{"id":97311,"date":"1991-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991"},"modified":"2017-01-27T11:27:56","modified_gmt":"2017-01-27T05:57:56","slug":"m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991","title":{"rendered":"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 410, \t\t 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 599<\/div>\n
Author: Ahmadi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM .B. HIREGOUDAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/10\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  410\t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 599\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (2) 491 JT 1991 (4)\t329\n 1991 SCALE  (2)951\n\n\nACT:\n    Karnataka  Civil  Services\t(Classification,  Control  &\nAppeal) Rules, 1957: Rules 5 and 7- Schedule II- Column 2.\n    Junior Engineers---Assistant  Engineers--Inter--seniori-\nty--Selection  of  Junior Engineer by State  Public  Service\nCommission in the absence of Recruitment  Rules--Appointment\nby  Director  Recruitment Rules framed\tsubsequently--Period\nfrom  the date of appointment to framing of  rules  reckoned\nfor  the purposes of seniority--Appointment of Junior  Engi-\nneers by Director held valid.\n    Karnataka State Government's Memorandum dated 5th  July,\n1976--Guidelines  for regularisation of\t irregular  appoint-\nments--Applicability of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant, a Rigman in the Department of Mines\t and\nGeology,  State of Karnataka, was initially appointed  as  a\nlocal candidate on the newly created post of Junior Engineer\n(Mechanical).  Later he was regularly selected by the  State\nPublic Service Commission and appointed on the said post  on\n4.5.1970 by the Director and was confirmed on the said\tpost\non 29.9.1972. On 16.12.1974, he, alongwith respondents No. 3\nto  7, who were drillers in the Department was\tpromoted  as\nAssistant  Drilling Engineer and was shown senior  to  them.\nHowever,  in the revised provisional seniority list as\twell\nas  in\tthe  final seniority list, he was  shown  junior  to\nrespondents  No. 3 to 7 in the cadre of\t Assistant  Drilling\nEngineer.\n      The  appellant filed an application before  the  State\nAdministrative\tTribunal  challenging  the  seniority  lists\nwhich  was rejected holding (i) the appellant's\t appointment\nas Junior Engineer was irregular because it was not support-\ned  by\tRecruitment Rules and the Director was not  the\t ap-\npointing  authority;  (ii) since the appellant had  not\t ac-\nquired\tthree years experience as regular incumbent  he\t was\nnot   qualified\t to  be\t promoted  as\tAssistant   Drilling\nEngineer;, his regular employment could only be related from\nthe  date of framing of the Recruitment Rules.\tAccordingly,\nthe  Tribunal  held that appellant's service from  4th\tMay,\n1970 to 23rd August, 1973 could not be taken into considera-\ntion for reckoning his seniority and  hence he was junior to\nRespondents No3 to 7.\n599\n600\n       The appellant filed an appeal in this Court challeng-\ning the Tribunal's order contending that (i) in view of\t his\nrecruitment as a regular employe on selection by the Service\nCommission  his employment was regular in nature;  (ii)\t the\npost  to which he was appointed was regularly  created\tpost\nand  was  higher than that of respondents  even\t during\t the\nperiod\tthere existed recruitment rules; in any\t case  after\nhis confirmation it was not open to the Tribunal to hold his\nappointment irregular;, and (iii) in view of the  guidelines\nissued\tby the State Government, under which  irregular\t ap-\npointments  were  regularised,\teven if it  is\tassumed\t his\ninitial\t appointment  was  irregular it has  to\t be  treated\nregular throughout.\n      Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the\nTribunal this Court:\n    HELD  :1.  Rule  7(2) of the  Karnataka  Civil  Services\n(Classification,  Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1957  read\twith\ncolumn\t2  of  Schedule 11 thereto clearly  shows  that\t the\nDirector  is the appointing authority for Junior  Engineers.\nThe  appellant was found qualified and was duly selected  by\nthe Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior  Engi-\nneer in 1970. He worked on the post uninterruptedly till  he\nwas  promoted to the next higher post of Assistant  Drilling\nEngineer alongwith the respondents No. 3 to 7. The  Tribunal\nwas,  therefore, not right in holding that  the\t appointment\nmade  was  irregular and that the Director was not  the\t ap-\npointing  authority  for Junior Engineers.  Accordingly\t his\nexperience in the post of Junior Engineer from 1970 till his\npromotion  to  the next higher post could  not\tbe  ignored.\n[605-F, 604-G, 607-H, 608-A]\n    2.\tSince  the posts existed on  the  establishment\t and\nselection  for\tappointment  was made by  the  State  Public\nService\t Commission and the Director was competent  to\tmake\nthe  appointment,  it  cannot be said that  the\t absence  of\nrecruitment rules made the appointment illegal or irregular.