PETITIONER:
S. JAMALDEEN & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/1997
BENCH:
CJI, SUHAS C. SEN, B.N. KIRPAL
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
[With Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1997 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6584 of 1997 (CC No. 3647)]
JUDGEMENT SEN, J.
Leave granted.
The Tamil Nadu State subordinate judiciary originally consisted of two separate services, Tamil Nadu state Magisterial Service and Tamil Nadu judicial service. The Magisterial Service consisted of two categories. Subordinate Magistrates (later redesignated as Judicial Second Class Magistrates) and Additional First Class Magistrates (later redesignated as Judicial First Class Magistrates).
The Judicial Service also consisted of two categories, the Subordinate Judge and below the post of Subordinate Judge was the post of District Munsif.
The recruitment and promotions to the posts in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service was governed by Tamil Nadu State Judicial service Rules (here in after referred to as ’the Rules’) which came into force on 1.1.1955. Under these rules, recruitment to the post of Subordinate Judge was only by promotion from the post of District Munsif. The appointments to the post of District Munsif was by direct recruitment from the bar or by transfer from various posts in the State and Subordinate Services. There were as many as nine categories of posts which formed the feeder cadre for transfer to the post of District Munsif. Class 6 of feeder cadre comprised of Judicial Second Class Magistrates and Judicial First Class Magistrates in the Tamil Nadu State Magisterial Service.
In the Magisterial Service, appointment to the post of Judicial First Class Magistrates, was by promotion from the post of Judicial Second Class Magistrates or by transfer of service from Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I and appointment to the post of Judicial Second Class Magistrates was by direct recruitment from the bar and by transfer from various departments of the Government in the ratio of 6|4.
In the Judicial Service, the recruitment could be made only through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The names recommended by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1965 were exhausted in the year 1967. Thereafter the vacancies which arose were filled up by making temporary appointments by transfer from the eligible services and by direct recruitment from the bar on the recommendation of the High Court. This inflow of temporary appointments on transfer was one of the reasons for the backlog in fixing seniority, regularisation and consequent promotions of the respective officers. During the years 1960-74, nearly 110 Judicial Second Class Magistrates were appointed on transfer on purely temporary basis. Out of the said 110 Judicial Second Class Magistrates, only about 37 were regularised by G.O. No. 1924, Home Department dated 22.10.1975. In the year, 1982 about 80 Judicial Second Class Magistrates were appointed temporarily by direct recruitment from among the bar.
These facts have been recorded in the judgement under appeal and are not in dispute.
The Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu filed a Writ Petition No. 11604/81 and on 20.1.1982 orders of injunction were passed restraining the Government from regularising the services of all the temporary Second Class Magistrates. This had the effect of stalling the process of regularisation of temporary judicial officers. Two more writ petition were filed in the High Court (W.P. Nos. 3053 and 3294/1984). In these writ petitions, a direction was sought for filling up of all the vacancies in the posts of Magistrates and District Munsifs only in accordance with the Rules.
By an order dated 10.5.85, these writ petitions were allowed and directions were issued to regularise the appointments through the process of selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission within four months and to put an end to the temporary arrangement.
While these proceedings were going on in the Madras High Court, petitions were made in this Court in which this Court ordered transfer of proceedings pending in the Madras High Court and both the writ petitions filed in the Madras High Court and the writ appeals were disposed of by an order dated 5.8.1986 in which it was inter alia directed as under:
"We find from the record that the
High Court at a full Court meeting
held on 30th April, 1986, passed
the following resolution |
’Insofar as the suggestions made in
the letter of Mr. Govind
Swaminathan are concerned, the High
Court is agreeable only for
regularisation of such of the
Second Class as are found fit on a
proper scrutiny by a Committee of
Judges. This regularisation will
only be in the cadre of Judicial
Magistrates of the Second Class.
