{"id":45944,"date":"1987-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987"},"modified":"2016-12-28T17:51:30","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T12:21:30","slug":"sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987","title":{"rendered":"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR   84, \t\t  1988 SCR  (1)1049<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSUDAMA SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNATH SARAN SINGH &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR   84\t\t  1988 SCR  (1)1049\n 1988 SCC  (1)\t57\t  JT 1987 (4)\t338\n 1987 SCALE  (2)1050\n\n\nACT:\n     Uttar Pradesh  Intermediate Education  Act, 1921: s. 16\nGG\/Regulations, Chapter\t II, Regulation 3(1)(b)-Seniority-Ad\nhoc Lecturers  deemed to be appointed as such on substantive\nbasis from  same date-Held seniority to be determined on the\nbasis of age.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     large number  of teachers\tworking in  the\t educational\ninstitutions governed  by  the\tUttar  Pradesh\tIntermediate\nEducation Act, 1921, were appointed or promoted on an ad hoc\nbasis. The  question of\t regularisation\t of  their  services\nengaged the  attention of  the State  Government and  it was\ndecided to  amend the Act by an Ordinance. Section 16-GG was\naccordingly introduced on April, 21, 1977. The Ordinance was\nreplaced by  the Uttar Pradesh Education Laws Amendment Act,\n1977.\n     The appellant  and respondent No. 1 were both appionted\nas Assistant Teachers in an Intermediate College with effect\nfrom July  8, 1967.  Respondent No.  1 was  promoted by\t the\nmanagement as  Lecturer in  Hindi on  an ad  hoc basis\twith\neffect from March 1, 1976. The District Inspector of Schools\napproved of  it on October 5, 1976. Subsequently on November\n20, 1976 he again made an order promoting both the appellant\nand respondent\tNo. 1  as  Lecturers  in  Civics  and  Hindi\nrespectively on\t an ad\thoc basis. Their services came to be\nregularised by\tvirtue of  the new provision. s. 16 GG, with\neffect from  April 21,\t1977. After  their services  were so\nregularised, dispute arose regarding the seniority.\n     While the\tfirst respondent  claimed seniority over the\nappellant on  the basis of his appointment\/promotion made on\nMarch 1,  1976, the  appellant claimed\tthat he\t being older\nthan the  first respondent  was entitled  to be\t treated  as\nsenior by  virtue of  the  second  part\t of  clause  (b)  of\nregulation 3(1) of the Regulations framed under the Act.\n     The  District   Inspector\tof   Schools  came   to\t the\nconclusion that\t the fortuitous appointment\/promotion of the\nfirst respondent  on March 1, 1976 could not have any effect\non the question of seniority between\n1050\nthem, and  held that  since  the  appellant  and  the  first\nrespondent had\tbeen accepted  to be promoted in substantive\ncapacity on  the same day, and since the appellant was older\nthan respondent No. 1, the appellant should be considered as\nsenior by  virtue of  the second  sentence in  clause (b) of\nregulation 3(1) of the Regulations.\n     Aggrieved\tby   the  aforesaid   decision\t the   first\nrespondent filed  a writ  petition before  the\tHigh  Court,\nwhich was  allowed, the\t order of the Disctrict Inspector of\nSchools was  set aside\tand it\twas declared  that the first\nrespondent was\tsenior to  the appellant  on the ground that\nthe first  respondent had  been\t promoted  to  the  post  of\nlecturer on March 1, 1976, pursuant to certain orders issued\nunder the  Act which  continued to  be\tin  operation  until\nsection 16GG was brought into force.\n     Allowing the appeal by Special Leave.\n^\n     HELD:  1.\t The  appellant\t  is  senior  to  the  first\nrespondent. [1056E]\n     2.1 What is crucial for the purposes of the case is the\ndate from  which the  appellant\t and  the  first  respondent\nshould be  deemed to  be holding  their posts in substantive\ncapacity. Section 16GG of the Act clearly lays down that any\nteacher whose  services are  regularised should be deemed to\nhave been  appointed in\t a substantive\tcapacity with effect\nfrom the  date of its commencement. It does any say that the\nservices of  such teachers  should be  deemed to  have\tbeen\nregularised with  effect from  the date from which they were\ncontinuously officiating  in the  post in question. The date\nof commencement\t of the\t section being\tApril, 21, 1977 both\nthe appellant  and the\tfirst respondent,  who were  by then\nholding the  posts of Lecturers on an ad hoc basis are to be\ndeemed to  have been  appointed in a substantive capacity on\nthe same date, that is, April 21, 1977. [1055G-H; 1056A]\n     2.2 On the question of seniority, cl. (b) of Regulation\n(3)(1) of  the Regulations  provides that  the seniority  of\nteachers in  a grade  shall be\tdetermined on  the basis  of\ntheir substantive  appointment in  that grade  and if two or\nmore teachers  were so\tappointed on  the same date seniorty\nshould be determined on the basis of age. [1056C]\n     In the instant case, the appellant is older in age than\nthe first  respondent. He  should, therefore,  be treated as\nsenior to  the first  respondent by  reason  of\t the  second\nsentence in cl. (b) of Regulations 3(1).