\nMoreover, the irregular appointments were regularised by the\nGovernment Memorandum dated 5th July, 1976. [606 B-C]\n    3. The appellant's seniority which had stabilised over a\nperiod\tof  time  and on the basis whereof  he\twas  granted\npromotions  by\tthe  Government could not  be  disturbed  by\ndoubting the regularity of the initial appointment after  so\nmany years. It was not as if he had gained experience as  an\nad  hoc employee in a stop-gap arrangement that his  experi-\nence  as a Junior Engineer could be  overlooked.  Therefore,\nhis\n601\nseniority  in the promotion post could not be upset  on\t the\nground\tthat  he did not possess the  requisite\t experience.\n[607 B-C]\n     Direct  Recruit Class H Engineering Officers'  Associa-\ntion  v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1990] 2 SCC 715,\tfol-\nlowed.\n    4. The appellant's seniority over respondents No. 3 to 7\nshall  be  restored and he shall be shown to  be  senior  to\nthem. [608-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4375 OF
\n1991.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.1990 of the Karna-
\ntaka  Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application\t No.
\n2564 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
    M.K.  Ramamurthy, S. Ravindra, K.V. Mohan and S.R.\tBhat
\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Raju  Ramachandran,\t M.  Veerappa and  Kh.\tNobin  Singh
\n(N.P.) for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nAHMADI, J. Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    The controversy which we are required to resolve in this
\nappeal by special leave is regarding the appellant’s senior-
\nity vis-a-vis respondents Nos.3 to 7. The factual background
\nwhich has given rise to this controversy, briefly stated, is
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe year 1966 posts of Junior Engineer\t(Mechanical)
\nwere created in the Department of Mines and Geology  (Ground
\nWater Surveys and Drilling Unit) of the State of  Karnataka.
\nThe appellant who was then working as a Rigman in the Drill-
\ning  Unit  of the Department was appointed  Junior  Engineer
\n(Mechanical)  in  the scale of Rs. 200 – 375 on one  of\t the
\nsaid posts by an order dated 14th August, 1967 issued by the
\nDirector  of the department. Subsequently, he was  regularly
\nrecruited through the State Public Service Commission in the
\nsaid  post  w.e.f. 4th May, 1970. However, even\t though\t the
\nDirector  had  requested the State Government to  frame\t Re-
\ncruitment Rules for the newly created post immediately after
\nits creation, the Recruitment Rules were not finalised\ttill
\nthe issuance of a Notification dated 26th June, 1973. Before
\nthe  appellant\twas regularly recruited\t through  the  State
\nPublic Service Commission in the year 1970 the Director\t had
\napprised the Government of the action which he proposed to
\n602<\/span>
\ntake  to fill up the post. The appointment order was  issued
\nafter the Public Service Commission had advertised the\tpost
\nand had selected persons for appointment to the said  posts.
\nThe  appellant was initially appointed on probation for\t one
\nyear  and  on his satisfactorily  completing  the  probation
\nperiod\the was continued in service and was later  confirmed
\nin  the said post by an order dated 13th June,\t1974  w.e.f.
\n29th September, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
    Respondents\t Nos. 3 to 7 entered service as Drillers  in
\n1964-65. The appellant and the respondents Nos. 3 to 7\twere
\npromoted  as Assistant Drilling Engineers by the  Director’s
\norder\tdated\t16th  December,\t 1974.\tThe   Office   Order
\nNo.676\/74-75  shows that the appellant and one another\twere
\nworking\t as  Junior Engineers at the relevant  time  whereas
\nrespondents  Nos.  3 to 7 were working\tas  Drillers  before
\ntheir promotions as Assistant Drilling Engineers. The  State
\nGovernment  did\t not  approve of the  Director’s  action  in
\npromoting  the appellant since he was a local candidate\t and
\ndirected  that\the be reverted. However, no  such  reversion
\ntook  place.  The  State Government also did  not  take\t any
\nfurther\t action. The appellant was shown senior to  respond-
\nents  Nos.  3 to 7 in the said cadre of\t Assistant  Drilling
\nEngineers.  The appellant was subsequently promoted  by\t the
\nState  Government to the next higher post of Drilling  Engi-
\nneer in 1980 and further as Chief Drilling Engineer in\t1984
\nwhich  post  he was holding at the date when  his  seniority
\ncame  to  be disturbed. The appellant was  throughout  shown
\nsenior\tto respondents Nos. 3 to 7 till the  revised  provi-
\nsional\tseniority list in regard to the cadre  of  Assistant
\nDrilling  Engineers  was published on 31st  December,  1987.