The High Court is not prepared to
accept the suggestion that Judicial
Magistrates of the Second Class who
are officiating either as Judicial
First Class Magistrates or as
District Munsifs should be
regularised as Judicial First Class
Magistrates or District Munsifs, as
the case may be. The regularisation
will be within the limits of the
ratio prescribed by the Recruitment
Rules. The Government be also
informed that such an arrangement
has been agreed to between the
Chief Minister and the High Court
will implement the same. The
Magistrates Association has given
to the Chief Justice in writing a
letter that they are prepared to
have the officers screened by a
committee of Judges and such of
those who are not found fit be sent
back.’
Since the arrangement set out in
this resolution is agreed to
between the Chief Justice and the
Chief Minister and the High Court
has agreed to implement the same,
we would direct that the class of
temporary Judicial Magistrates,
Second Class, shall be scrutinised
by a Committee consisting of two or
more learned Judges of the High
Court and after scrutiny and
assessment of their merits, ability
and integrity by the Committee, the
High Court will decide how many of
them should be regularised as
Judicial Magistrates, Second Class.
This regularisation will be within
the limits of the ratio prescribed
by the recruitment rules. The
seniority of those who are
regularised will be fixed by the
High Court in accordance with the
quota prescribed by the rules, in
other words, seniority will be
fixes with effect from the
respective dates on which each of
them would have been regularly
appointed, having regard to the
quota rule. The temporary Judicial
Magistrates, First Class or
District Munsifs even if they have
been promoted as such. They will,
however, be entitled to be
considered for promotion in
accordance with the rules
regulating promotions. They will
also be entitled to compete for the
posts of District Munsifs. We hope
and trust that the question of
regularisation will be taken up by
the High Court at an early date, so
that those who are to be
regularised, are assured of their
position."
A further order was passed by this Court on 14.11.1986 on application of some of the parties which was to the following effect:
"We directed by our order dated 5th
August, 1986 that the cases of
temporary Judicial Magistrates, 2nd
Class shall be scrutinised by a
Committee consisting of two or more
Judges of the High Court and after
scrutiny and assessment of their
merits, ability and integrity by
the Committee, the High Court will
decide how many of them should be
regularised as Judicial
Magistrates, 2nd Class. This
regularisation will be within the
limits of the ratio prescribed by
the recruitment rules. We also
directed that the temporary
Judicial Magistrates, 2nd Class,
will be regularised only in the
cadre of Judicial Magistrates, 2nd
Class and not as Judicial
Magistrates, 1st Class or District
Munsifs even if they have been
promoted as such and that they will
be entitled to be considered for
promotion to the post of District
Munsifs. We are informed by the
Registrar of the High Court that
the High Court has constituted a
Committee of three Judges for
scrutinising the cases of temporary
Judicial Magistrates, 2nd Class, as
provided in our order and that this
particular task is expected to be
completed within four months. Since
we have directed that the temporary
Judicial Magistrates, 2nd Class,
after scrutiny and assessment of
their merits, ability and integrity
etc. should be regularised within
the limits of the ratio prescribed
by the recruitment rules, it is
obvious that the regularisation of
temporary Judicial Magistrates, 2nd
Class who are found fit by the High
Court should be made in accordance
with the quota prescribed by the
recruitment rules and if they
cannot be regularised within their
quota in a particular year in which
they have been appointed, they
would have to be pushed down in
order that they may be absorbed
within their quota in the
subsequent years, if it is found
that out of the temporary Judicial
Officers, 2nd Class, who are found
fit, any of them cannot be
regularised within their quota by
31st March, 1987. (we are modifying
this date on the basis that the
High Court requires a period of
four months to complete the
scrutiny). We would suggest that
such temporary Judicial
Magistrates, 2nd Class, may be
continued on supernumerary posts to
be created by the State Government
and they may continue in such
supernumerary posts until such time
as they are absorbed within their
quota in the following years. But
on no account should the quota be
branched or violated in any manner
whatsoever."
Pursuant to the directions of this Court and the findings of the Screening Committee of the Madras High Court, the Government there upon regularised the temporary services of the Judicial Officers in question as Judicial Second Class Magistrates in two batches, vide G.O. Ms. No. 1053, Home dated 10.5.1988 and G.O. Ms. No. 1269, Home dated 2.6.1988, whereby 182 and 34 temporary Judicial Officers respectively were regularised.
