from 1988. The rule is clear and hence we
cannot debar from the clear meaning of the rule.
It has been held in Raghunath Rai Bareja & Another vs.
Punjab National Bank & Others (2007) 2 SCC 230 that when
there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law
which has to prevail in accordance with the latin maxim
‘dura lex sed lex’ which means ‘the law is hard but it is
the law’. Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot
supplant or override it. This view was followed in Civil
Appeal No.2684 of 2007 titled B.Premanand & Others vs. Mohan
Koikal & Others decided on 16th March, 2011.
In the present case, Rule 7 is very clear and hence the
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5130 OF 2009 etc.
-3-
respondents are not entitled to the benefit of their service
from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of their seniority.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
Civil Appeal No.1474 of 2007
In view of our order passed today in Civil Appeal No.
5130 of 2009, this appeal is also allowed and the impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
…………………….J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
NEW DELHI; …………………….J.
JULY 20, 2011 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]