\nSince objections were invited the appellant objected to\t his
\nbeing  shown  junior  to respondents Nos.3 to 7\t but  to  no
\navail. Even in the final seniority list dated 4th May,\t1989
\nhe was shown junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7.\t Respondents
\nNos.3  to  7 were shown in both the  provisional  and  final
\nseniority  list at Serial Nos.1 to 5 whereas  the  appellant
\nwas  shown at Serial No.6.  Thus, for the first time,  since
\nhis  regular  appointment  in the year 1970,  he  was  shown
\njunior\tto  respondents Nos. 3 to 7  under  the\t provisional
\nseniority  list issued in 1987 and the final seniority\tsen-
\niority list issued in 1989. The appellant, therefore,  chal-
\nlenged\tthe provisional seniority list as well as the  final
\nseniority list by an Application No. 2564 of 1989  preferred
\nto  the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The\tTribunal  by
\nits order dated 3rd September, 1990 rejected his application
\nholding\t that  his initial entry into service  as  a  Junior
\nEngineer was itself irregular and since he did not have\t the
\nrequisite  experience of three years as a regular  incumbent
\nhe was not qualified to be promoted to the next higher\tpost
\nof  Assistant Drilling Engineer because his regular  employ-
\nment  could only be related from the date of framing of\t the
\nRecruitment Rules for the adre which came to be notified  on
\n23rd August, 1973. In this view of
\n603<\/span>
\nthe matter, the Tribunal held that the service of the appel-
\nlant  from 4th May, 1970 to 23rd August, 1973 could  not  be
\ntaken into consideration for the purpose of determining\t his
\ninter-se  seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 to  7.\t The
\nappellant feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his applica-
\ntion,  has  approached this Court under Article 136  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant contends that the order of  the  Tribunal
\nsuffers\t from  a number of fallacies, namely,  firstly,\t the
\nTribunal  has failed to realise that the appellant  was\t re-
\ncruited\t as  a regular employee on selection  by  the  State
\nPublic\tService\t Commission  pursuant  to  an  advertisement
\nissued\tin this behalf and, therefore, the  appellant’s\t em-
\nployment was regular in nature and not that of a mere  local
\ncandidate; secondly, the post to which he was appointed\t was
\na  regularly  created  post and was a higher  than  that  of
\nrespondents Nos. 3 to 7 even during the period there existed
\nno recruitment rules and in any case after his\tconfirmation
\nw.e.f. 29th September, 1972 it was not open to the  Tribunal
\nto hold that his appointment was irregular and thirdly,\t the
\nTribunal  had erred in overlooking the guideline  issued  by
\nthe  state Government on 5th July, 1976\t which\tspecifically
\nprovided  that ‘all appointments made by the  Government  or
\nunder  specific\t authority of Government  either  by  direct
\nrecruitment  or\t by promotion or on or after  1st  November,
\n1956  but prior to the commencement of the  Rules  regarding
\nrecruitment  to such cadres may be treated as regular’.\t The
\nappellant  contends  that  in pursuance\t of  this  guideline
\nissued\tby the State Government even if it is  assumed\tthat
\nhis  initial appointment was irregular it had to be  treated
\nas  regular throughout. The appellant,\ttherefore,  contends
\nthat  the Tribunal’s order suffers from certain\t patent\t in-
\nfirmities  and\tdeserves to be set aside.  It  appears\tthat
\nbefore the Tribunal respondents Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 did not
\nfile  any counter challenging the appellant’s claim to\tsen-
\niority\tbut  respondents Nos. 3 and 5 contested\t the  appel-
\nlant’s\tclaim  while the State Government  avoided  entering
\ninto the arena by filing a counter but instead presented the
\nrelevant files to the Tribunal. So far as respondents Nos. 3
\nand 5 are concerned, they supported the action taken by\t the
\nstate Government in preparing both the impugued\t provisional
\nas  well as the final seniority lists. They  contended\tthat
\nsince  they were regular employees and had  entered  service
\nbefore\tthe appellant and were promoted to the post  of\t As-
\nsistant\t Drilling  Engineers along with the  appellant\tthey
\nwere  clearly senior to’the appellant and the State  Govern-
\nment  was,  therefore, justified in showing them  at  Serial
\nNos.1 to 5 and the appellant at Serial No. 6 in the seniori-
\nty list. They, therefore, contend that this
\n604<\/span>
\nappeal is without substance and needs to be dismissed.
