{"id":11323,"date":"2007-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-03T18:21:31","modified_gmt":"2016-03-03T12:51:31","slug":"state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1262 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of U.P. and Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDinkar Sinha\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & MARKANDEY KATJU\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent
\nherein was entitled to seniority on the basis of his Commissioned Service
\nin the Army is the question involved in these appeals which arises  out of
\nthe judgment and order dated 8.02.2002 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the
\nHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 1754 (SB) of
\n2000.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Governor of the then United Province (now the State of Uttar
\nPradesh) in exercise of his power under Section 241 of the Government of
\nIndia Act, 1935 framed U.P. Police Service Rules, 1942 (for short “the 1942
\nRules”).  The terms and conditions of the services of the employees
\nincluding recruitment thereto are governed thereby.  Rule 21 of the 1942
\nRules reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Seniority in the Service shall be determined according to the date of the
\norder of appointment in a substantive capacity and if two or more
\ncandidates are appointed on the same date, their seniority inter se shall
\nbe determined according to the order in which their names appear in the
\norder of appointment:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that-\n<\/p>\n
(1) The inter se seniority of direct recruits selected in one batch shall
\nbe determined according to their merit at the selection but a candidate may
\nlose his seniority if he fails to join without sufficient reasons when
\nappointment is offered to him and the decision of the Governor as to the
\nsufficiency of the reasons shall be final;\n<\/p>\n
(2) The inter se seniority of the promotees, selected at one selection,
\nrelating to one particular year of recruitment shall be determined
\naccording to their seniority in the post from which they are promoted;…\n<\/p>\n
(5) Vacancies are required to be filled on every occasion both by direct
\nrecruitment and promotion and the inter se seniority of persons appointed
\nby promotion and direct recruitment against the vacancies of a particular
\nyear, shall be determined by arranging their names alternatively, the first
\nname being of the person appointed by promotion, and placing the names of
\nthe remaining persons below en bloc.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.- A direct recruit will not be entitled to seniority of the
\nyear earlier to the year of his recruitment solely on the ground that there
\nhad been no recruitment in that year.”\n<\/p>\n
3. The said Rule upon coming into force of the Constitution of India,
\ncontinued to remain in force in terms of Article 372 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.  The President of India proclaimed Emergency on 1.11.1962 under
\nArticle 352 of the Constitution of India consequent upon the Chinese
\naggression.  On account of grave threat to the security of India, a large
\nscale recruitment of officers was to be made therefor.  To answer the call
\nof the nation, a large number of young persons gave up their softer career
\noptions and got themselves recruited to the Armed Forces of the Union of
\nIndia to serve the motherland.  The Emergency so proclaimed was revoked on
\n10.01.1968.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Governor of U.P. on or about 29.03.1968 framed rules known as U.P.
\nNon Technical (Class-II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for the
\nDemobilized Officers) Rules, 1968 (for short “the 1968 Rules”) for a period
\nof five years whereby and whereunder inter alia reservation to the extent
\nof 20% of the vacant posts were conceived for demobilized officers who had
\nbeen commissioned in the Armed Forces during the Emergency.  For the said
\npurpose, relaxations were also made in certain areas.  Rule 4 of the 1968
\nRules provided grant of seniority to such demobilized officers by raising a
\nlegal fiction, subject however to the condition, that they would be deemed
\nto have entered service at their second opportunity of competing for
\nrecruitment.\n<\/p>\n
5. On or about 3.12.1971, in the wake of Indo-Pak war with regard to
\nBangaldesh imbroglio, another external Emergency was proclaimed.  A large
\nscale recruitment was also made to Short Service and Emergency Commission
\nwherein again many young persons opted to join the Armed Forces of the
\nUnion of India.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Governor of U.P. on or about 6.08.1973 framed rules known as U.P.
\nNon Technical (Class-II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for the
\nDemobilized Officers) Rules, 1973 (for short “the 1973 Rules”) containing
\nsimilar provisions.  However, the extent of reservation was reduced from
\n20% to 10%.  The benefit of the 1973 Rules was extended only to those
\nofficers who were commissioned between 1.11.1962 to 10.01.1968 and upto
\nthose who joined on or after 3.12.1971 and released at any time thereafter.