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in order to fill up vacancies in the posts of District Munsifs, started the selection process and ordered the appointment of 56 District Munsifs on 21.9.1988. It was at this stage that the Government passed an order introducing an amendment to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules, providing for the manner of integration and fixation of inter se seniority of the members of the integrated service. The amendments wee to come into force with effect from 6.10.1988. At that time the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service consisted of three categories of District Munsifs -
(1) those who were regularly
appointed through the Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission on
26.3.1986 and 21.9.1988;
(2) those who were selected and
appointed by the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission from out of the
regularised Judicial Second Class
Magistrates; and
(3) those who became District
Munsifs on 6.10.1988 consequent
upon the principle of integration.
A Government Order G.O. Ms. No. 2196 was issued introducing several amendments to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules besides rescinding the Tamil Nadu State Magisterial Service Rules.
The validity of these amendments was challenged by a number of writ petitions before the Madras High Court. The challenge, in particular, was to the third proviso which was added to Rule 20 by clause 7 of the said Government Order. The said proviso fixed the principle of fixation of inter se seniority of judicial officers. Rule 20 as amended is as follows|-
"20. Seniority.- The seniority of a
person in the category of a service
shall, unless he has been reduced
to a lower rank as a punishment, be
determined by the rank assigned to
him in the list drawn by the Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission or
the appointing authority as the
case may be, subject to the rule of
reservation where it applies. The
date of commencement of his
probation shall be the date on
which he joins duty irrespective of
his seniority in the list. In the
case of member of category 2, such
date shall be the date on which the
approved candidate joins duty after
training.
Provided that the seniority of any
person in a service or post of the
merged territory of Pudukkottai,
who is absorbed in a service or
post under the Government of Tamil
Nadu shall be determined as
follows|-
(i) If he is absorbed in a post
similar to that which he was
formerly holding in the service of
the merged territory of
Pudukkottai, his seniority shall be
determined by the date from which
he was holding the former post
continuously.
(ii) If he is absorbed in a post of
higher scale of pay than that which
he was formerly holding in the
service, his seniority shall be
determined by the date on which he
joined the post under the
Government of Tamil Nadu.
(iii) If he is absorbed in a post
other than those specified in
clauses (i) and (ii), which does
not improve his cadre and scale of
pay in the service, his seniority
shall be determined on the basis of
merit:
Provided further that the seniority
in a category of the service of a
person who immediately before the
1st November, 1956, was serving in
connection with the affairs of the
former State of Travancore-Cochin
and who is allotted to the State of
Tamil Nadu for absorption in a
category of the service under the
Government of Tamil Nadu be
determined by the date from which
he was continuously holding a post
in the corresponding category in
the former State of Travancore-
Cochin; if the seniority of any
such person and that of any other
person in the said service or post
has to be determined with
reference to the same date, the
older of the two shall be deemed to
be senior.
Provided also that as on the date
of coming into force of this
proviso, all regular Judicial
Magistrates of the First Class
shall be placed according to their
existing seniority below the order
of seniority of the regular
Distinct Munsifs and below them all
permanent Judicial Magistrates of
the Second Class shall be placed
according to their existing
seniority and below them all the
Judicial Magistrates of Second
Class whose services have been
regularised before the 31st
January, 1976 shall be placed
according to their existing
seniority. All the Judicial Second
Class Magistrates whose services
have been regularised during the
year 1988 shall be placed below
those Judicial Second Class
Magistrates whose services were
regularised prior to 31.1.1976
according to their existing
seniority."
The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 5.10.1989. An appeal was preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal court held that the third proviso Rule 20 was valid, logical and reasonable. It further observed:-
"The mere fact that their services
may be regularised in respect of
some of them from such earlier
dates of their temporary
officiation under Rule 11(4) of the
Rules is an irrelevant and
extraneous consideration in so far
as fixation of inter se seniority
of the members of the service
forming the integrated service is
concerned. The inter se seniority
shall have to be determined only
by applying the principles
contained in the **** proviso to
Rule 20 of the Rules."
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Special Leave Petition (No. 10214/91) filed against the appellate order was dismissed by this Court on 5.12.94.