[1056E-F]\n1051\n     3. The High Court omitted to consider the effect on the\nwords 'with effect from the date of the commencement of this\nsection' in  subs. (1) of s. 16GG of the Act and also sub-s.\n(2) of that section which provides that every teacher deemed\nto have\t been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-\ns.(1) should  be deemed\t to be on probation from the date of\nthe commencement of the section. [1056B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3004 of<br \/>\n1987.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  18.2.1986  of\t the<br \/>\nAllahabad High Court in C.M.W.A. No. 9895 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>     R.K. Jain and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     B.D. Agarwal,  L.R. Singh\tand Pradeep  Misra  for\t the<br \/>\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J.\tSpecial leave granted. The appeal is<br \/>\nheard.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant, Sudama Singh, and Respondent No. 1, Nath<br \/>\nSaran Singh,  were both\t appointed as  Assistant Teachers in<br \/>\nL.T. Grade  in the Gandhi Inter College, Chilkahar, District<br \/>\nBallia with  effect from  the same  date, i.e., July 8, 1967<br \/>\nand were  placed on probation for one year. Respondent No. 1<br \/>\nwas promoted  as Lecturer  in Hindi  on ad  hoc\t basis\twith<br \/>\neffect from March 1, 1976 by the Committee of Management and<br \/>\nthis action  of the  Committee of  Management  received\t the<br \/>\napproval of  the District Inspector of Schools on October 5,<br \/>\n1976. On November 20, 1976 the District Inspector of Schools<br \/>\nagain  made  an\t order\tpromoting  both\t the  appellant\t and<br \/>\nRespondent  No.\t  1  as\t  Lecturers  in\t  Civics  and  Hindi<br \/>\nrespectively. The  promotions, referred\t to above,  had been<br \/>\nmade on\t an  ad\t hoc  basis.  Likewise\ta  large  number  of<br \/>\nteachers, who  were working  in the educational institutions<br \/>\nwhich  were  governed  by  the\tUttar  Pradesh\tIntermediate<br \/>\nEducation Act,\t1921 (hereinafter  referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;)<br \/>\nhad been  appointed or\tpromoted on  an ad hoc basis and the<br \/>\nquestion of  regularisation of\ttheir services\twas engaging<br \/>\nthe attention  of the  State Government\t during the relevant<br \/>\ntime.  As  a  consequence  of  the  decision  of  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment an ordinance entitled the Uttar Pradesh Education<br \/>\nLaws Amendment\tOrdinance, 1977\t (U.P. Ordinance  No.  5  of<br \/>\n1977) was pro<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1052<\/span><br \/>\nmulgated on  April 21,\t1977. By  the said Ordinance a large<br \/>\nnumber of  provisions in  four of  the laws  in force in the<br \/>\nState of  Uttar Pradesh\t concerning education  were amended.<br \/>\nOne of\tthe laws which was amended by the said Ordinance was<br \/>\nthe Act.  By the  Ordinance a new provision, namely, section<br \/>\n16GG was introduced into the Act. The Ordinance was replaced<br \/>\nby the\tUttar Pradesh  Education Laws  Amendment Act,  1977.<br \/>\nSection 16GG,  which was  introduced into  the\tAct  by\t the<br \/>\nOrdinance, was\tallowed to  remain in operation by the Uttar<br \/>\nPradesh Education  Laws Amendment  Act, 1977.  The  relevant<br \/>\npart of section 16GG of the Act reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;16GG, Regularization\t of appointment\t of  ad\t hoc<br \/>\n\t  teachers-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in<br \/>\n\t  Sections 16E,\t 16F and  16FF every  teacher of  an<br \/>\n\t  institution appointed\t between August 18, 1975 and<br \/>\n\t  September 30,\t 1976 (both  dates inclusive)  on ad<br \/>\n\t  hoc basis  against a\tclear vacancy and possessing<br \/>\n\t  prescribed qualifications  or having been exempted<br \/>\n\t  from such  qualifications in\taccordance with\t the<br \/>\n\t  provisions of\t this Act,  shall, with\t effect from<br \/>\n\t  the date  of\tcommencement  of  this\tSection,  be<br \/>\n\t  deemed to  have been\tappointed in  a\t substantive<br \/>\n\t  capacity,   provided\t such\tteacher\t  has\tbeen<br \/>\n\t  continuously serving the institution from the date<br \/>\n\t  of his  appointment up to the commencement of this<br \/>\n\t  section.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (2)  Every   teacher  deemed   to  have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t  appointed in\ta substantive  capacity\t under\tsub-<br \/>\n\t  section (1)  shall be\t deemed to  be on  probation<br \/>\n\t  from the date of commencement of this section.