{"id":36011,"date":"2011-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"modified":"2019-02-26T12:32:58","modified_gmt":"2019-02-26T07:02:58","slug":"d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                                  REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n\n                 CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7002 OF 2004\n\n\n\n\n\nD.P. Das                                          ..Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                             - Versus -\n\n\n\n\n\nUnion of India and Ors.                         ..Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    This   appeal   has   been   preferred   from   the   final <\/p>\n
      judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of <\/p>\n
      Madhya   Pradesh   at   Jabalpur   in   Writ   Petition <\/p>\n
      No.5238 of 2000 dated 30th June, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
2. The   facts   and   circumstances   giving   rise   to   this <\/p>\n
  appeal are that in the year 1983, the first batch <\/p>\n
  of   the   Specialist   Medical   Officer   (SMO)   in   the <\/p>\n
  Ordnance   Factories   Organization   was   recruited   in <\/p>\n
  the   category   of   Obstetrics,   Gynecology,   Medicine <\/p>\n
  and   Surgery.   The   appellant   was   one   of   the   five <\/p>\n
  recruited persons and he belonged to the category <\/p>\n
  of Surgery.\n<\/p>\n
3. In   the   year   1991,   on   the   recommendation   of   the <\/p>\n
  Fourth   Pay   Commission,   one   post   in   the   Indian <\/p>\n
  Ordnance   Factories   Health   Services   (Group   A, <\/p>\n
  grade of Rs.5900-6700) was sanctioned for filling <\/p>\n
  up   amongst  the   SMOs  cadre.   The  specialists   cadre <\/p>\n
  was in different disciplines and hence, there was <\/p>\n
  necessity   of   preparing   a   combined   gradation   list <\/p>\n
  in   the   SMOs   cadre.   The   respondent   No.1   referred <\/p>\n
  the   matter   to   the   UPSC   for   preparation   of   the <\/p>\n
  common   seniority   list.   Further,   the   SMOs   were <\/p>\n
  recommended by the UPSC by three different lists, <\/p>\n
  two   of   which   were   made   on   the   same   date   and <\/p>\n
                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
  therefore   the   UPSC   was   requested   to   furnish   the <\/p>\n
  relative order of seniority of those SMOs who are <\/p>\n
  recommended on the same date.\n<\/p>\n
4. Accordingly,   the   seniority   list   of   SMOs   in   the <\/p>\n
  grade   of   Rs.4500-5700\/-   was   prepared   on   1.7.1992 <\/p>\n
  and   published  vide   order  dated   21.8.1992.  In   the <\/p>\n
  seniority   list   respondent   Nos.   4,   5   and   6   were <\/p>\n
  placed above the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
5. As         the         appellant         felt         aggrieved         by         the <\/p>\n
  publication   of   the   said   seniority   list,   he   made <\/p>\n
  representations   in   the   year   1992,   1993   and   1995 <\/p>\n
  before the respondent No.1. However, no reply was <\/p>\n
  received   by   the   appellant   from   the   respondent <\/p>\n
  No.1.\n<\/p>\n
6. Being   aggrieved,   the   appellant   preferred   an <\/p>\n
  original   application   (O.A.No.457   of   1995)   before <\/p>\n
  the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Jabalpur <\/p>\n
  Bench   (`the   Tribunal’)   and   prayed   to   quash   the <\/p>\n
                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
said   seniority   list   and   also   for   maintenance   of <\/p>\n
discipline wise seniority list initially prepared <\/p>\n
by   the  UPSC   and  for   keeping  Confidential   Reports <\/p>\n
as   criteria   for   selection   to   the   next   higher <\/p>\n
grade and also to rearrange the seniority of the <\/p>\n
candidates   on   the   basis   of   age   of   candidates   by <\/p>\n
placing   the   oldest   candidate   on   top   of   the <\/p>\n
seniority   list   followed   by   juniors   in   age.   The <\/p>\n
appellant   contended,   inter   alia,   before   the <\/p>\n
Tribunal that the:\n<\/p>\n
  a)     The   relative   seniority   of   SMOs   was  <\/p>\n
         not  determined by UPSC, at the time of <\/p>\n
         selection<\/p>\n
  b)     The   Department   should   have   requested  <\/p>\n
         the  UPSC   to   recommend   candidates   for  <\/p>\n
         such       posts   on   the   basis   of   a                 <\/p>\n
         consolidated             order of merit               and  <\/p>\n
         not  subject wise<\/p>\n
  c)     The   Department   never   requested   the  <\/p>\n
         UPSC       to         prepare         a         combined     <\/p>\n