In the meantime, the Administrative Committee of the High Court comprising of the Chief Justice and two other learned Judges of the Madras High Court went into the question of fixing inter se seniority of District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrates and a provisional list was prepared which was circulated on 12.8.1994 and objections were invited to be filed on or before 24.8.1994. Subsequently, as requested by some of the Judicial Officers, the time for filing objections was extended till 12.9.1994. About 105 Judicial Officers submitted their objections/representations. These objections were placed before the Administrative Committee and duly taken into consideration. Ultimately, on 15.9.1994 the Administrative Committee after considering the various objections placed the recommendations before the Full Court on 23.9.1994. The following resolution was passed at the meeting of the Full Court:-
"It is resolved to overrule the
objections raised by some of the
officials and accept the seniority
list, as approved by the Committee,
subject to Thiru G. Mangapathy
being placed at S.No. 76, Thiru G.
Frederick Kanagaraj at S.No. 77,
Thiru G. Namasivayam at S.No. 78
and Thiru J.D. Joseph at S.No. 79
and also subject to the decision of
the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.
10214 of 1991.
It is further resolved that the
Registrar shall file an affidavit
in S.L.P. No. 10214 of 1991 and
produce the seniority list as
determined as per this resolution
following the judgement in W.A. No.
944 of 1989, which is subject
matter of S.L.P. No. 10214 of 1991
and also produce the Resolutions of
Administrative Committee No. III
and the gist of objections filed by
the District Munsifs, Which have
been overruled."
The aforesaid facts relating to the proceedings of the Administrative Committee about the finalisation of the seniority list and the decision of the Full Court was stated by the Registrar of the Madras High Court by way of an additional counter affidavit filed in the pending Special Leave Petition No. 10214 of 1991. A Notification dated 5.10.1994 was also issued fixing the seniority list. This was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 12.10.1994.
On 15.10.1994 a Writ petition No. 18121/94 was filed challenging the final list of seniority. On 19.10.1994 an interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petition, restraining the High Court from giving effect to the final list. Further Writ Petitions (nos. 18162 and 19938 of 1994) were filed on 22.10.1994. The entire group of Writ Petitions challenging the seniority list was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which quashed the seniority list fixed by the Administrative Committee and the Full Court of the High Court by its judgement and order dated 7.2.1995. The Division Bench was of the view that the points in issue were substantially concluded by the judgement in the earlier Writ Petitions. It has been pointed out by the appellants that the High Court was clearly in error in coming to that conclusion because in the earlier Writ Petitions Particularly two points were considered:-
(a) The proviso to Rule 20 of Tamil
Nadu State Judicial service Rules
is arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India as the
proviso is not based on the
principle that in determining
seniority, length of service in the
particular category alone should be
taken into account and those who
have been holding the post of
District Munsif for long period
should not be denied the benefit of
their service.
(b) That the temporary service
rendered by the appellants as
District Munsifs must be taken into
consideration for fixing their
inter se seniority as on 6.10.1988.
The Division Bench held that the power and authority of the employer to frame rules on seniority has to be recognised and the general principle of length of service in a particular grade is subject to specific rules and orders, if any, to the contrary. In the instant case, there were specific rules on the subject, namely, Rule 20 and the third proviso and the principle underlying the third proviso was necessitated to meet the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in the particular service in question and in the context of integration, there was nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the formula contained in the third proviso to Rule 20. Therefore, the third proviso to Rule 20 was validly framed.
Therefore, the principal issue in the earlier writ petition was the validity of the third proviso to Rule 20. The challenge to the validity of this third proviso was rejected by the Division Bench. But the dispute in this appeal is not about the validity of the third proviso to Rule 20 or any other rule governing the service conditions of the Judicial Officers. The question in this case is whether the rules were correctly understood and implemented by the Administrative Committee or the Full Court by issuing the seniority list. Any other observation which was not germane to the dispute raised before the Division bench could not be treated as res judicata between the parties.