\nThe 1973 Rules were made applicable for a limited period of five years.  It
\nexpired on 5.08.1978.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that a GO bearing No. 2003 was issued by the Government of U.P.
\non 20.08.1977 providing for reservation to the extent of 8% only which was
\neventually reduced to 2% in Class – II and Class – III Services of the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
7. A new set of Rules known as U.P. Non Technical (Class – II\/ Group “B”
\nServices) Appointment of Demobilized Officers Rules, 1980 (for short “the
\n1980 Rules”) was made by the State on or about 19.08.1980 for the purpose
\nof regularizing the appointments of demobilized officers whose selection
\nprocess had been commenced or concluded under the 1973 Rules but
\nappointments had not been made before the expiry thereof.\n<\/p>\n
Indisputably, the 1980 Rules do not contain any provision in regard to
\nreservation of vacancies for the demobilized officers of the Armed Forces
\nof the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
8. Interpretation and\/ or application of the said Rules and the precedents
\noperating in the field are required to be considered in this case in the
\naforementioned backdrop.\n<\/p>\n
A process of selection started in the case of the respondent in the year
\n1973 in the Engineering Corps of the Indian Army.  He was selected
\ntherefor.  He joined the pre-commissioned training on 18.05.1978 and was
\ncommissioned as an officer of the Indian Army only from 17.03.1979.  In the
\nmeanwhile, Emergency was lifted on 27.03.1977.  He was discharged from the
\nIndian Army on 18.05.1988.  Pursuant to the selection in respect of the
\nvacancies which arose in the year 1984, he joined U.P. Police Service as an
\nex-Army officer against 8% vacancies reserved for such ex-Army persons in
\nterms of the aforementioned GO dated 20.08.1977.\n<\/p>\n
9. We may notice that interpretation of the 1968 Rules as also the 1973
\nRules came up for consideration before this Court in Narendra Nath Pande
\nand Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 527, wherein it was held:\n<\/p>\n
“…There is a question of competing in the examination. Rule 6 does not
\nprovide for any gap to be taken into consideration, yet it is apparent that
\nsome reasonable period has to be allowed to a candidate so as to enable him
\nto avail himself of the opportunity of appearing at the competitive
\nexamination for his recruitment in the Provincial Civil Service. It cannot
\nbe gainsaid that to compete in the examination, a candidate has to make
\npreparation for that. Competitive examinations are generally difficult and,
\nin our opinion, at least two years’ time should be allowed to a candidate,
\nafter his discharge, for his preparation for the competitive examination
\nand that will be his first opportunity. The second opportunity will arise
\nin the next year, that is, in the third year of his discharge from the
\narmed forces. In other words, he should be allowed three years or competing
\nin the relevant examination for recruitment in the civil service.\n<\/p>\n
14. Even after he becomes successful, he is not recruited immediately.
\nThere is the question of availability of vacancies and posting. It is
\ncommon knowledge that some time is taken for posting. On a proper
\nconstruction of Rule 6, the period spent by a candidate for competing in
\nthe examination which, in our opinion, will not be more than three years,
\nand the period of time taken for his recruitment or posting will also be
\ntaken into consideration for the purpose of computing the seniority of a
\nwar service candidate. Thus, if a candidate is discharged in the year 1968,
\nhe should be given three years’ time to avail himself of the opportunity of
\ncompeting in the examination. Suppose, he is successful in the examination
\nheld in 1971 and posted in 1973. In view of Rule 6, he would be deemed to
\nhave entered service at the second opportunity of competing for recruitment
\nand the entire period from the date of assumed entry in the service up to
\nhis recruitment in 1973 shall be taken into account for the purpose of
\ncomputing seniority and pay. If, however, a candidate does not avail
\nhimself of the opportunity within three years of his discharge from war
\nservice or takes the examination but becomes unsuccessful, the period
\nbetween his discharge and subsequent recruitment will not be taken into
\naccount for the purpose of computing the seniority. Rule 6 should be given
\na reasonable interpretation…”\n<\/p>\n
Yet again, the question in regard to determination of seniority of the
\nDeputy Superintendents of Police in terms of Rule 21 of the 1942 Rules came
\nup for consideration before this Court in Rana Randhir Singh and Ors. v.