         seniority list as                per  merit   on   the <\/p>\n
         basis of performance in the interview. <\/p>\n
\n\n         It was     therefore not                   possible   for \n\n         the UPSC to  prepare                  a         combined     \n\n         seniority list in the year 1992.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  4<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
7. The   UPSC   before   the   Tribunal   contended,   inter <\/p>\n
  alia,         that         the         interview                   for          different <\/p>\n
  disciplines   viz   specialists   I   medicine,   surgery <\/p>\n
  and gynecology in Ordnance Factories Organization <\/p>\n
  were   conducted   on   different   dates.   Before   the <\/p>\n
  Tribunal UPSC further contended that:\n<\/p>\n
(i)        As  far as  the Specialist  (Obstetrics  <\/p>\n
           and  Gynecologist)   is   concerned   the  <\/p>\n
           date of advertisement was 13.11.1982, <\/p>\n
           date of  interview   was   28.2.1983   and  <\/p>\n
           date of UPSC recommendation letter was <\/p>\n
           16.3.1983.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)       Insofar   as   the   Specialist   (Medicine)  <\/p>\n
           is concerned the date of advertisement <\/p>\n
           was    6.11.1983, date of interview was  <\/p>\n
           15\/16.03.1983   and   date   of   UPSC                                    <\/p>\n
           recommendation letter was 14.4.1983.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n(iii)      And so far as the Specialist (Surgery) \n\n           is     concerned,                       the         date         of       \n\n           advertisement was                              13.11.1982,   date \n\n           of     interview   was   22\/24.03.1983   and  \n\n<\/pre>\n
           date   of   UPSC   recommendation   letter  <\/p>\n
           was  14.4.1983.\n<\/p>\n
8. The   UPSC   also   filed   the   extracts   of   its   file <\/p>\n
  which contain the note sheets from Page 2 to Page <\/p>\n
  13. From those extracts the basis of arriving at <\/p>\n
                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
  the   methodology   adopted   for   fixing   the   seniority <\/p>\n
  of         two                        different                            disciplines,                       whose <\/p>\n
  recommendations   were   made   on   the   same   date   were <\/p>\n
  available.\n<\/p>\n
9. By   a   judgment   and   order   dated   26.7.2000,   the <\/p>\n
  Tribunal   dismissed   the   O.A.457   of   1995   and   in <\/p>\n
  paragraph 8.4 held as under:\n<\/p>\n
    \"8.4                It              is              fact                 that             date          of \n\n    recommendation                                 of             the             applicant                who \n\n<\/pre>\n
    belongs   to   surgery   discipline   and   the <\/p>\n
    private   respondents   belonging   to   medicine <\/p>\n
    discipline   was   same   i.e.14.4.1983.     Also <\/p>\n
    that   the   rules   provide   for   fixing   the <\/p>\n
    seniority                           based                     on         the              date          of <\/p>\n
    recommendations   of   the   UPSC   maintaining <\/p>\n
    inter   se   merit   as   per   the   recommendation.\n<\/p>\n
    It   is   also   fact   that   respondent   did   not <\/p>\n
    approach the UPSC for preparing a combined <\/p>\n
    merit   list   of   such   specialist   which   they <\/p>\n
    should have done as per DOPTs instructions <\/p>\n
    for   seeing   future   promotion   prospects   for <\/p>\n
    these   specialists   and   also   the   fact   that <\/p>\n
    separate   seniority   list   for   number   of <\/p>\n
    specialist                          disciplines                                    and         separate <\/p>\n
    promotion   prospects   thereof   were   not <\/p>\n
    feasible.   From   the   extract   of   note   sheet <\/p>\n
    filed   by   the   respondent,   it   is   seen   that <\/p>\n
    the                Commission,                           based                      on         detailed <\/p>\n
    examination   decided   to   fix   the   seniority <\/p>\n
    in   such   case,   based   on   date   of   interview <\/p>\n
    i.e.   candidates   interviewed   on   an   early <\/p>\n
                                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    date   to  be   senior  to   those  interviewed   on <\/p>\n
    a   later   date.   The   contention   of   learned <\/p>\n
    counsel for applicant that their seniority <\/p>\n
