DR. S.P. KAPOOR ETC. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ETC

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1043

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN

Case summary

1966 though the Central Government kept the question of seniority open.

Judgment text

DR. S. P. KAPOOR ETC. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. ETC. November 2, 1981 [ S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ. ] Central Health Service Rules 1963, Rules 7A and BA and Himachal Pradesh • Health Service Rules 1974, Rules 9(4), and IO(a)(iU)-Union territory ofHimachal Pradesh-Health Department manned by officers ofCentral Health Service-Union Territory becoming a Stat~Formation of Himachal Pradesh Health Servic~- 01/icers exercising option to continue in the new Heal1h Service-Determination of seniority-basis-Not date of induction into Central Health Service-Only under Rule JO(a) (iii) of State Rules. 0 Service Rule not providing category with which Roster to be started- Government direction supplementing the Rule that Roster be started with category ofSpecialists-Government action whether valid. Annual Confidential Report-Initiated by an officer who is junior and also an aspirant for promotion to higher post-Such confidential report whether valid- Cons!

deration by Departmental Promation Committee-Effect of. .. Services and Dismissals-State Health Service-Officers holding posts on ad hoc basis from 1973-Seniority list finalised on November 2, 1979-Departm,n~ ta/ Promotion Committee constituted on November 3, 1979-Promotions made and orders of appointment issued on the same day-Post haste manner ofselec~ tion and appointment-Effect of. ... The Central Health Service was constituted by the Central Government and the Central Health Service Rules 1963 came into force wilh effect from 15~5-1963. These Rules were amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules 1966. Before the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force the State of Punjab had its own Health Service known as the PCMS with two grades, Grade J and Grade II.

After the Punjab Reorganisation Act came into force, and the Central Health Service was formed, some persons belonging to the PCMS and some persons working as Medical Officers in hospitals run by Local Bodies were inducted into that Service after they had exercised their oplion to be inducted therein The petitioners and contesting employees-respondents in \'. 'rit petition nos. 2 0 1980 and 288 of 1979 filed in the High Court had been inducted into the Central Health Service after they had exercised their option. When the Himachal Pradesh Union Territory was in existence, its Health Department was manned by Officers of the Central. Health Service, but after Himachal Pradesh became a full fledged State, the H1! Dacba) Health Servic~ was constituted on 24. 1. 1974 . . . ' ' ' under the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules which catne into force on 19. 1. 74.

The members of the Central Health Service serving in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Union Territory were asked to exercise their option to continue in the new Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The writ petitioners and the contesting employees-respondents exercised their option to continue in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The Appellant in C. A. No. 2384 of 1980, who was one of the petitioners in writ petition No. 288 of 1979 contended before the High Court that his reversion from the post of Deputy Director of Health Services to which post he was appointed on a regular basis was void. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2 of 1980 claimed that the seniority list of Speci:ilists prepared by the State Government was contrary lo the rules and that the appointment of the appellant in C. A. No. 2104 of 1980 and of respondents 2 and 4 in writ petition 288 of 1979 as Deputy Directors of Health Services was contrary to the provisions of the 1974 Rules.

It was contended that 1he appointments were also vitiated because : (D the Departn1ental Promotion Committee constituted for making appointment was not properly constituted because one of the members of the committee the Principal Secretary to the Ch;ef Minister was unauthorisedly inducted into the Committee in place of the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, and (ii) that their confidential reports were written by an officer junior to them and who was an aspirant for promotion to the higher post. The appointments or the Director or Health Services and the two Deputy Directors having been made in haste immediately after the seniority list was issued rendered the appointments void.

The petitioner in writ petition 2 of 1980 claimed that the inter se seniority between himself and the respondeats could not be disturbed at the time of absorption in the Hima:::hal Pradesh Health Services having regard to the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the protection given to the members of the Punjab Service. These two petitions were contested. It was contended by the State of Himachal Pradesh that the petitioners in W. P. No. 288 of 1979 were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Setvices only on ad hoc basis, that the post is a selec~ tion post which cannot be claimed as of right by persons appointed on ad hoc basis by way of stop-gap arrangement.

The incumbent to the post of Secretary, Health and Fan1ily Welfare being on leave at the relevant period, the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was appointed to function in his place as Secre~ tary to Government in the Departn1ental Promotion Committee, the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee was perfectly valid. The annual confidential reports which were written by the junior officer who was working on ad hoc basis, were not the only reports taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The post of Director of Health Services was manned on an ad hoc basis. Ad hoc appointments were necessitated by the absence of the final seniority list which was prepared only on 2. 11. 1979 and since that impedi~ ment was over the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 3. 11. 1979 and orders of appointment to those selected by that Committee were issued on the san1e day.

Specialists were officers possessing post-graduate qualifications while General Duty Officers were as a rule only graduates. The Rule making autho- S. P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL 1045 rity divided the higher posts equalJy amongst the officers of ! he two categories taking aII factors into consideration. Therefore, the claim for being considered to the post of Director of Health Services is wholly untenable having regard to Rule 9(3) of the Rules, which provides that only Deputy Directors should be considered for pron1otion to the post of Director of Health Services. On behalf of the Central Government it was contended that the Central Health Service was constituted wilh effect from 9 9.

1966 and the seniority of the 8 Medical Officers appointed to the service with effect from that date had been determined to be that officers appointed to a grade under rule 7A of the Central Health Services Rules 1963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966 will rank e11 bloc senior in that grade to those who may be appointed to that grade under rule 8A. The officers of the Punjab Government were appointed to the Central Health Service with effect from 1. 11. 1966 under rule SA. As these officers have come into the Central Health Service only after - the initial constitution of that service was over, it was not possible to assign them seniority over the officers appointed at the initial constitution of the service. The Government of Himachal Pradesh having proposed to formulate their own Health Service and the Medical Officers who are to opt from the Central Health Service are to be included in that service, those officers were asked to exercise their option.