\nState of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a> [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 615].\n<\/p>\n
10. With a view to meet the requirements of the judgment of this Court in
\nNarendra Nath Pande (supra), the 1980 Rules were amended in terms whereof
\nRule 5 was applied limiting to three years’ maximum seniority over and
\nabove the seniority given for the period served by the candidate in the
\nArmed Forces.  Diverse Rules were again framed with which we are not
\nconcerned at this stage, but we may note that by U.P. Act No. 29 of 1999,
\nreservation in favour of the ex-servicemen in Group A and B Services in the
\nState of U.P. was abolished.\n<\/p>\n
11. Respondent was placed at Serial No. 137 in the seniority list as
\nbelonging to the 1984 batch as a direct recruit.  Shri Surendra Singh Negi,
\na direct recruit of the 1976 batch was placed at Serial No. 14.  Respondent
\nmade a representation to give to him the benefit of the 1980 Rules, which
\nwas rejected by the State Government by an order dated 14.09.2000 stating
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\the joined the Indian Army after the expiry of the Proclamation of
\nEmergency;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\the cannot be considered as a demobilized candidate after the expiry
\nof the 1973 Rules;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe 1980 Rules had limited applicability, viz., only to those
\nofficers whose selection process had commenced and concluded prior to
\n6.08.1978.\n<\/p>\n
12. Respondent aggrieved thereby filed a writ petition before the Lucknow
\nBench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.  Those who were above
\nhim in the seniority list, being 118 in number and who would have been
\naffected if a relief had been granted, were, however, not impleaded as
\nparties in the said petition.\n<\/p>\n
We may furthermore notice that on 19.12.2000, the Uttar Pradesh Non-
\nTechnical (Class – II\/ Group “B”) Services (Appointment of Demobilized
\nOfficers) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 (for short “the 2000 Rules”) were
\nframed.  These Rules have been given retrospective effect, i.e., from
\n6.08.1978.  However, on 3.02.2001, the State made third amendment in the
\n1980 Rules restoring the original position prevailing before coming into
\nforce of the 2000 Rules as the said Rules were held to be illegal having
\nbeen framed in violation of the judgment of this Court in Ram Janam Singh
\nv. State of U.P. and Anr.,<\/a> [1994] 2 SCC 622].\n<\/p>\n
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the
\nintervenor, would, in support of these appeals, inter alia submit:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe 1980 Rules cannot be said to be retrospective in nature nor the
\nsame is in continuation of the 1973 Rules and in that view of the matter,
\nthe High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe 1980 Rules have a limited application insofar as the same
\nsought to protect only those officers in whose cases the recruitment
\nprocess started in the year 1973 and were not applicable in the cases of
\nthose who were recruited after it came into force.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tWhereas the 1973 Rules provided for reservation, the 1980 Rules did
\nnot provide for any, save and except to a limited extent and, thus, the
\nsame could not be applied in the case of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tRespondent was recruited against the vacancies which arose in the
\nyear 1984 only in the year 1988 and, thus, having been appointed in the
\nState’s service only on 17.03.1979, the 1980 Rules or the 1973 Rules could
\nnot have any application in the case of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tThe Seniority was given only to the Emergency Commissioner
\nofficers.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tIn view of the decision of this Court in Ram Janam Singh v. State
\nof U.P. and Another<\/a> (1994) 2 SCC 622, wherein law has been laid down as to
\nwho would get the benefit of the 1980 Rules, the impugned judgment must be
\nheld to be bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
14. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, on the other, submitted:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tRespondent was selected in 1976 and having been given seniority
\nduring the period of Emergency, the 1973 Rules, as incorporated by
\nreference, the 1980 Rules will apply.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tIn view of the decision of this Court in Dilbag Singh v. State of
\nU.P. and Ors.,<\/a> [1995] 4 SCC 495 as well as that of a 3-Judge Bench of this
\nCourt in Mahesh Chand and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a> [2000] 10 SCC
\n492, Rule 5 of the 1980 Rules must be held to have a wider application and