    should   have   been   fixed   based   on   the   date <\/p>\n
    of         birth         cannot         be         accepted         since <\/p>\n
    presuming   this   criteria   was   to   be   adopted <\/p>\n
    then   very   purpose   of   preparation   of   merit <\/p>\n
    list of the candidates, will get defeated.\n<\/p>\n
    The   reckoning   of   seniority   based   on   age <\/p>\n
    may   be   relevant   in   cases   of   recruitment <\/p>\n
    where   no   merit   list   is   made   and   the <\/p>\n
    selection   criteria   is   for   qualifying   the <\/p>\n
    test   along   or   where   the   recommendations <\/p>\n
    are only as `fit’ of `unfit’.”\n<\/p>\n
10.Being   aggrieved,   the   appellant   filed   a   writ <\/p>\n
  petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
11.By   the   impugned   judgment   dated   30.6.2003,   the <\/p>\n
  High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming <\/p>\n
  the   methodology   adopted   by   the   UPSC   for   fixing <\/p>\n
  the   seniority   of   two   different   disciplines   whose <\/p>\n
  recommendations were made on the same date.\n<\/p>\n
12.The High Court in para 15 held that:\n<\/p>\n
    “15. ………………… What is reasonable to be seen <\/p>\n
    in   the   obtaining   factual   matrix   is   that <\/p>\n
    under   regrettable   circumstances   the   inter <\/p>\n
                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
se   merit   list   was   not   available   as   there <\/p>\n
was   no   requisition   for   fixing   such <\/p>\n
seniority. However, the UPSC had evolved a <\/p>\n
base   which   indicates   that   the   date   of <\/p>\n
interview would be the criteria for fixing <\/p>\n
the   seniority,   in   such   a   case.   Ordinarily <\/p>\n
this may look quite peculiar but it has to <\/p>\n
be         borne                  in                        mind                     that               peculiar <\/p>\n
circumstances                               are                   solved                      by             taking <\/p>\n
recourse                   to               innovative                                 methods.                        The <\/p>\n
tribunal   in   paragraph   6.1   has   reproduced <\/p>\n
the   date  of   advertisement  and   the  date   of <\/p>\n
recommendation   letter   of   UPSC.   We   have <\/p>\n
also   reproduced   the   same   above.   The   date <\/p>\n
of         advertisement                                         for                 the               post             of <\/p>\n
Specialist   (Surgery)   was   13.11.1982.   The <\/p>\n
date            of          advertisement                                              for             post             of <\/p>\n
Specialist                        (Medicine)                                      was              6.11.1983. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Definitely there was advertisement for the <\/p>\n
post   of   Specialist   (Surgery)   earlier   than <\/p>\n
Specialist (Medicine) but the interview of <\/p>\n
Specialist   (Medicine)   was   on   15\/16.3.83 <\/p>\n
whereas                    the               date                     of               interview                        of <\/p>\n
Specialist   (Surgery)   was   on   22\/24.3.93.\n<\/p>\n
The   Tribunal   has   taken   note   of   the   fact <\/p>\n
that   from  the   note  sheets,   which  has   been <\/p>\n
produced   by   the   UPSC,   it   was   perceivable <\/p>\n
that recommendations were made on the date <\/p>\n
of   interview.   Thus,   selection   was   made   on <\/p>\n
that            date.                       It              is               noticeable                           that <\/p>\n
recommendations were sent on the same date <\/p>\n
i.e.            14.4.1983.                                  Thus,                      the             date             of <\/p>\n
interview has earned the status of date of <\/p>\n
selection. Submission of Mr. Gupta is that <\/p>\n
it   can   be   fortuitous   circumstances   as   the <\/p>\n
interview   in   one   subject   may   take   place <\/p>\n
earlier   than   the   other.   The   aforesaid <\/p>\n
submission   may  appear   on  a   first  blush   to <\/p>\n
be   quite   attractive   but   on   a   closer <\/p>\n
scrutiny   of   the   same   it   has   to   be <\/p>\n
repelled………….   The   UPSC   has   determined   the <\/p>\n
seniority   on   the   basis   of   the   date   of <\/p>\n
                                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
    interview   and   the   date   when   selection   had <\/p>\n
    taken   place.   In   the   absence   of   any <\/p>\n
    document   on   record,   in   the   absence   any <\/p>\n