Those officers who opted to join the proposed Himachal Pradesh Health Service were given the benefit of past continuous service while fixing their seniority in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and held (I) that the petitioners therein being appointed as Deputy Directors on ad hoc basis cannot claim a right to the post of Deputy Directors of Health Services or to seniority on the basis of ad hoc appointment though then can add the period of such appointment in the matter of experience for promotion and confirmation. (2) The Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was appointed to function additionally as Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department as per office order dated • 2. 11. 1979 and therefore the Departmental Promotion Committee had been pro. perly constituted. (3) Seniority has to be determined on the basis of the date of induction into the Central Health Service and not on the basis of the earlier service.

Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : 1. The High Court erred in holding that the inter se seniority has to be determined only on the basis of the date of induction into the Central Health Service and not with reference' to Rule 10(a)(iii) of the Rules. Inter se seniority has to be determined only in accordance with Rule IO(a)(iii) of the Rules and Dr. S. P. Kapoor would be senior to Dr. R. M. Bali who in turn would rank senior to Dr. Jiwan Lal. L1072 H, 1073 B] Jn the instant case the Central Government was under an obligation to see that in fairness and equity the seniority of officers drafted into the newly formed State from the integrating States is properly fixed and that obligation has been properly discharged by the Central Government. Dr. S. P. Kapoor had been appointed to the PCMS (Grade I) post on 29. 11965 and he was inducted into the Specialist Grade in the Cl! ntra\ H~alth Service with efiect from 1. 11. 1966 while 1046 SUPREME COURt kEl'ORtS [l 982J I s. c. R. Dr. R.

M. Bali and Dr. Jiwan Lal who were in the Central Health Service on the the date of its constitution on 9. 9. 1966 had been taken in. the Specialists Grade and G. D. O. Grade I respectiveJy under the Central Health Service with effect only from 9. 9. 1968. [lo72:F, 1068 CJ Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968] I SCR 185, held inapplicable. N. Subba Rao etc. v. Union of India and Ors. , (1973] I SCR 945 and C. P. Damodaran Nayar and P. S. Menon v. State of Kera/a and others, (1974] 2 SCR S67, referred to. 2. The annual confidential reports were initiated by an officer not only junior, but also an aspirant for promotion to the higher post, and, therefore, such confidential reports should not have been taken into consideration for further promotion. (1073 CJ - In the instant case it would not have been fair for the Departmental Promotion Committee to take into account the annual confidential reports made by Dr. Grover though they might have been revised by the higher authorities.

[1073F] 3. The po~t-haste manner in which the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting was held on 3. 11. 1979 suggests that some higher~up was interested in pushing through the matter hastily when the regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare was on leave. The matter is therefore required to be considered afresh. (1075 B] In the instant case the Director of Health Services and Deputy Ditector of Health Services were holding the posts on ad hoc basis from the year 1973. The final seniority list was prepared only on 2. 11. 1979 and the Departmental Promo. tion Committee was constituted on 3. 11. 1979. The Joint Secretary, Personnel Department had written the letter dated 3. 11. 1979 requesting the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister who was appointed additionally as Secretary of Health • and Family Welfare to attend the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting at 3. 00 p. m. on that day. There is room for suspecting the reason why the whole thing was completed in haste on 3.

Jl. 1979 after the pr. :paration of the final seniority list on 2. 1 J. 1979. The matter was not such as could not have been put off by a few days. Such rush is not usual is in any State Government. (1074 C-D. 1075 A] 4. The High Court was right in finding that the Specialists had an advan· • tage for their category starting the roster by the senior-n1ost of the Specialists having put in more number of years of qualifying service than the HPHS (Grade l) Officers and that the Government was right in getting the roster started with Specialists instead of HPHS (Grade I) Officers. [1076 B-C] Jn the instant case as Rule 9(4) did not provide the category with which the roster may be started whether with HPHS (Grade I) Officers or Specialists, difficulty arose.

The Government, therefore, stepped in and supplemented the Rule by directing that the roster may be started with the category of Specialists keeping in view che length of qualifying service in each of the two grades, namely Specialists and HPHS {Grade I) Officers. This tbey were entitled to by Rule 21. (1075 H, 1076 A] S. P. KAPOOR v. lllMACHAL Waradarajan J. ) 1047 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 1980. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 30th July, 1980 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Simla in C. W. P. No. 2 of 1980. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2384 OF 1980 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 30th July, 1980 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Simla in C. W. P. No. 288 of 1979. T. U. Mehta, S. K. Sabharwal. A. P. Mohanty and C. P. Pandey for the Appellant m C. A. No. 2104/80 & for Respondent 2 in C. A. No. 2384 of 1980. G. L. Songhi, Vineet Kuma'I- and Ashok Kaul for the Appellant in C. A. No. 2384 of 1980.

M. M. Abdul Khader and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondent : State V. M. Tarkunde and C. M. NaJ ar for Respondent No. 5 in .. C. A. No. 2104 of 1980. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. These appeals by special leave are against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court rendered in Writ Petitions Nos. 2 of 1980 and 288 of • 1979. They were heard together by us in view of this Court's Order dated 6. 11. 1980. Writ Petition No. 288 of 1979 was filed by Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur against the State of Himachal Pradesh, Dr. S. P. Kapoor, Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr. K. Pandeya. Writ Petition No. 2 of 1980 was filed by Dr. R. M. Bali against the State of Himachal Pradesh· and eight others including Dr. Jiwan Lal, Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur, Dr. S. P. KapoN and Dr. K. Pandeya, who were respondents Nos. 8, 9, 6 and 7 respectively in the Writ Petition. Dr. S. P. Kapoor, 1he appellant in C. A. No.