\nwould also cover  cases where the 1973 Rules would apply.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tIn any event, the respondent having acquired a vested right in
\nterms of the 1973 Rules, the impugned judgment should not be interfered
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
15. Admittedly, the 1968 Rules governed the field during the period
\nNovember, 1962 and January, 1968, but the same would have no application in
\nthe instant case.  Applicability of the 1973 Rules is in question.  The
\nsaid Rules, as noticed hereinbefore, remained in force only for a period of
\nfive years from the date of its commencement, i.e., 6.08.1973.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 3 of the 1973 Rules provided for reservation of vacancies inter alia
\nfor those who were Emergency Commissioned Officers before 10.01.1968 and
\nagain on or after 3.12.1971.\n<\/p>\n
The 1980 Rules defined demobilized officers in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“Demobilised Officer” means Disabled defence Service Officer, Emergency
\nCommissioned Officer and the short service commissioned officer, of the
\nArmed Forces of the Union who was commissioned on or after November 1, 1962
\nbut before January 10, 1968 or on or after December 3, 1971 and released at
\nany time thereafter.”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 4 of the 1980 Rules provided for appointment stating:\n<\/p>\n
“4. Appointment .-A person selected for appointment to a non-technical
\nClass II\/Group ‘B’ service or post against the vacancies reserved for
\ndemobilised officers, as a result of recruitment, the process of which was
\nconcluded or commenced prior to August 6, 1978, in accordance with the
\nprovisions of the Uttar Pradesh Non-technical (Class II) Services
\n(Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973
\n(hereinafter to be referred to as the said rules), shall be eligible and be
\nconsidered for appointment against the vacancies reserved for demobilised
\nofficers under the said rules:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the reserved vacancies shall be utilised first for the
\nappointment of disabled defence service officers, and, if any such
\nvacancies still remain unfilled, the same shall then be made available to
\nother emergency commissioned officers and short service commissioned
\nofficers.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation-The notification of vacancies or the advertisement thereof by
\nthe Commission shall, among others, be a process of recruitment within the
\nmeaning of this rule.”\n<\/p>\n
16. Rule 5 of the 1980 Rules provided for seniority and pay of persons
\nappointed against the vacancies referred to in the 1973 Rules, the relevant
\nportion whereof reads, thus:\n<\/p>\n
“5. Seniority and pay.-(1) Seniority and pay of persons appointed against
\nthe vacancies referred to in the said rules shall be determined on the
\nassumption that they entered the service concerned at the second
\nopportunity of competing for recruitment, and they shall be assigned the
\nsame year of allotment as successful candidates of the relevant competitive
\nexamination:…”\n<\/p>\n
17. Seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right.  [See
\nIndu Shekhar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a> [2006] 8 SCC 129,
\nBimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Ors.,<\/a> [2003] 5 SCC 604 and Prafulla
\nKumar Das v. State of Orissa,<\/a> [2003] 11 SCC 614  Infringement of the said
\nright would be permissible only if there exists any rules validly framed
\nunder a statute and\/ or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the
\nConstitution of India.  It cannot act in a vacuum.  Any rule taking away
\nsuch rights would deserve strict construction.\n<\/p>\n
18. The 1968 Rules, the 1973 Rules and the 1980 Rules were framed with a
\nview to encourage young men to join Indian Army.  They were made with a
\nview to meet particular exigencies.  Whereas the 1968 Rules and the 1973
\nRules were primarily made for providing reservation to vacancies for
\ndemobilized officers, the 1980 Rules sought to achieve a different purpose,
\nas it does not provide for any reservation.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas Rule 3(1) of the 1973 Rules provided for reservation of 10% to the
\nEmergency Commissioned or Short Service Commissioned officers who were
\ncommissioned during the period mentioned therein, Rule 4 thereof conferred
\nbenefit on persons appointed only in that category.  Benefit of seniority
\nand pay was to be extended on such employees on assessment of their second
\nopportunity of competing.  Such second opportunity was to be counted from
\nthe date of birth in respect of minimum age for competing.  The State made
\nthe said provision only for a section of employees who might have intended