    preparation   of   merit   list,   in   the   absence <\/p>\n
    of   drawing   of   the   seniority   list   at   the <\/p>\n
    initial   stage   and   taking   note   of   the <\/p>\n
    peculiar   facts   and   circumstances   of   the <\/p>\n
    case,   we   are   of   the   considered   view   that <\/p>\n
    the   UPSC   has   adopted   a   rational   approach <\/p>\n
    and   the   Tribunal   has   not   flawed   in <\/p>\n
    accepting the same…….”\n<\/p>\n
13.It  is  pertinent  to  note  here  that  on  28.8.1946, <\/p>\n
  the   Government   of   India,   Department   of   Home <\/p>\n
  issued         an         Office         Memorandum         (O.M.)         for <\/p>\n
  determination of seniority of direct recruits<\/p>\n
14.Clause 2(iv) thereof provides as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “When   a   number   of   vacancies   for   direct <\/p>\n
    recruits   are   filled   simultaneously   without <\/p>\n
    candidates   first   being   placed   in   order   of <\/p>\n
    merit   or   preference,   seniority   should   be <\/p>\n
    determined   by   age   provided   a   candidate <\/p>\n
    joins within such period not exceeding one <\/p>\n
    month   from   the   date   of   appointment   as   may <\/p>\n
    be   fixed   by   the   appointing   authority.   A <\/p>\n
    candidate   who   does   not   join   within   the <\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
       time   so   specified   will   rank   below   those <\/p>\n
       who   did   so   join,   and   seniority   among   the <\/p>\n
       later   arrivals   will   be   according   to   the <\/p>\n
       date of joining.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             The   orders   in   this   paragraph   will   be <\/p>\n
       of general application. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
15.Vide   an   Office   Memorandum   dated   22.12.1959,   the <\/p>\n
  Government   of   India,   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs <\/p>\n
  issued   general   principles   for   the   determination <\/p>\n
  of seniority in Central Civil Services <\/p>\n
16.It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   the   O.M.   dated <\/p>\n
  22.12.1959   does   not   supersedes   Office   Memorandum <\/p>\n
  of         1946         but         expressly         discontinues         the <\/p>\n
  application   of     some   previous   Office   Memorandum <\/p>\n
  cited below:\n<\/p>\n
  7    Office   Memorandum   No.   30\/44\/48-   Apptts,   dated
\n       the 22nd June, 1949.\n<\/p>\n
  7    Office   Memorandum   No.   65\/28\/49   –   DGS.(Appts.)
\n       dated   the   3rd               Feburary,   1950   and   other <\/p>\n
       subsequent Office Memorandum regarding fixation <\/p>\n
                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
       of   seniority   of   ex-employees   of   the   Government <\/p>\n
       of Burma<\/p>\n
  7    Office   Memorandum   No.   31\/223\/50   –   DGS,   dated
\n       the 27th April, 1951 and other subsequent Office <\/p>\n
       Memorandum   regarding   fixation   of   seniority   of <\/p>\n
       displace Government Servants.\n<\/p>\n
  7    Office   Memorandum   No.   9\/59\/56   –   RPS   dated   the
\n       4th August, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
  7    Office   Memorandum   No.   32\/10\/49   –   CS   dated   the
\n       31st March, 1950<\/p>\n
  7    Office Memorandum No. 32\/49\/CS(C) dated the 20th
\n       September, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
17.Para 4 of the Annexure attached to the said O.M.\n<\/p>\n
  dated   22.12.1959   specifically   provides   that   “…..\n<\/p>\n
  the   relative   seniority   of   all   direct   recruits <\/p>\n
  shall   be   determined   by   the   order   of   merit   in <\/p>\n
  which   they   are   selected   for   such   appointment   on <\/p>\n
  the   recommendations   of   the   UPSC   or   other <\/p>\n
  selecting   authority,   persons   appointed   as   a <\/p>\n
  result of subsequent selection.”\n<\/p>\n
18.But   this   circular   fails   to   address   the <\/p>\n
  situation,   where   no   combined   merit   list   is <\/p>\n
                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
  prepared   in   the   order   of   merit   in   which   the <\/p>\n
  candidates   are   appointed   and   their   date   of <\/p>\n
  recommendation   being  the   same,  as   in  the   present <\/p>\n
  case.\n<\/p>\n
19.The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   contended <\/p>\n
  that   the   O.M.   dated   22.12.1959   has   not   repealed <\/p>\n
  O.M.   dated   28.8.1946   and   therefore   the   O.M.   of <\/p>\n
  1946 shall be applicable in this situation.\n<\/p>\n