2104 of 1980 is the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 288 of 1979 and 6th respondent in W. P. No. 2 of 1980. Dr. Jiwan Lal, 1048 stJi>Rllldll COURT RBPORts [198ij l s. c. k. the appellant in C. A. No. 2384 of 1980 is the first prtitionet in W. P. No. 288 of 1979 and 8th respondent in W. P. No. 2 of 1980. - Writ Petition No. 288 of 1979 challenged the reversion of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur, the petitioners therein, from the post of Deputy Directors of Health Services, as illegal and violative of the conditions of service as also the provisions of the Constitution of India. In Writ Petition No. 2 of 1980 Dr. R. M. Bali prayed for quashing the seniority of specialists indicated in the Office Memo dated 2. 1I. I979 and Annexure PX- I containing the list and for assignment of Serial No. I in the seniority list to him. Dr. R. M. Bali prayed for certain other reliefs also including declaration of the appointment of Dr. S. P.

Kapoor as Director of Health Services as null and void and for his case being considered for appointment to that post on the basis of the seniority prayed for in his Writ Petition. The case of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur, the Writ Petitioners in W. P. No. 288 of 1979, was that they were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Services on a regular basis. The post of Deputy Director, Health Services was held by Dr. Jiwan Lal for 4! years and by Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur for about 3! years. The appointment of Dr. S. P. Kapoor, the appellant in C. A. No. 2104 of 1980 and Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr. K. Pandeya (respondents 2 and 4 in W. P. No. 288 of 1979) as Deputy Directors of Health Services, is contrary to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Health Services Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). They were appointed in disregard of the rights of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur.

The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for making the appointment was not properly constituted as· one of the members of the Committee, namely, the Principal Secretary to the then Chief Minister was unauthorisedly inducted into the Committee in the • place of the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare ·• Department, Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, the proceedings of the '> Committee are vitiated. The annual confidential reports of the petitioners Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur were initiated by an officer who was not only junior to them but also an aspirant f0r promotion to the higher post along with them. Therefore, those confidential reports should not have been taken into consideration for further promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The appointment of Dr. S. P. Kapoor, the appellant in CA. No. 2104 of 1980, Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr. K. Pandeya, res- S. P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL (Varadarajan, J.

) 1049 pondents 2 and 4 in that Writ Petition was made in haste on 3. 11. 1979 immediately after the final seniority list was issued on 2. 11. 1979. The appointment of Dr. S. P. Kapoor, the second respondent in W. P. No. 288 of 1979 and appellant in C. A. No. :! 104 of 1980 as Director of Health Services on the same day is illegal as he did not satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Rules and he did not have even the requisite qualifying service. Further the post of Director of Health Services must have been filled up from amongst the Health Services Grade-I officers and not from amongst Specialists. The reversion of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Dam- ... yanti Kapur from the posts of Deputy Directors is illegal and violative of the conditions of their service as also the provisions of the Constitution of lne'. ia. - The case of Dr. R. M. Bali, the petitioner in W. P. No. 2 of 1980 was that he was appointed as T. B. Officer, T. B.

Sanatorium, Mandodhar, a Gazetted Class II post, with effect from 9. 4. 1955 and he continued to work as such till 28. 5. I962. He was, thereafter, appointed as Superintendent in that Sanatorium, a Class I post, and after joining the post he was selected for appointment on a regular basis through the Public Service Commission and he was confirmed • in that post, categorized as Category 'D' post and Class I post in the Central Health Services, in 1966. The Medical and Health Department of Himachal Pradesh Government appointed him as Director of Health (T. B. ), a Category 'D' post by a Notification dated 1. 7. 1963. He was inducted into the Central Health Services .. with effect from 9. 9. 1966 and included in the initial constitution of that Service and confirmed in that Service on 9. 9. 1968. But Dr. Grover, who has since retired, and Dr. S. P. Kapoor, who were respondents 5 and 6 respectively in Writ Petition No.

2 of i980, were appointed merely on a temporary basis to the Central Health Service with effect from l . 11. 1966. The inter se seniority of Dr. R. M. Bali, the petitioner in W. P. N,,. 2 of 1980 and Dr. Grover and S. P. Kapoor in the Central Health Services (Specialists' Grade) had to be preserved and could not be disturbed at the time of absorption in the Himachal Pradesh Health Services having regard to the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the protection given to the members of the Punjab Service. In these circumstances, Dr. R. M. Bali prayed for quashing of the seniority list of the cadre of Specialists indicated in the Office Memorandum dated 2. \I. \979 (Annexure PX-I containing in the list) and assigning to him Serial No. I in the seniority list. ,_ He also prayed for other reliefs including declaration of the appoint- \ ment of Qr. s. P. Kapoor as Qirector of l:jealth Services 11s mill 11nc!

void and for his appointment to that post on the basis of the revised seniority claimed by him. The contention of the Himachal Pradesh Government, the first respondent in W. P. No. 288 of 1979 was that Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs) Damyanti Kapoor were appointed as Deputy Directors of Health Services on ad hoc basis. The Deputy Director's post is a selection post which cannot be claimed as of right by persons apointed on ad hoc basis by way of stop-gap arrangement. The incumbent to the post of Secretary to Government, Health and Family welfare was on leave from the 3rd to 9th November, 1979 and the Principal Secretary to the then Chief Minister was appointed to function in his place as Secretary to Government in the Departmental Promotion Committee by order dated 3. 11. 1979. The constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee was, therefore, perfectly valid. The annual confidential reports written by Dr.

Grover, who was working on ad hoc basis, were not the only reports taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee. That Committee did not take into account the reports of Dr. J. C. Sharma about the work and conduct of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur. The post of Director of Health Servic. s was manned on an ad hoc basis since the retirement of Dr. Krishan Swarup in December 1973. The posts of Deputy Director also were manned on an ad hoc basis. These ad hoc appointments were necessitated by the absence of the final seniority list which was prepared only on 2. 11. 1979 and since .. that impediment was over on 2. l l. 1979. the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 3. 11. 1979 and orders of appointment to those selected by that Committee on that date were issued on the same day.