Moreover, the earlier writ petition was by a few persons and all the affected persons were not parties to that writ petition. That apart these writ petitions were filed before fixation of the Seniority List by the Administrative Committee or the Full Court. What is now under challenge is this Seniority List. the question of validity of this Seniority List could not have been an issue in the earlier writ petitions. The High Court was not right in invoking the principle of res judicata in the facts of this case. The High Court also overlooked the scope and effect of Rules 2(b)(i), 2(10) and 2(9) of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules:-
"Rule 2 (b)(i). ’Appointed to the
service’
A person is to be appointed to the
service when in accordance with
these rules, he discharges for the
first time the duties of the post
borne on the cadre of the service
or commences the probation
prescribed for members thereof.
Rule 2(10). ’Member of the Service’
Member of the service means a
person who has been appointed to
the service and who has not
retired, or resigned, had been
removed or dismissed, been
substantively transferred to
another service or being discharged
other than for want of a vacancy.
He may be a probationer and
approved probationr or a full
member of the service.
Rule 2(9). ‘Full member’
Full member of the service means a
member of the service who has been
appointed substantively to a
permanent post borne on
the cadre thereof."
The 75 recruits in 1988 including Respondents 4 to 14 became members of the service only after 31.10.88, namely, when they started discharging the duties of the post for the first time. They could not claim seniority over the persons who were already members of the service. The fact that they started discharging their duties after 31.10.1988 is not disputed.
The resolution of the Administrative Committee which was adopted by the Full Court Correctly states the position in law as under:-
"The expression "appointed to the
Service" has been defined under
Rule 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu State
Judicial Service Rules, hereinafter
referred to as the Rules. According
to the said definition, a person is
said to be appointed to the service
when , in accordance with the
Rules, he discharges for the first
time the duties of the post borne
on the cadre of the service or
commences the probation prescribed
for the members thereof. It is from
this date only he becomes a "member
of the Service" as per the
definition of that expression
contained in Rule 2(10) of the
Rules. Therefore, either the date
of selection or the date of
appointment cannot be considered as
the date on which the appointee
discharges for the first time the
duties of the post to which he is
appointed . It is only pursuant to
the appointment, when the appointee
reports to duty he can be said to
have discharged his duties for the
first time on the date he reports
to duty and from that date only his
period of probation commences.
However, this will not affect the
inter-se-seniority of the officers
appointed under the same
notification "of the Public Service
Commission which make the
selection. We are not now concerned
with the inter-seseniority of the
candidates selected by the Public
Service Commission under its
notification dt. 21.9.1988, but we
are concerned with the
determination of the seniority
between District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrates who came to be
selected by the Public Service
Commission under its Notification
dt. 21.9.1988. The proviso to Rule
20 also does not give them
seniority over the District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrates who were
in service before their
appointment. It provides for
fixation of seniority as specified
below:-
(i) Regular District Munsifs.
(ii) Regular Judicial First Class
Magistrates.
(iii) Permanent Judicial Second
Class Magistrates.
(iv) Regularised Judicial Second
Class Magistrates whose
services have been regularised
before 31.1.1976.
(v) Regularised Judicial Second
Class Magistrates whose services
have been regularised in the year
1988.
Out of the 128 candidates selected
by the Public Service Commission
under its notification dated
21.9.88, 70 were recruited from the
Bar and 53 were those who were
already in Magisterial Service and
whose services came to be
integrated on 6.10.1988, and the
remaining 5 were selected by way of
transfer from other non-magisterial
services. Thus, out of the 128
candidates selected, 53 candidates
were already in service as Judicial
Second Class Magistrates and their
services came to be integrated in
the cadre of District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrates under the
order dated 6.10.1988. Thus, they
became District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrates on 6.10.1988 and
commenced to discharge their duties
as such from 6.10.1988, as per the
definition of the expression
"appointed to the Service",
referred to above. Consequently,
they have to be ranked above the
other 75 candidates selected by the
Public Service Commission under its
notification dated 21.9.1988 and
who joined the service for the
first time much later to 6.10.1988,
i.e., during November, 1988."