20.The         learned         counsel         for         the         respondents <\/p>\n
  contended   that   the   intention   of   the   authorities <\/p>\n
  was   clear   in   O.M.   of   1959,   so   as   to   repeal   all <\/p>\n
  the   prior  O.Ms.   in  relation   to  the   determination <\/p>\n
  of seniority, which is expressed in para 2 of the <\/p>\n
  O.M. which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “…..It   has   therefore,   been   decided   in <\/p>\n
    consultation  with the  UPSC, that  hereafter <\/p>\n
    the   seniority   of   all   persons   appointed   to <\/p>\n
    the   various   Central   Services   after   the <\/p>\n
    date   of   these   instructions   should   be <\/p>\n
    determined   in   accordance   with   the   General <\/p>\n
    Principles annexed here to.”\n<\/p>\n
                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
21.However   as   noted   above,   office   memorandum   of <\/p>\n
  1959 does not answer the problems arising in this <\/p>\n
  case.\n<\/p>\n
22.The  law  is  clear  that  seniority  is  an  incidence <\/p>\n
  of   service  and   where  the   service  rules   prescribe <\/p>\n
  the   method   of   its   computation,   it   is   squarely <\/p>\n
  governed   by   such   rules.   In   the   absence   of   a <\/p>\n
  provision   ordinarily   the   length   of   service   is <\/p>\n
  taken into account<\/p>\n
23. The   Supreme   Court   in  M.B.   Joshi   &   others.  V.\n<\/p>\n
  Satish   Kumar   Pandey   &   Ors.,  AIR   1993   SC   267   has <\/p>\n
  laid   down   that   it   is   the   well   settled   principle <\/p>\n
  of   service   jurisprudence   then   in   the   absence   of <\/p>\n
  any   specific   rule   the   seniority   amongst   persons <\/p>\n
  holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be <\/p>\n
  determined   on   the   basis   of   the   length   of   the <\/p>\n
  service   and   not   on   any   other   fortuitous <\/p>\n
  circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
24.Determination   of   seniority   is   a   vital   aspect   in <\/p>\n
   the   service   career   of   an   employee.   His   future <\/p>\n
   promotion   is   dependent   on   this.   Therefore,   the <\/p>\n
   determination   of  seniority   must  be   based  on   some <\/p>\n
   principles, which are just and fair. This is the <\/p>\n
   mandate of Articles 14 and 16.\n<\/p>\n
25. In     The   Manager,   Government,   Branch   Press   and <\/p>\n
   another  v.  D.B.   Belliappa  reported   AIR   1979   SC <\/p>\n
   429, a three-Judge Bench of this Court construing <\/p>\n
   Articles   14   and   16   interpreted   the   equality <\/p>\n
   clause of the Constitution as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “…The          executive,         no         less         than         the <\/p>\n
     judiciary,   is   under   a   general   duty   to   act <\/p>\n
     fairly.  Indeed, fairness  founded on  reason <\/p>\n
     is the essence of the guarantee epitomized <\/p>\n
     in   Articles   14   &   16(1).”   (see   para   24   at <\/p>\n
     page 434)<\/p>\n
26. Another   three-Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in <\/p>\n
   Bimlesh   Tanwar        v.     State   of   Haryana   &<\/a>   other, <\/p>\n
                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
  (2003) 5 SCC 604, while dealing with the question <\/p>\n
  of   absence   of   a   rule   governing   seniority   held <\/p>\n
  that an executive order may be issued to fill up <\/p>\n
  the   gap.   Only   in   the   absence   of   a   rule   or <\/p>\n
  executive   instructions,   the   court   may   have   to <\/p>\n
  evolve   a   fair   and   just   principle   of   seniority, <\/p>\n
  which   could   be   applied   in   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
  circumstances   of   the   case.   (see   para   47   at   page <\/p>\n
  619)<\/p>\n
27.In  the  instant  case,  no  record  has  been  brought <\/p>\n
  before the Court to ascertain merit wise position <\/p>\n
  of   the   persons   who   were   directly   recruited.\n<\/p>\n
  Except   the   office   memorandum   of   1946,   which   is <\/p>\n
  still   in   force,   no   other   rule   or   executive <\/p>\n
  instruction has been shown to apply to the facts <\/p>\n
  of the case.\n<\/p>\n
28.The   appellant   argued   that   the   date   of   interview <\/p>\n
  would   have   to   be   considered   as   a   guide   for <\/p>\n
  determination   of   seniority.   This   cannot   be <\/p>\n
                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
  accepted   as   such   a   date   is   wholly   fortuitous.\n<\/p>\n
  Accepting   as   guideline,   something   which   is <\/p>\n
  absolutely   fortuitous   and   based   on   chance,   is <\/p>\n