The promptness in making the regular appointments was necessitated by the intention to make the regular appointment as quickly as possible after the preparation of the final seniority list on 2. 11. 1979. Specialists are necessarily officers pJssessing post-graduate qualifications while G. D. Os. Class I are, as a rule, only graduates. Therefore, the Rule making authority divided the higher posts equally amongst the Officers of the two categories taking all factors into consideration. The appointment of Dr. S. P. Kapoor, the second respondent in W. P. No. 288 of 1979 as Director of Helth Services is valid. Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur were not Deputy Directors of Health Services on the date of selection of Dr. S. P. Kapoor as Director of Health Services and, theref re, their claim for being considered for promotion to that post is wholly μntenal>Je having regard to Rule 9(3) of the Rules, according to S. P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL (Vuradarajan, J.

) 1051 which only Deputy Directors could be considered for promotion to the post of Director of Health Services. The contention of the Himachal Pradesh Government, the first respondent in W. P. 2 of 1980 was that the post of Superintendent, T. B. Sanatorium held by Dr. R. M. Bali, the petitioner in that Petition, was a junior Class I post until he was appointed to the Specialist grade of the Central Health Services with effect from 9. 9. 1966. Dr. Grover and Dr. S. P. Kapoor, respondents 5 and 6 respectively in W. P. No. 2 of 1980 were appointed to the Specialists' grade in the Central Health Services with effect from 1. 11. 1966 though the Central Government kept the question of seniority open. Dr. R. M. Bali exercised his option to join the Himachal Pradesh Health Ser- vice after a copy of the Rules was supplied to him. The final seniority of Dr. R. M. Bali and others was fixed under the provisions of the Rule issued on 10. 1. 1974. Seniority assigned to Dr. R. M.

Bali is strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 (a) (iii) of the Rules. The words "whichever is earlier" which occurred in the original Rule 10 (a)(i) and 10 (a)(iii) were deleted by the Amendment Rules, 1966. The claim of Dr. R. M. Bali for seniority on the basis of his ad hoc appointment is not tenable. • The Central Government and Dr. S. P. Kapoor, respondents 2 and 6 in W. P. No. 2 of 1980 had also filed counter-affidavits oppos· ing the Writ Petition. In the Central Government's counter-affidavit it is stated that Dr. R. M. Bali has been in the Specialist's grade .. only from 9. 9. 1966 and that Dr. Grover and Dr. S. P. Kapoor were appointed to the Specialists' grade on 1. 11. 1966 leaving the question of seniority open. In the counter-affidavit of Dr. S. P. Kapoor reference is made to Government of India's letter dated 9. 7.

1971 which deals with the fixation of seniority of medical officers of the Punjab Government absorbed in the Central Health Services in the Himachal Pradesh Un ion Territory and states as follows. ; "The Central Health Services was constituted with effect from 9. 9. 1966 and the seniority of Medical Officers appointed to the Service with effect from that date has been determined in accordance with the principles laid down in this Ministry's letter dated 27. 7. 1967. In accordance with sub·para 1 of this memoranda Officers appointed to a grade of the Central Health Services under Rule 7A of the Central Health Services Rules, as amended by the Central Health Sevices Amendment Rules, 1966, will rank en bloc senior 1052 SU! 'RfML cu\JRT l n the ground that the senior most of the Specialists had on the date of meeting of of the Departmental Promotion Committee, namely, 3. 11.

1979, put in gr_eater length of qualifying service than the senior-most officer of the Himacbal Pradesh Health Service Grade I officers and that the Government, therefore, started the roster rightly with the category of 40 Specialists keeing in view the length of qualifying service in each of grades, namely, Specialists and Himachal Pradesh Service Grade I Officers. Mr. Mehta, appearing for Dr. S. P. Kapoor, contended that having regard to Rule 10 (a) (iii) of the Rules and the fact that Dr. S. P. Kapoor had been appointed as PCMS Grade I Officer by the Punjab Government on 29. 8. 1965, long before Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr. Jiwan Lal came into Central Health Service on 9. ~. 1966 and that Dr. S. P. Kapoor had been appointed as a Specialist in the Central Health Service with effect from 1. 11. 1966 while Dr. R. M. Bali had been appointed in the Specialists' Grade only with effect from 9. 9. :968, Dr. S. P. Kapoor is senior to both Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr.

Jiwan Lal in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service though he would undobtedly be junior to Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr. Jiwan Lal in the Central Health Service as he had come to that Service only on 1. 11. 1966 while those two individuals had come into that Service on 9. 9. 1966. But Mr. Tarkunde, appearing for Dr. R. M. Bali and Mr. Sanghi, appearing for Dr. Jiwan Lal, contended that the basis of seniority has been rightly determined by the learned Judges of the High Court, and Mr. Sanghi submitted that in the List Dr. Jiwan Lal will come first and that if Dr. R. M. Bali is held to be senior, Dr. Jiwan Lal would rank next to him. I f Mr. Pantle, the then Joint Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of India had stated in bis D. O. Letter No. 22/5/67-67-SR (S) dated 14-2-1967 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Government (Union Territory), that the Central Government has already informed the Chief Secretary by letter dated 17. 11.

1966 that the allocation of the Government servants among the States of of Punjab, Haryna and Himachad Pradesh and Chandigarh, which had already been made provisionally under S. 82 (b) of the P1mjab Reorganisation Act, are to be finalized by the end of February, 1967. He had requested the Chief Secretary for action for integration of the service being initiated soon after the finalisation of the allocation and bad stated that it involves two steps, namely (I) determination of the equivalent posts and (2) determination of the relative seniority of persons holding equivalent posts but drawn from different integrating units. It is also stated in that letter that while determining the relative seniority as mentioned above, it may also be borne in mind that inter·se seniority of officers drawn from the same integrated unit should, as far as possible, be maintained.