<br \/>\n\t  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t (underlining by us)<br \/>\n     Section 16GG  of the  Act, which  is reproduced  above,<br \/>\nprovided that notwithstanding anything contained in sections<br \/>\n16E, 16F and 16FF, every teacher of an institution appointed<br \/>\nbetween August\t18, 1975  and September 30, 1976 (both dates<br \/>\ninclusive) on  ad hoc  basis against  a\t clear\tvacancy\t and<br \/>\npossessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted<br \/>\nfrom such  qualifications in  accordance with the provisions<br \/>\nof  the\t  Act,\tshould,\t  with\teffect\t from  the  date  of<br \/>\ncommencement of\t the said  section, be\tdeemed to  have been<br \/>\nappointed in  a substantive  capacity, provided such teacher<br \/>\nhas been  continuously serving the institution from the date<br \/>\nof his appointment up to the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1053<\/span><br \/>\ncommencement of the said section. Sub-section (2) of section<br \/>\n16GG of\t the Act  provided that every teacher deemed to have<br \/>\nbeen appointed\tin a  substantive capacity under sub-section<br \/>\n(1) should  be deemed  to be  on probation  from the date of<br \/>\ncommencement of the section.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The services  of the  appellant and the 1st respondent,<br \/>\nwho were  working as  teachers on  ad hoc  basis during\t the<br \/>\nrelevant period,  also came  to be  regularised by virtue of<br \/>\nsection 16GG  of the  Act.  After  their  services  were  so<br \/>\nregularised dispute  arose regarding  the seniority  between<br \/>\nthem. The question of seniority between two or more teachers<br \/>\nworking in an institution governed by the Act is governed by<br \/>\nregulation 3 in Chapter II of the Regulations made under the<br \/>\nAct, the relevant part of which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;3(1).  The\tCommittee  of  Management  of  every<br \/>\n\t  institution  shall   cause  a\t seniority  list  of<br \/>\n\t  teachers to  be prepared  in accordance  with\t the<br \/>\n\t  following provisions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (a) The\tseniority  list\t shall\tbe  prepared<br \/>\n\t  separately for  each\tgrade  of  teachers  whether<br \/>\n\t  permanent or temporary, on any substantive post;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be<br \/>\n\t  determined  on  the  basis  of  their\t substantive<br \/>\n\t  appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers<br \/>\n\t  were so  appointed on\t the  same  date,  seniority<br \/>\n\t  shall\t be   determined  on   the  basis   of\tage;<br \/>\n\t  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; &#8220;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     While the\t1st respondent\tclaimed seniority  over\t the<br \/>\nappellant on  the basis of his appointment or promotion made<br \/>\non March  1, 1976, the appellant claimed that he being older<br \/>\nthan the 1st respondent was entitled to be treated as senior<br \/>\nto the 1st respondent by virtue of the second part of clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) of\tregulation 3(1)\t of the Regulations framed under the<br \/>\nAct which  provided that  if two  or more  teachers were  so<br \/>\nappointed on  the same\tdate, seniority should be determined<br \/>\non the basis of age.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The above\tdispute regarding  the seniority between the<br \/>\nappellant and the 1st respondent was first considered by the<br \/>\nDistrict Inspector of Schools, Ballia. After considering the<br \/>\nhistory of  the services of these two teachers, the District<br \/>\nInspector  of  Schools\tcame  to  the  conclusion  that\t the<br \/>\nfortuitous appointment or promotion of the 1st respondent on<br \/>\n1.3.1976 could\tnot have  any  effect  on  the\tquestion  of<br \/>\nseniority bet-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1054<\/span><\/p>\n<p>ween the  appellant  and  the  1st  respondent.\t He  further<br \/>\nobserved that  the promotions  of the  appellant and the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent had\tactually been  made as\tper his letter dated<br \/>\nNovember 20, 1976 which read as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t\t     &#8220;Office of the District<br \/>\n\t\t\t\tInspector of Schools, Ballia<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t    Order No. 15993-94\/76\/76<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t      Date 20.11.76.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t\t    PROMOTION<br \/>\n\t       Following Assistant  Teachers of\t L.T.  Grade<br \/>\n\t  are promoted\tto the Lecturer&#8217;s Grade on the posts<br \/>\n\t  mentioned against  their  names.  Promotions\thave<br \/>\n\t  been\tmade   under  Para   5\tof  Regulations\t No.<br \/>\n\t  Secondary\/5183\/15\/7\/76\/2(18)75    Lucknow    date.