\n    We have heard counsel for the rival contestants. Counsel
\nof the State Government submitted that they had prepared the
\nseniority list for reasons already stated but they would not
\nlike  to take sides and would abide by the decision of\tthis
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
    In order to appreciate the controversy, it is  necessary
\nto  refer to the Karnataka Civil  Services  (Classification,
\nControl\t and Appeal) Rules, 1957. According to Rule  5,\t the
\nCivil Services of the State of Karnataka are classified into
\nClass I, Class II, Class II and Class IV posts. Class I\t and
\nClass  II are gazetted Posts whereas Class III and Class  IV
\nconsist of non-gazetted Posts. So far as Class III posts are
\nconcerned  the initial appointments have to be made  by\t the
\nauthorities mentioned in Column 2 of Schedule II appended to
\nthe  Rules. In regard to the posts of Junior  Engineers\t the
\nlind  Schedule makes the Director the Appointing  Authority.
\nThere can, therefore, be no doubt that the initial  appoint-
\nment  of  the  appellant was by an  authority  competent  to
\nappoint. It is indeed true that at the time when the  appel-
\nlant was selected by the State Public Service Commission and
\nappointed as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 4th May, 1970 there were
\nno  specific Recruitment Rules in existence for the post  in
\nquestion. As stated earlier, the posts were created for\t the
\nfirst  time in 1966 and since then the Director had been  in
\ncorrespondence with the State Government for framing of\t the
\nRecruitment Rules for the said posts. Since the\t Recruitment
\nrules  were not framed for one reason or the other, in\t1969
\nthe  Director  wrote a letter to the  State  Public  Service
\nCommission to advertise the vacancies and select  candidates
\nfor appointment. Simultaneously, he wrote a letter informing
\nthe State Government of the action taken by him in  request-
\ning  the  State Public Service Commission to  advertise\t the
\nposts and select candidates for appointment. Pursuant to the
\nrequisition  sent by him the Commission selected  candidates
\nand forwarded the list to the Director who was the  Appoint-
\ning Authority under the Karnataka Civil Service (Classifica-
\ntion, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Director who\t was
\ncompetent to make the appointment by virtue of Rule 7 issued
\na letter of appointment dated 24th April, 1970 whereapon the
\nappellant  took charge w.e.f. 4th May, 1970. It,  therefore,
\nbecomes\t apparent  that\t the posts  were  regularly  created
\nsometime in 1966 and the appellant was duly selected by\t the
\nState Public Service Commission and appointed to the post in
\nquestion in 1970. The appellant being an engineering  gradu-
\nate was qualified for appointment to post in question.
\n    The\t state Government’s approach while sliding down\t the
\nappellant in seniority vis-a-vis the respondents Nos. 3 to 7
\nmay be briefly noticed.\n<\/p>\n
605<\/span><\/p>\n
After  the recruitment rules for Junior Engineers  (Mechani-
\ncal) were framed and brought into effect w.e.f. 23rd August,
\n1973,  it  was felt that the two posts of  Junior  Engineers
\nwere filled by direct recruitment contrary to the said rules
\nwhich provided a ratio of 50% by promotion from the cadre of
\nDrillers and 50% by direct recruitment. Since both the posts
\nwere  filled  by direct recruitment, it was felt  that\tthis
\nratio  was violated. The date of the  appellant’s  seniority
\nwas,  therefore, reckoned from 23rd August, 1973  and  since
\nthe appellant had not acquired experience of three years  he
\nwas  held ineligible  for promotion to the next higher\tpost
\nof  Assistant Drilling Engineer. His entry into\t the  promo-
\ntional post was, therefore, pushed down to 23rd August, 1976
\nand  accordingly respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were  placed  above
\nhim in the seniority list. The Tribunal concurred with\tthis
\napproach. The Tribunal held that the initial appointment  of
\nthe appellant as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) by the  Direc-
\ntor  was  not supported by any rules and  the  Director\t not
\nbeing  the appointing authority for the said posts in  1970,
\nthe  appellant’s appointment was not regular. Secondly,\t the
\nTribunal concurred with the Government that the\t appellant’s
\nentry into the cadre of Assistant Drilling Engineer must  be
\nassumed to be w.e.f. 23rd August, 1976 and hence respondents
\nnos. 3 to 7 were clearly senior to him. In short the  Tribu-
\nnal approved of the Government’s approach in
\n     With  respect  we find it difficult to approve  of\t the
\nsaid approach. As pointed out earlier, the posts were  sanc-
\ntioned\tin 1966. Initially the appellant was appointed as  a
\nlocal  candidate but later the Director requested the  State
\nPublic\tService Commission to advertise the said  two  posts
\nand  select  candidates for appointment to the\tsaid  posts.