He had further stated in that letter that as the Chief Secretary is aware that Section 82 (4) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act casts responsibility on the Central uovernment for ensuring fair and equitable treatment 4 to all the officers affected by the provisions of that Act. - The Ministry of Health and Family Planning (Department of Health), Government of India wrote, the letter dated 9. 7. 1971 to the Secretary to the Government, Medical and Health Department Himacbal Pradesh regarding fixing of seniority of the Medical Officers of the Punjab Government absorbed in the Central Health Service in Himachal Pradesh as in the case of Dr. S. P. Kapoor. Unfortunately, the learned Judges of the High Court have not referred to this letter, which is strongly relied upon by Mr. Mehta, in their judgment. Mr. Tarkunde submitted that this letter was not relied upon before the High Court. That letter cannot be ignored. It is stated in that letter thus : ..

"The Central Health Service was constituted with effect from 9. 9. 1966 and the seniority of the Medical Officers appointed to this Service with effect from that date, has been determined in accordance with the principles laid down in this Ministry's O. M No. 5 (II)-/67-CHSI dated 22. 7. 1967. In accordance with sub-para l of this Memorandum, officers appointed to a grade of the Central Health Service under Rule 7A of Central Health Service ' ' Rules, 1963 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966, will rank enbloc senior in that grade to those who may be appointed to that grade under Rule SA of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963. The Officers of the Punjab Government were appointed to the Central Health Service with effect frolll l. 11. 1966 S. R. KAPOOR V, l! IMACHAL (Varadarajan. J.

) 1063 under Rule SA of the Central Health Service Rules, 1963, As these Officers have come into the Central Health Service only after the initial constitution of that service was over, in accordance with the principles laid down for the Central Health Service, it is not permissible to assign them seniority in the Central Health Service over the officers appointed to the Central Health Service at the initial constitution of the Service. However, as the Government of Himachal Pradesh have propposed to form their own Health Service and the .. Medical Officer who are to opt from the Central Health Service are to be included in that Service, these Officers may - be asked to exercise the option first. In case they choose to remain as members of the Central Health Service, their seniority will be ranked only at the maintenance stage of the Central Health Service and they cannot get seniority in the Central Health Service on the basis of their prior ser· vice under the Punjab Government.

Those officers who opt to join the proposed Himachal Pradesh Health Service may, however, be given the benefit of their past continuous service while fixing their seniority in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. At the time of formation of that Service these persons can be considered for inclusion in the initial constitution of that service and their seniority fixed bearing in mind the principles mentioned in Shri A. O. Pande's D. O. letter No. 22/5/67-SR (S) dated 14th February, 1967. " We think that this stand of the Central Government in regard to seniority of Officers who came into the Central Health Service at the initial constitution of that Service vis a vis those who came into that service after initial constitution of that service is correct and the only stand that could be reasonably taken in the circumstance of the case.

It would not be proper for anyone who came into that Service after it bad been constituted, to ask for seniority over those who were in that Service on the date of its initial constitution on the basis of their earlier appointment before they came into the Central Health Service after its initial constitution. Before the Rules were framed there was a meeting of officials on 24. 1. 1972 to consider the question as to qow $el! iority of offi~er~ 1064 SUPREM~ COUl\T REPORTS [1982] l s. c. K. who were already in the Central Health Service, having been appointed to that Service under Rule 7A of that Central Health Service Rules at the initial constitution of the service and of officers of the erst- while Punjab Government who were appointed in the Central Health Service with effect from l. l l. 1966 should be fixed. The minutes of that meeting are found at pages 285 to 287 of the paper-book relating to C. A. No. 2104 of 1980. It is seen from those minutes that in that meeting Mr. T. V.

Menon of the Ministry of Law, Central Government, evidently on the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 9. 7. 1971 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Health and Family Planning addressed to Secretary to Government, Himachal Pradesh, stated • that : "As the Government of Himachal Pradesh proposes to form a separate Himachal Pradesh Health Service, it is well within the right of the Himachal Pradesh Government to frame Rules and Regulations to govern the service conditions of officers who might be appointed to that Service including their seniority. The only safeguard that should be taken is that these rules and principles of senoirity should be circulated among all the officers and their option obtained in writing either to join the Hirnachal Pradesh Health Service or to remain in the Central Health Service.

The Governmen of Himachal Pradesh need not be bound by the Rules and Regulations governing Central Health Service Scheme in respect of the provisions that might be made in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service. The Government of Himachal Pradesh may lay down any principles that may be acceptable to the officers concerned keeping in view the principles of equity and justice. " Rule 4 of the Rules relates to classification, categories and scales of pay and reads as follows : "4. Classification, categories and scales of pay and read; as follows : (I) The Himachal Pradesh Health Service Carde will consist of the two wings namely the General Wing and the Teaching Wing. These two wings of the service shall ~ I S. P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL (Varadarajan, J. ) 1065 be independent of the each other and posts will not be inter changeable at any stage, except the posts which carry a scale of Rs. 400-1100 or a pay scale lower than that which are included in the service.

There shall be six categories in Health Wing; (General) and four categories in Health Wing (Teaching). Each category shall cons1st of the grades specified in column 2 of the table below : (2) The scales of pay and classification of such grades shall be specified in corresponding entries in columns 3 & 4 of the said tables. General Sr. Categories Scales of pay Classification Wing No. I. Super time Grade-I 2250-125-2500 Class-I including NPA 2. Super time Grade- 1800-100-2000 Class-I II including NPA 3. Specialists 900-50-1150/50-1300 Class I 4. Himachal Pradesh 900-50-1150/50-1300 Class-I ' k Health Service, Grade-I. } 5. Himachal Pradesh 400-30-700/40-1109 Class-II Health Services, Grade-II. Amend· 6. Dental Surgeonn 400-30-700/40-1100 Class-II ment Eight•II 1'066 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS (I 982! I s. c. lt. Note : Two Selection Grade posts one each for Himachal ( Pradesh Health Services Grade-I and specialists shall be in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-100-2000 (inclusive of N. P. A. ) I.