<br \/>\n\t  7.7.76 made  for the appointment of Principals for<br \/>\n\t  Govt. aided Private Secondary Schools.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>____________________________________________________________<br \/>\nSl    Teacher&#8217;s\t    Pay\t  PromotionPost\t     Remarks<br \/>\nNo.   Name\t    Scale in the   Lecturer<br \/>\n\t\t\t  pay scale<br \/>\n____________________________________________________________\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Sh. Nath\t    L.T.  Rs.400-750Lecturer\t On the post<br \/>\n      Saran Singh   Rs.300-550\t    Hindi   vacated by Order<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t       No. Ordinance<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t1849\/651 dt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t       7.2.76 issued<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t by Director<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t       of Education,<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       U.P.,<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   Allahabad\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    Sh. Sudama    L.T.  Rs.400-750Lecturer<br \/>\n      Singh\t    Rs.300-550\t    Civics<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t       Sd\/-Illegible<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t     Tulsi Ram Jatar<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t     D.I.O.S.Ballia&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     He further\t observed that\tsince the  appellant and the<br \/>\n1st  respondent\t  had  been  accepted  &#8216;to  be\tpromoted  in<br \/>\nsubstantive capacity  vide letter dated 20.11.1976 issued by<br \/>\nthe District Inspector of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1055<\/span><br \/>\nSchools, i.e.,\ton the\tsame date  and since  the appellant,<br \/>\nwhose date  of birth  was 1.4.1937 was older than Respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1,\twhose date  of birth  was  1.7.1942,  the  appellant<br \/>\nshould be  considered as  senior to  the 1st  respondent  by<br \/>\nvirtue of  the second  sentence in  clause (b) of regulation<br \/>\n3(1) of\t the Regulations  made\tunder  the  Act.  The  above<br \/>\ndecision of  the District  Inspector of Schools was conveyed<br \/>\nto  the\t parties  by  his  Letter  No.\t2858-60\/85-86  dated<br \/>\n13.6.1985.  Aggrieved\tby  the\t decision  of  the  District<br \/>\nInspector of  Schools,\tthe  1st  respondent  filed  a\twrit<br \/>\npetition in  Civil Miscellaneous  Writ Petition\t No. 9895 of<br \/>\n1985 before  the High Court of Allahabad. The learned Judge,<br \/>\nwho heard  the writ  petition, allowed the writ petition and<br \/>\nset aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools and<br \/>\ndeclared that the 1st respondent was senior to the appellant<br \/>\non the\tground that  the 1st respondent had been promoted to<br \/>\nthe post  of Lecturer  on March\t 1, 1976 pursuant to certain<br \/>\norders which  had  been\t issued\t under\tthe  Act  and  which<br \/>\ncontinued to be in operation until section 16GG brought into<br \/>\nforce.\tThis  appeal  by  special  leave  is  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant against the decision of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  not disputed  that until section 16GG of the Act<br \/>\ncame into  effect the  appellant and the 1st respondent were<br \/>\nboth functioning  on an\t ad hoc basis as teachers and it was<br \/>\nonly by\t virtue of section 16GG of the Act that they came to<br \/>\nbe appointed  as teachers  in substantive  capacity. Section<br \/>\n16GG of the Act came into effect from 21.4.1977. It provided<br \/>\nthat the  teachers who\twere working  on  an  ad  hoc  basis<br \/>\nbetween August\t18, 1975  and September 30, 1976 (both dates<br \/>\ninclusive) against clear vacancies and possessing prescribed<br \/>\nqualifications\tshould\t &#8216;with\teffect\t from  the  date  of<br \/>\ncommencement  of  this\tsection&#8217;  be  deemed  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nappointed in  a substantive  capacity provided\tsuch teacher<br \/>\nhad been  continuously serving the institution from the date<br \/>\nof his\tappointment upto  the commencement  of this section.<br \/>\nThere is  no dispute  that both\t the appellant\tand the\t 1st<br \/>\nrespondent satisfied  the conditions  prescribed by  section<br \/>\n16GG of\t the Act  for regularising  their appointment  in  a<br \/>\nsubstantive capacity  but what\tis crucial  for purposes  of<br \/>\nthis case  is the  date from which the appellant and the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent should  be deemed  to be holding their posts in a<br \/>\nsubstantive capacity.  