\nPursuant  to the advertisement so issued the  appellant\t ap-
\nplied, was found qualified and was selected for appointment.
\nThe Director, therefore, made the appointment as he was\t the
\nappointing authority for Class III posts under the Karnataka
\nCivil  Services\t (Classification, Control &  Appeal)  Rules,
\n1957,  vide  Rule  7(2) read with Column 2  of\tSchedule  II
\nthereto.  That rule clearly shows that the Director  is\t the
\nappointing authority for Junior Engineers, a Class III post.
\nThe  Tribunal was, therefore, not right in holding that\t the
\nappointment made was irregular as it was not by the appoint-
\ning  authority. The Tribunal was wrong in holding  that\t the
\nDirector  was not the appointing authority for Junior  Engi-
\nneers.\tStrictly speaking, that was not the approach of\t the
\nGovernment. The Government held the appointment irregular as
\nin  its opinion it had exceeded the quota of 50% for  direct
\nrecruits.  This view is based on the premise that the  serv-
\nices must be regularised applying the 1973 Rules  retrospec-
\ntively. Here there are two fallacies, firstly the  appellant
\nbeing senior of the two direct recruits appointed as  Junior
\nEngineers, he would fill the slot for the one post which
\n606<\/span>
\nwent to direct recruits on the 50% quota and secondly it was
\nnot permissible to question the appointment made in 1970  in
\n1987 when in the intervening period none had challenged\t the
\nappellant’s appointment. The objection which the  Government
\nhad raised on his promotion to the next higher post was that
\nhe  was\t a local candidate and not a regular  appointee,  an
\nobjection which was not pursued presumably on realising that
\nhe  was\t selected  by the State\t Public\t Service  Commission
\nbefore appointment. Not only that the Government  acquiesced
\nin his appointment by promoting him to the next higher posts
\nin 1980 and 1984. Since the posts existed on the  establish-
\nment  and  selection for appointment was made by  the  State
\nPublic Service Commission and the Director was competent  to
\nmake the appointment, it cannot be said that the absence  of
\nrecruitment rules makes the appointment illegal or irregular
\nwhen  it is found that the appellant, a degree\tholder,\t was
\neligible  for appointment to the post. This is so  also\t be-
\ncause irregular appointments were regularised by the Govern-
\nment  Memorandum  dated 5th July, 1976,\t the  relevant\tpart
\nwhereof reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“3(a). All appointments made by Government or under specific
\nauthority  of Government either by direct recruitment or  by
\npromotion  on or after 1st November, 1956, but prior to\t the
\ncommencement of rules regulating recruitment to such  cadres
\nmay be treated as regular”.\n<\/p>\n
    This  was clarified by the subsequent letter dated\t17th
\nSeptember, 1977 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Para 3(a) states that all the appointments made by  Govern-
\nment  or  under specific authority of Government  either  by
\ndirect recruitment or by promotion on or after 1.11.1956 and
\nprior to the commencement of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules
\nof the concerned cadre may be treated as regular, that is to
\nsay,  the  action taken by Government  on  other  Appointing
\nauthorities in resorting either of the modes of\t recruitment
\nis  regular. This para does not say that the appointment  of
\nlocal candidates as a stop-gap arrangement is regular”.
