SIYARAM SINGHAL Vs. MADHYA PRADESH GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are lecturers in the Education Department of the State Government and were confirmed in the post with effect from 189-69 vide order dated 24-11-69 (Annexure 1 ). Their pay scale is Rs. 250 450. Certain non-government educational institutions were taken over by the Government. Originally the Government issued instructions, dated 28th June, 1960, vide Annexure 2, whereby the seniority of the persons absorbed in Government service was to be reckoned on the basis of the instructions contained in the General Administration Department memo, dated 29th December, 1953. According to the said instructions, their seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the regular Government servants was to be determined according to a formula given therein. These instructions were subsequently revised by the Government in the year 1967, vide Government instructions dated 21-12-67 (Annexure 3 ). According to these instructions the seniority of an absorbed employee in the post/cadre on absorption is to be determined from the date he held the post/cadre or the date on which he qualified for such post/cadre whichever was later. According to the petitioners the revised instructions are not legal and just inasmuch as they adversely affect their seniority, and promotion of non-petitioner No. 6 to the post of principal in the scale of Rs. 275-700 on the basis of such seniority by order dated 25-7-70 (Annexure 4) is illegal and liable to be struck down.

(2.) ANOTHER grievance of the petitioners is that the Government by order dated 25-7-70 (vide Annexure 4) has promoted certain U. D. teachers (non-petitioners 3 to 8) whose pay scale is Rs. 150-290 to the post of principal, Higher Secondary School, which is a gazetted post carrying pay scale of Rs. 275-700 in preference to petitioners who are lecturers. According to them the U. P. teachers being of category 3 cannot be promoted to the post of principal, Higher Secondary School, which is of category 1 in preference to lecturers, who are of category 2. The action of the Government, it is alleged, is repugnant to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it also amounts to reducing the applicants in rank without any justification, and is thus contrary to the provisions of Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution. They have, therefore, filed this petition praying that the order dated 25-7-70 be quashed.

(3.) THE first contention of Shri Patankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the seniority of the employees of the former private (non-government) institutions on absorption in Government service should count from the date of absorption in a particular post. According to him, the service rendered by them in corresponding post in private institutions cannot be taken into account for purposes of determining their seniority in Government service for the said post. We do not, however, find any merit in this contention. Seniority in service merely determines the order of precedence for purposes of consideration of promotion. One who is senior is entitled to be considered for promotion first before the claims of his junior can be considered. This is in substance the meaning and significance of the rule of seniority.