Section 16GG  of the Act clearly lays<br \/>\ndown that  any teacher whose services are regularised should<br \/>\nbe deemed  to have  been appointed in a substantive capacity<br \/>\nwith effect  from the  date  of\t the  commencement  of\tthat<br \/>\nsection. It  does not say that the services of such teachers<br \/>\nshould be  deemed to  have been regularised with effect from<br \/>\nthe date  from which  they were\t continuously officiating in<br \/>\nthe posts  in question.\t The date  of  commencement  of\t the<br \/>\nsection in the instant case being 21.4.1977 it<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1056<\/span><br \/>\nshould\tbe   held  that\t both  the  appellant  and  the\t 1st<br \/>\nrespondent, who\t were by then holding the posts of Lecturers<br \/>\non an  ad hoc basis were appointed in a substantive capacity<br \/>\nof the same date, i.e., 21.4.1977. The High Court omitted to<br \/>\nconsider the  effect of the words &#8216;with effect from the date<br \/>\nof the\tcommencement of\t this section&#8217; in sub-section (1) of<br \/>\nsection 16GG  of the  Act and  also sub-section\t (2) of that<br \/>\nsection which  provided that  every teacher  deemed to\thave<br \/>\nbeen appointed\tin a  substantive capacity under sub-section<br \/>\n(1) should be deemed to be on probation from the date of the<br \/>\ncommencement of\t the section.  On the  question of seniority<br \/>\nbetween the  appellant and  the 1st respondent clause (b) of<br \/>\nregulation 3(1)\t of the\t Regulations made  under the Act, as<br \/>\nalready stated, provides that the seniority of teachers in a<br \/>\ngrade shall  be determined on the basis of their substantive<br \/>\nappointment in\tthat grade  and if two or more teachers were<br \/>\nso appointed on the same date seniority should be determined<br \/>\non the\tbasis of  age. Since  it is  admitted that  both the<br \/>\nappellant and  the 1st\trespondent had\tbeen appointed\tin a<br \/>\nsubstantive capacity  by virtue\t of section  16GG of the Act<br \/>\nthey must  be deemed to be holding their respective posts in<br \/>\nthe substantive\t capacity only\tfrom 21.4.1977 on which date<br \/>\nsection 16GG of the Act came into force. Both of them should<br \/>\nbe deemed  to be  on probation\tfrom 21.4.1977 [Vide section<br \/>\n16GG(2)]. Any  earlier appointment or promotion on an ad hoc<br \/>\nbasis has  no bearing  on the  question\t of  seniority.\t The<br \/>\nappellant and  the 1st\trespondent should  be deemed to have<br \/>\nbeen appointed\ton a  substantive basis on the same date for<br \/>\npurpose of  seniority and,  therefore, the appellant, who is<br \/>\nolder than  the 1st  respondent, should be treated as senior<br \/>\nto the\t1st respondent\tby reason  of the second sentence in<br \/>\nclause (b)  of regulation  3(1) of  the\t Regulations  framed<br \/>\nunder the  Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the High<br \/>\nCourt erred  in declaring that the 1st respondent was senior<br \/>\nto the appellant on the basis of the fortuitous promotion of<br \/>\nthe 1st\t respondent said to have been made on March 1, 1976.<br \/>\nThe Judgment  of the  High Court is, therefore, liable to be<br \/>\nset aside  and the  decision of\t the District  Inspector  of<br \/>\nSchools has to be restored.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment<br \/>\nof the\tHigh Court and make a declaration that the appellant<br \/>\nis senior  to the  1st respondent. The appeal is accordingly<br \/>\ndisposed of. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1057<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 84, 1988 SCR (1)1049 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: SUDAMA SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: NATH SARAN SINGH &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/11\/1987 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J) [&hellip;]<\/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-45944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-28T12:21:30+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T12:21:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2096,\"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\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987\",\"name\":\"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T12:21:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-28T12:21:30+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987","datePublished":"1987-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T12:21:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987"},"wordCount":2096,"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\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987","name":"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T12:21:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudama-singh-vs-nath-saran-singh-ors-on-13-november-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudama Singh vs Nath Saran Singh &amp; Ors on 13 November, 1987"}]},{"@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\/45944","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=45944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}