  inherently unfair and unjust.\n<\/p>\n
29.As in this case there is no rule prescribed for <\/p>\n
  the   determination   of   seniority,   this   Court   is <\/p>\n
  left   with   only   the   guideline   flowing   from   the <\/p>\n
  executive instruction of 1946, in order to evolve <\/p>\n
  a just policy, for determination of seniority.\n<\/p>\n
30.From   the   analysis   of   the   executive   instructions <\/p>\n
  referred   to   hereinabove,   it   is   clear   that   the <\/p>\n
  1946   instruction  has   not  been   superseded  and   the <\/p>\n
  same   refers   to   the   acceptance   of   the   age   of   the <\/p>\n
  candidate         as         the         determining         factor         for <\/p>\n
  seniority. Such a basis is not fortuitous and is <\/p>\n
  otherwise just and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n
                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
31.In   the   premises   aforesaid   the   seniority   of   the <\/p>\n
  officers   who   were   recommended   on   the   same   date <\/p>\n
  must be decided by their respective age.\n<\/p>\n
32.The   contrary   view   taken   by   the   High   Court   of <\/p>\n
  fixing   seniority   on   the   basis   of   date   of <\/p>\n
  interview,   being   wholly   fortuitous,   cannot   be <\/p>\n
  accepted.\n<\/p>\n
33. The   reliance   by   the   respondent(s)   on   judgment   of <\/p>\n
  this   Court   in  B.   Premanand   and   others  v.  Mohan <\/p>\n
  Koikal   and   others<\/a>,        (2011)   4   SCC   266,   is <\/p>\n
  misconceived   in   the   facts   of   the   case.   In   that <\/p>\n
  case   this   Court   was   dealing   with   Rule   27(c)   of <\/p>\n
  the   Kerala   State   and   Subordinate   Services   Rules, <\/p>\n
  1958.   In   the   instant   case   there   is   no   rule.\n<\/p>\n
  Therefore in this case, this Court has to evolve <\/p>\n
  a   fair   and   just   basis   of   seniority   on   the   basis <\/p>\n
  of the office memorandum discussed herein above.\n<\/p>\n
                               17<\/span><\/p>\n
34.For   the   reasons   aforesaid   this   Court   holds   that <\/p>\n
  for   determination   of   seniority   of   the   officers <\/p>\n
  who were recommended on the same date, age is the <\/p>\n
  only valid and fair basis as such their seniority <\/p>\n
  should   be   decided   on   the   basis   of   age   of   the <\/p>\n
  candidates who have been recommended.\n<\/p>\n
35.The   appeal   is,   thus,   allowed.     The   judgment   of <\/p>\n
  the High Court which has taken a contrary view is <\/p>\n
  set aside.   In the facts of the case, there will <\/p>\n
  be no orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                               …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                               (G.S. SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                               …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                               (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
New Delhi<\/p>\n
August 09, 2011<\/p>\n
                              18<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011 Author: Ganguly Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.7002 OF 2004 D.P. Das ..Appellant(s) – Versus – Union of India and Ors. ..Respondent(s) J U D G […]<\/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-36011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nD.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - 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\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-26T07:02:58+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-26T07:02:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2503,\"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\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011\",\"name\":\"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-26T07:02:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - 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\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-26T07:02:58+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-26T07:02:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011"},"wordCount":2503,"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\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011","name":"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-26T07:02:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-p-das-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.P. Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/36011","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=36011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}