According to the petitioners before the High Court who are now the respondents in this appeal, the judgement of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court must be upheld. Their contention is that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission selected 128 candidates as per the ratio of 11:9 prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules 1955. Out of the 128, 70 were from the Bar and 58 were from Feeder categories, that is Judicial Magistrate I Class and II Class and Non Magisterial cadre. The selection list was published by notification dated 7.6.1988. The above selectees were appointed in G.O. Ms. 2064 Home dt. 21.9.1988. In this G.O. the State Government requested the High Court in para 9 to give posting orders to the persons appointed as District Munsifs working temporarily. Before issuing respective posting orders to the individuals who were appointed as District Munsifs in the substantive vacancies, on the recommendation of the High Court, Madras, the state Govt. issued G.O. Ms. 2196 Home dt. 6.10.1988, upgrading the posts of Judicial Second Class Magistrates to Judicial First Class Magistrates and integrating them with District Munsifs. This G.O. had amended the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules by introducing proviso 3 to Rule 20 providing for the fixation of inter-se-seniority between the regular District Munsifs and the upgraded Magistrates, who could not get selected as District Munsifs in the selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, below the Regular District Munsifs selected and appointed for the substantial vacancies in the year 1988.
On behalf of the appellants, it has been urged that prior to 6.10.1988 when Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules came into force by G.O.M. No. 1053 dated May 10,1988, 182 temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrates were regularised. Similarly by subsequent G.O.M. No. 1269 dated 2.6.1988 services of 34 temporary Judicial Second Class Magistrates were regularised. Although on 21.9.1988, the State Government approved a list of 125 candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of District Munsifs, they were not appointed as District Munsifs. All these direct recruits whose selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was approved by the State Government on 21.9.1988, actually joined service only on 3.11.1988 which was after the appellants had acquired the status of District Munsifs when on 6.10.1988 Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules were amended. Amongst them, 34 persons were already acting as District Munsifs on 6.10.1988 and the rest of them became District Munsifs by Virtue of integration brought into force on 6.10.1988. It has been submitted that under Rule 2(b) "Appointment to the service" is only when a person discharges for the first time the duties of the post borne on the cadre of the service and under Rule 2(10) "Member of the Service". It is thus clear that the direct recruits though selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissions for the post of District Munsif and approved by the state Government on 21.10.1988 were "appointed to the service" only on 3.11.1988 and at that point of time, all the appellants were already District Munsifs in view of the integration brought about by the amended Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules.
We are of the view that the contentions of the appellants must be upheld. The Division Bench took the view that the third proviso to Rule 20 has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of seniority, but in doing so overlooked Rule 2(b) and Rule 2(10). The question of res judicata cannot arise in this case because under the earlier writ petition, validity of proviso (3) to Rule 20 was under challenge was repelled by the earlier Division Bench, the Madras High Court took up the question of determination of seniority of the judicial officers in accordance with the rules. What was under challenge in the second batch of writ petitions was the determination of seniority by the Full Court. The language of Rules 2 (b) and 2 (10) is clear. The direct recruits were "appointed to service" only on 3.11.1988. It is only from this date that the direct recruits started discharging the duties for the first time. These direct recruits cannot be placed above the persons who were already discharging functions as District Munsifs on regular basis on and from 8.10.1988 when the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules were amended to bring about integration of the Services. 34 persons were already acting as District Munsifs even before 6.10.1988. There is nothing in Rule 20 or the third proviso thereto which takes away the seniority of the persons who were "appointed to the service" before 3.11.1988.
In the affidavit filed by the Registrar of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 17737 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 17738 of 1994, the principle followed by the Full Court in determining the seniority was explained which has been set out earlier in the judgment. The Seniority List was finalised after inviting objections, and making some amendments pursuant to the objections.
We are of the view that neither in principle nor in practice has the Full Court committed any error of law.
The appeals are allowed. The common judgment dated 7.2.1995 disposing of Writ Petitions Nos. 17737/94, 17738/94, 18121/94 of the High Court is set aside.
There will be no case as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2110 OF 1997 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 6584 OF 1995 (CC NO. 3647).] I.A. allowed.
Leave granted.
In view of our judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 2106-09 of 1997 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11111-11114 of 1995) the above appeal is also allowed. There will be no order as to costs.