I Note-II: See amendment sixth and eighth (T! I). Teach- 1. Principal/Professors 1300-30-1600-100-1800 Class-I ing Wing _. 2. Specialists Grade - Associate Prof. / 900-50-1150/50-1300 Class-I Asst!. Professor 3. Asst!. Professor 900-50-1150/50-1350 Class-I (Dental). Amend- 4. Asst!. Surgeon 450-30-660-EB-40· Class-I ment (Dental). 1! 00-50-1250 Eight-VI The special pay attached to various posts is as under :- (I) Principal (Medical College) Rs. 100/- PM (2) Assistant Professor Rs. JOO/- PM ... (3) Officers appointed as Chief Medical Rs. 100/- PM ' ' Officers Rule IO(a) mentions about how seniority of departmental condidates absorbed under Rules 7 and 8 shall be determined and reads as follows: . ff "JO. Fixation of Seniority. I S. P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL (Varadarajan, J. ) 1067 (a) The inter-se-seniority of departmental candidates absorbed under rule 7 and 8 shall de determined as + follows:- (i) ...................................................................

(ii) Himachal Pradesh Health Service Grade- I from the date of regular appointment having been duly , selected by the Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by a regular Departmental Promotion Committee {whichever is earlier) in the following grades :- P. C. M. S. I. G. D. O. Gr. I. (iii) Sepecialists-From the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by Union Public Service Comn1ission, Punjab Public Service Co1nmission and Hirnachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by a regular Departmental Promotion Committee (whichever is earlier) in the following grades :- I. Specialists (C. H. S. ) 2. P. C. M. S. I. (with post graduates qualifications) 3. Deputy Medical Supdt. /Resident Medical Officers/Surgical Specialists, Ripon Hospital from the date the scale of P. C. M. S. I. was given.

" It would appear from Rule IO (a) (ii) that so far as Hirnachal Pradesh Health Service-Grade I officers are concerned, seniority will have to be recknoned from the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by the Union Public Service Commission and Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and or by regular Departmental Promotioll Committee i11 the followin! l grades, namely, PCMS-Grade I and GDO Grade I and that so far as Specia lists are concerned, their seniority will count from the date of regular appointment having been duly selected by the Union Public Service Commission, Punjab Service Commission, Himachal Pridesh Public Service Commission and or by regular Departmental Promotion Committee in the following grades namely, (! ) Specialist (CHS); (2) PCMSI (with post graduate qualifications) and (3) Deputy Medical Superintendents/Resident Medical Officers/Surgical Specialists, Ripon Hospital from the date on which the scale of PCMS (I} was given to them.

It has been seen above that Dr. S. P. Kar,oor has been appointed to the PCMS (Grade I) post on 29. LI 905 and he was _. inducted into the Specialists, grade in the Central Health Service with effect from 1. 11. 1966 while Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr. Jiwan Lal, who were in the Central Health Service on the date of its constitution on 9. 9. 1966 had been taken in the Specialists' grade and G. D. O. Grade I respectively under the Central Health Service with effect only from 9. 9. 1968. Therefore, under Rule IO (a) (iii) of the Rules, Dr. S. P. Kapoor has to rank senior to Dr. R. M. Bali as well as Dr. Jiwan Lal who admittedly has to rank after Dr. R. M. Bali. Mr. Tarkunde submitted that a letter like the one dated . ,. 9. 7. 1971 mentioned above could have been addre>Sed by the Central Government under Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act to the Administrator of the Himachal Pradesh Union Territory and that the letter dated 9. 7.

1971 referred to above could not have been written under that Section as Himachal Pradesh Union Territory ceased to be in existence when the full-fledged Himachal Pradesh State came into existence on 25. 1. 1971 itself. Section 84 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act says that the "Central Government may give such directions to the State Governnent of Punjab and Haryana and to the Administrators of the Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this part and the State Governtments and the Administrator shall comply with such directions. " I ' Mr. Tarkunde relied in this connection upon the decision of this Court in lloshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India(') and submitted that having come into the Central Health Service on 1. 11. 1966 it is not open to Dr. S. P. Kapoor who came into that service subsequent to the date on which Dr. R. M.

Bali joined that Service on the date of its initial constitution to contend that his . seniority must be fixed - I 11) (1968] I S. C. R. 185 S. P. KAPOOR v. HJlllACHAL (Varadarajan, J. ) i069 with reference to the date of his appointment to the Punjab Civil Medical Service Grade I. In that decision we find the following passage at page 192 :- "At the time when the petitioner and the direct recruits were appointed to Grade 'D' there was one class in Grade 'D' formed of direct recruits and the promotees from the grade n of artisans. The recruits from both the sources to Grade 'D' were integrated into one class and no discrimination could therefore be made in favour of recruits from one source against the recruits from the other source in the matter of promotion to Grade'C'. To put it differently, once the direct recruits and promotees are absorbed in one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade 'C'.

In the present case it is not disputed on the part of the first respondent that before the impugned Notification was issued there was only one rule of promotion for both the departmental promotees and the direct recruits and that 0 rule was seniority. cum-suitability, and there was no rule of promotion separately made for application to the direct recruits. As a consequence of the impugned notification a discriminatory treatment is made in favour of the existing Apprentice Train Examiners who have already been absorbed in Grade 'D' by March 31, 1966 because the Notification provides that this group of Apprentice Train Examiners should first be accommodated en bloc in Grade 'C' up to 80 percent of vacancies reserved from them without undergoing any selection.