\nto sacrifice their soft career during the period of Emergency as
\nrecruitment process in their case might have started during the period when
\nthe 1973 Rules were in force but could not be completed.  The 1980 Rules
\nseek to give limited retrospective effect by conferring benefits in regard
\nto appointment to the reserved post for the demobilized officers whose
\nprocess of recruitment was to be completed or commenced before 6.08.1978 in
\naccordance with the 1973 Rules.  Rule 5 of the 1980 Rules, however, is in
\npari materia with Rule 6 of the 1973 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
19. Respondent had never contended that his case was governed by the 1973
\nRules.  He proceeded on the basis that only because the process of
\nselection started in the year 1975, and he having been selected when the
\n1973 Rules were applicable, his case for recruitment did not come within
\nthe purview of the reserved category of candidates as envisaged under the
\n1973 Rules which, it will bear repetition to state, was in force only upto
\n5.08.1978.\n<\/p>\n
20. Submission of Mr. Rai that the respondent having joined the pre-
\ncommissioned training in 1976 would be entitled to the benefit of the 1973
\nRules or thereby rights were accrued to him, in our opinion, has no merit.\n<\/p>\n
The 1980 Rules, as noticed hereinbefore, only have a limited operation by
\nregularizing appointments of demobilized officers whose selection process
\nhad been commenced or concluded under the 1973 Rules but appointments had
\nnot been made before the expiry thereof.  There was no provision for
\nreservation of vacancies for the demobilized officers of the Armed Forces
\nof the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
21. The 1973 Rules was a temporary statute.  It died its natural death on
\nexpiry thereof.  The 1980 Rules does not contain any repeal and saving
\nclause.  The provisions of the relevant provisions of the General Clauses
\nAct will, thus, have no application.  Once a statute expires by efflux of
\ntime, the question of giving effect to a right arising thereunder may not
\narise.  In any event, in this case, no such right accrued to the
\nrespondent.  Reservation to the extent of 2% might have been fixed by
\nreason of a Government Order issued in the year 1977 but the same had
\nnothing to do with the 1973 Rules or with the 1980 Rules.  Provision for
\nreservation made in general by the State in exercise of its executive power
\ncould not have conferred a benefit in terms of the provisions of a rule
\nwhich seeks to apply to a particular category of employees in the service.\n<\/p>\n
22. The 1980 Rules neither repealed nor replaced the 1973 Rules.  The
\nquestion of continuation of the 1973 Rules by the 1980 Rules, thus, did not
\nand could not arise.  The 1980 Rules provided for a new set of rules.  They
\nwere to have a limited application, viz., regularization of appointment of
\ndemobilized officers.\n<\/p>\n
Not only the nomenclature of the 1980 Rules is different from that of the
\n1973 Rules, the purport and object is also different.  Whereas the 1973
\nRules provided for reservation of vacancies for the demobilized officers,
\nthe 1980 Rules provided for appointment of demobilized officers to a
\nlimited category of employees.\n<\/p>\n
23. The 1980 Rules to the aforementioned effect has been given a
\nretrospective effect, i.e. from 6.08.1978 only for achieving the said
\npurpose noticed hereinbefore.  By reason thereof, thus, the 1973 Rules had
\nnot been kept alive.  We may at this juncture notice that Lahoti, J. (as
\nthe learned Chief Justice then was) in Ramji Purshottam (Dead) by LRs. And
\nOrs. v. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala (Dead) By LRs. And Anr.,<\/a> [2004] 6 SCC 455
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
“14. Justice G.P. Singh states in Principles of Statutory Interpretation
\n(9th Edn., 2004, at p. 462)-\n<\/p>\n
“[T]he fact that a prospective benefit under a statutory provision is in
\ncertain cases to be measured by or depends on antecedent facts does not
\nnecessarily make the provision retrospective. … the rule against
\nretrospective construction is not always applicable to a statute merely
\n‘because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from time
\nantecedent to its passing’.”\n<\/p>\n
In Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra
\nYograj Sinha the Constitution Bench<\/a> held that Bombay Act 57 of 1947 is a
\npiece of legislation passed to protect the tenants against the evil of
\neviction. And the benefit of the provisions of the Act ought to be extended
\nto the tenants against whom the proceedings are pending on the date of
\ncoming into force of the legislation.”\n<\/p>\n
24. In Dilbag Singh (supra), whereupon strong reliance has been placed by