\n    The\t Tribunal refused to place reliance on the above  on
\nthe erroneous ground that the Director was not the  appoint-
\ning authority and the appellant was a local candidate.\tOnce
\nboth  these are found to be erroneous there is no reason  to
\nbrush aside the said guidelines. It may also be\t appreciated
\nthat  the  services of local candidates in Class  III  cadre
\nwere  regularised  by Office Order No.177\/71-72\t dated\t31s1
\nAugust, 1971 and had the
\n607<\/span>
\nappellant  not\thave been appointed as a  regular  candidate
\nw.e.f. 4th May, 1970 his service would also have been  regu-
\nlarised as a local candidate.\n<\/p>\n
    From what we have discussed above it is obvious that the
\nentire approach of the State Government and the Tribunal was
\nerroneous.  Besides, the appellant was shown senior  to\t re-
\nspondents  Nos.\t 3  to 7 right from 1970 to  1987  when\t his
\nseniority came to be disturbed. During the said period of 17
\nyears all attempts to disturb his seniority had ‘failed.  No
\none  successfully  challenged it in Court.  The\t appellant’s
\nseniority which had stabilised over a period of time and  on
\nthe  basis whereof he was granted promotions by the  Govern-
\nment  could not be disturbed by doubting the. regularity  of
\nthe  initial appointment after so many years. It was not  as
\nif  he\thad  gained experience as an ad hoc  employee  in  a
\nstop-gap  arrangement that his experience as a Junior  Engi-
\nneer could be overlooked. We are, therefore, of the  opinion
\nthat his seniority in the promotion post could not be  upset
\non the ground that he did not possess the requisite  experi-
\nence till 23rd August, 1976.\n<\/p>\n
    In Direct Recruit Class H Engineering Officer’s Associa-
\ntion  v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, [1990] 2 SCC 715,\tthis
\nCourt held in paragraph 13 as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “The  principle for deciding inter se seniority  has  to
\nconform to the principles of equality spelt out by  Articles
\n14  and\t 16. If an appointment is made by  way\tof  stop-gap
\narrangement,  without  considering  the claims\tof  all\t the
\neligible  available persons and without following the  rules
\nof appointment, the experience on such appointment cannot be
\nequated with the experience of a regular appointee,  because
\nof the qualitative difference in the appointment. To  equate
\nthe two would be to treat two unequals as equal which  would
\nviolate the equality clause. But if the appointment is\tmade
\nafter considering the claims of all eligible candidates\t and
\nthe appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the
\nregularisation\tof his service in accordance with the  rules
\nmade  for  regular  substantive appointments,  there  is  no
\nreason\tto  exclude the officiating service for\t purpose  of
\nseniority. Same will be the position if the initial appoint-
\nment itself is made in accordance with the rules  applicable
\nto substantive appointments as in the present case. To\thold
\notherwise will be discriminatory and arbitrary”.
\n    In the present case also the appellant’s appointment was
\nmade in 1970 after all eligible candidates were\t interviewed
\nby  the\t State\tPublic Service Commission.  As\tpointed\t out
\nearlier,  the posts were borne on the establishment and\t the
\nDirector was the appointing authority who made the  appoint-
\nment  pursuant\tto the selection made by  the  State  Public
\nService Commission. The appellant worked on that post  unit-
\nerruptedly till he was
\n608<\/span>
\npromoted to the next higher post along with respondents Nos.
\n3  to 7. In these circumstances, his experience in the\tpost
\nof Junior Engineer (Mechanical) from 1970 till his promotion
\nto the next higher post could not be ignored. We are, there-
\nfore, of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Consti-
\ntution\tBench in the aforequoted paragraph applies with\t all
\nforce in the present case also.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result, we allow this appeal and set  aside\t the
\norder of the Tribunal. We hold that the appellant’s seniori-
\nty over respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as was obtaining before 31st
\nDecember,  1987\t when  the provisional\tseniority  list\t was
\npublished  shall  be restored and he shall be  shown  to  be
\nsenior to respondents Nos. 3 to 7 by correcting the impugned
\nfinal seniority list. The appeal is allowed accordingly with
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
T.N.A.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n\t\t\t      609<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 410, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 599 Author: Ahmadi Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J) PETITIONER: M .B. HIREGOUDAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/10\/1991 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (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-97311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991 - 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\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-27T05:57:56+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T05:57:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991\"},\"wordCount\":3185,\"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\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991\",\"name\":\"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T05:57:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991 - 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\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-27T05:57:56+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991","datePublished":"1991-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T05:57:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991"},"wordCount":3185,"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\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991","name":"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T05:57:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-b-hiregoudar-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-29-october-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M .B. Hiregoudar vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 29 October, 1991"}]},{"@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\/97311","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=97311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}