As regards 20 per cent of the vacancies made available for the category of Train Examiners to which the petitioners belong the basis of recruitment was selection on merit and the previous test of seniority-cum-suitability was abandoned. In our opinion, the present case falls within the principle of the recent decision of this Court of Marvyn v. Collector [I 966] 3 SCR 600. " We are of the opinion that the ratio of this decision will not apply to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta invited our attention to two decisions of this Court in N. Subba Rao etc. v. Union ofIndia and Ors('), and C. P. Damodaran Nayar and P. S. Menon v. State of Kera/a (I) [1973] I S. C. R. 945 1010 SlJPl\EME colJllT REPORTS [1982] 1 s. c. k. and Others('). The decision in N. Subba Rao etc. v. Union of India and Ors. related to the inter se seniority of officers of two regions of different States which came to form a single State on Ist November, 1956. On 1. 11.

1956 the State of Andhra Pradesh came into existenee under the States' Reorganisation Act 1956. That State was formed out of the former State of Andhra Pradesh and the Telangana area of the former Hydrabad State. The appellants in that case were Engineers in the employment of Andhra Pradesh. On the formation of Andhra Pradesh, the appellants under the States' Reorganisation Act, 1956 continued to serve the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents who were Telangana officers in the employment of the Hydera- ,. bad State continued to serve the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Central Government directed the State Government in September, 1956 to draw up provisional common Gradation List keeping in view the general principles agreed to at the Conference of the Chief Secretaries held in April and May, 1966. The State Government prepared a provisional common gradation list of Gazetted Officers in November 1961.

~The Telangana Engineers challenged the common Grada- 7 tion List by filing Writ Petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This Court observed in the Judgment that:- "Under the States' Reorganisation Act power is conferred on the Central Government to bring out the integration of the Service in the State of Andhra Pradesh by ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of Section 115 of the Act. The Government of Andhra Pradesh bas a duty to bring all relavant facts to the notice of the Central Government. Under the States' Reorgnisation Act, the Central Government is entrusted with the power of the division and integration of the Service and the ensuring of fair and .. equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of Section 115 of the Act in regard to allotment of Officers from an existing State to a successor State. " ' ' In the case of C. P. Damodaran Nayar and P. S. Menon v.

State of Kera/a and Others (supra) the State of Kerala came into being on 1. 1 l. 1956 and the appellant bad been selected by the Madras Public Service Commission as a District Munsif and was posted as such on 26-5. 1951 and he was in continuous service since then. ~The service of appellant was regularised as from 6. 10. 1961. The appellant was allotted to Kerala State with effect from 24. 10. 1956. On 26. 3. 1966 I (! ) [1974] 2 S. C. R. 867 S. i>. KAJ>ooit v. HIMACHAL (Varadarajan, J. ) 1071 the Kerala State published the final integrated list of the Travancore- Cochin and Madras Judicial Officers in the integrated State of Kerala as on 1. 11. 1956, showing respondents 6 and 7, whose dates of commencement of continuous service were 20. 7. 1951 and 1. 10. 1951 respectively as senior to the appellant on the basis that he commenced his continuous service on 6. 10. 1951.

The appellant questioned the final seniority list contending that the date of commencement of his continous service is 26. 5. 1951. This Court observed thus: "Under Section 117 of the Act (States Reorganisation Act 1956) the Central Government may at any time before or after the appointed day give such directions to any Slate Government as may appear to it to he necessary for the purpose of givin·g effect to the foregoing provisions of this Part and the State Government shall comply with such directions. '' In accordance with the provisions of that Act, a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the various States that were to be affected by the reorganisation' was held at the invitation of the Central Government.

In that meeting it was agreed that in determining the relative seniority as between two persons holding posts declared equivalent to each other and drawn from different States, inter alia the length of continuous service, whether temporary or permanent, excluding periods in which an appointment is held. in a purely stop-gap or fortuitous arrangement, should be taken into account. This Court held that the appellant in that case should be given the benefit of his seniority reckoning his continuous appointment and assigning the date 26. 5. 1951 and substituting the same in the final list for 6. 10. 1951, and observed: "It is common ground that the appellant has been appointed in a regular manner through the Public Service Commission and his appointment cannot by any stretch of imagination be made to fill a "pure stop-gap or fortuitous" vacuum.

As noted earlier, the Government of [ndia has accepted the position that an allotted employee should not suffer any disadvantage if he would not have been subjected to a like handicap in his parent State. It is clear from the position taken by the Madras Government that the appellant would have got the benefit 1072 SUPREME COURT RBPo! lt~ tl98iJ 1 s. c. ll. of his continuous appointment in Madras with e! Tect from May 26, 1951. That being the position, the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents are of no avail". We are of the opinion that the ratio of these two decisions relied upon by Mr. Mehta would apply to the facts of the present case.

Secn tion 45 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 lays down that "the Central Government may give sueh directions to the Government of the State of Himachal Pradesh as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this Part and also the provisions of Part 9 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966 und the State Government shall comply with such directions''. We agree with Mr. Mehta that the aforesaid letter dated 9. 7. 1971 from the Ministry of Health, Family Planning, Department of Health, Government of India, addressed to the Government of Himhchal Pradesh, was written under the provisions of Section 45 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act 1970. Mr. Tarkunde submitted that even if that letter dated 9. 7.

1971 had been written under the provisions of Section 45 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, equivalent posts must be determined and that nobody has fixed the equivalent posts and it 1s for the Government of India to decide. We are of the opinion that this submission is not well-founded as the equivalent grades have already been fixed by placing Dr. S. P. Kapoor and Dr. R. M. Bali in the category of Specialists and Dr. Jiwan Lal in the category of Himachal Pradesh Health Service Grade I Officer, as mentioned above by the Himachal Pradesh Government's Notification No. 1-15/75-H&FP dated 9. 6. 1975 referred to above. The Central Government was under an obligation to see that in fairness and equity the seniority of officers drafted into the newly formed State from the in tergrating States is properly rixed and that obligation has been discharged by the Central Government: (I) by Mr. Pande's D. 0. letter dated I 14. 2. 1967, (2) the stand taken by Mr. T. V.