\nMr. Rai, the appellant therein was commissioned on 22.09.1974 and in the
\naforementioned situation, it was held that the selection process having
\nstarted after 1973 and he having been appointed during the period when the
\n1973 Rules had been into force, by reason of Rule 5 of the 1980 Rules, the
\n1973 Rules must be deemed to be in operation till then.  The decision of
\nthis Court in the fact of that case may be correct but then it is
\ndistinguishable in the sense that in the instant case the respondent had
\njoined Commissioned Service only in the year 1979.  Whether he was selected
\nas a commissioned officer or whether he had undergone pre-commissioned
\ntraining is not relevant for applicability of the 1980 Rules.  What was
\nrelevant is as to from which date he became a Commissioned Officer.  If he
\nbecame a Commissioned Officer only after 5.08.1978, i.e., after the expiry
\nof the 1973 Rules, the question of his getting any benefit under the 1973
\nRules would not arise.\n<\/p>\n
The same principle has been reiterated in Mahesh Chand (supra) wherein this
\nCourt held:\n<\/p>\n
“6. The scope of Rule 5 is wider. It regulates the seniority and pay of
\npersons appointed against vacancies referred to in the 1973 Rules.
\nTherefore, while it may cover those who are appointed under Rule 4, it also
\ncovers all others who are appointed against vacancies referred to in the
\n1973 Rules. That being so, the judgment in the case of Dilbag Singh which
\nconstrued Rule 5, does not require reconsideration on the ground that Rule
\n4 was omitted from consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, evident that the 1980 Rules would cover only those
\npersons who were appointed against the vacancies referred to in the 1973
\nRules and not those who joined much later.\n<\/p>\n
25. The purport for which such benefits had been given has been considered
\nin Ram Janam Singh (supra), wherein it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
“14. Can it be said that the persons who had joined Army after the
\ndeclaration of emergency due to foreign aggression and those who joined
\nafter the war came to an end stand on the same footing? Those who joined
\nArmy after revocation of emergency joined Army as a career. It is well
\nknown that many persons who joined army service during the foreign
\naggression, could have opted for other career or service. But the nation
\nitself being under peril, impelled by the spirit to serve the nation, they
\nopted for joining Army where then risk was writ large. No one can dispute
\nthat such persons formed a class by themselves and by rules aforesaid an
\nattempt has been made to compensate those who returned from war if they
\ncompete in different services. According to us, the plea that even persons
\nwho joined army service after cessation of foreign aggression and
\nrevocation of emergency have to be treated like persons who have joined
\narmy service during emergency due to foreign aggression is a futile plea
\nand should not have been accepted by the High Court. It need not be
\nimpressed that whenever any particular period spent in any other service by
\na person is added to the service to which such person joins later, it is
\nbound to affect the seniority of persons who have already entered in the
\nservice. As such any period of earlier service should be taken into account
\nfor determination of seniority in the later service only for some very
\ncompelling reasons which stand the test of reasonableness and on
\nexamination can be held to be free from arbitrariness.”\n<\/p>\n
26.\tRespondent in this case admittedly joined the services after the
\nEmergency was over.  Furthermore, he joined the State service only in the
\nyear 1988 when the 1980 Rules ceased to have any force.\n<\/p>\n
27. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned
\njudgment cannot be sustained.  It is set aside accordingly.  The appeals
\nare allowed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1262 of 2004 PETITIONER: State of U.P. and Anr. RESPONDENT: Dinkar Sinha DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/2007 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-03T12:51:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T12:51:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T12:51:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-03T12:51:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T12:51:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007"},"wordCount":4206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007","name":"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T12:51:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-and-anr-vs-dinkar-sinha-on-9-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11323","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11323\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}