Menon, Deputy Legal ' Adviser. Central Government in the meeting of Officers held on 24. Ll972 and (3) the letter dated 9. 7. 1971 written by the Ministry of Health and'Family Planning Welfare, Government oi India to the Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 111 these circUJnstances we are of the opinion that the learned Judges of the High Court have erred in holding that the inter se seniority has to be determined only on the basis of the date of induction into the Cent- / ral Service and not with reference to Rule 10 (a) (iii) of the Rules S. P. KAPOOR v. HIMACHAL (Varadarajon, J. ) 1073 which had, however, been noticed by the learned Judges without a correct appreciation of its impact on what the Government of Himachal Pradesh should do in the matter of fixing the relative seniority of the Officers drawn from the integrating States. We are of the opinion that inter se seniority has to be determined only in accordance with Rule IO (n) (iii) of the Rules and that Dr. S. P.

Kapoor would be senior to Dr. R. M. Bali, who in turn would rank senior to Dr. Jiwan Lal. The annual confidential reports relating to Dr. S. P. Kapoor, Dr Jiwan Lal and others had to be looked into by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 3. 11. 1979. The contention of Dr. Jiwan Lal was that the annual confidential reports of Dr. Jiwan Lal and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur were initiated by an Officer not only junior to them but also an aspirant for promotion to a higher post alongwith them, and, therefore, these confidential reports should not have been taken into consideration for further promotion. The contention of the Himachal Pradesh Government was that the confidential reports made by Dr. J. C. Sharma were not taken into account and that Dr. Grover's reports were revised, sometimes with • additional remarks for or against the individuals by higher authorities and they were not the only reports which were taken into consideration by the Deparemental Promotion Committee.

It is clear from this contention of the Himachal Pradesh Government that Dr. Grover's reports were taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. though it is stated that they bad been earlier revised by higher authorities. Dr. Grover was in the field competing with Dr. S. P. Kapoor, Dr. R. M. Bali and Dr. (Mrs. ) Damyanti Kapur at the relevant time for promotion to the higher post. Therefore, it would not have been fair for the Departmental Promotion Committee to take into account the annual confidential reports made by Dr. Grover though they might have been revised by the higher aulhorities Section 2 (g) of the Rules defines a Departmental Promotion Con1n1ittee as: "a Corrin1ittee constituted from time to time by the Government for the purpose of making recommendation for promotion or confirmation in any catagory". Dr. Jiwan Lal has stated in his Special Leave Petition that under the Rules the Department&!

Promotion Committee of Himachal Pradesh in respect of the Health Services consisted of the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, of the Himachal Pradesh Government. There is no dispute about this fact. But the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 3. 11. 1979 to consider the question of appointment of Deputy Directors and Director of Health Services, consisted of the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, who was appointed additionally as Secretary of Health and Family Welfare in the absence on leave of the regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare from 3rd to 8th November, 1979. It is seen from the counter-affidavit of the Himachal Pradesh Government that the Director of ,.. Health Services and Deputy Director of Health Wealth were holding the posts on ad hoc basis from the year 1973. The final seniority list was prepared only on 2. 11.

1979 and the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted on 3. 11. 1979. The Joint Secretary, Personnel Department, Himachal Pradesh Government had written the letter No. Per (A-1) B-79 dated 3. ll. 1979 requesting Mr. R. C. Gnpta, Secretary (Health) Himachal Pradesh Government to attend the Departmental Promition Committee Meeting to be held at 3. 00 P. M. on that day for considering the names of officers for the posts of Director, Health Services. It is seen from what has been stated above and it is also admitted by the Himachal Pradesh Government that the selection of the Deputy Directors and the Director of Health Services from amongst the Deputy Directors had been made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 3. 11. 1979 itself and that even the orders of appointment had been issued on the same day with the approval of the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. Though before the High Court it does not appear that Dr.

Jiwan Lal had alleged any ma/a /ides to anybody he has alleged in Special Leave Petition that the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the process of selection and appointment were obviously ma/a fides and that • they were appointed on the da! e on which Mr. Yadav, the I regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, was ' on leave and that this haste suggests that he would not have agreed to carry out the political wish of the then Chief Minister in making the appointments in the post haste manner. Though it is not possible to accept the belated contention that there was any ma/a fides on the part of the then Chief Minister in the matter of constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee with his Principal Secretary as one of its members in the place of the regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, we are of the opinion s. i>. KAPOOR v. HiMACHAL (Varadarajan, i.

) iir75 that there is room for suspecting the reason why the whole thing was completed in haste on 3. 11. 1979 after the preparation of the final seniority list on 2. 11. 1979, in the light of the admitted position that the Deputy Directors and Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh were holding ad hoc appointments from 1973. The matter was not such as could not have been put off by a few days. Such rush is not usual in any State Government. The post-haste manner in which these things have been done on 3. l l. 1979 suggests that some higher-up was interested in pushing through the matter hastly when the regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare was on leave. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be considered afresh.

In regard to the question of rotation, Rule 9(4) of Rules lays down : (1) super-time Grade U (General) posts shall be filled by promotion of (i) HPHS-Grade I Officers with not less than seven years of service in the category or (ii) Specialists' Grade Officers with not less than five years service in that category. The selection will have to be on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of the officers concerned at (i) and (ii) above on 50 : 50 basis keeping in view the nature of the duties of the post. Supertime Grade I (General) posts shall be filled by promotion on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority of Officers holding the posts of Deputy Directors with not less than five years service in that category. The contention of Dr.

Jiwan Lal was that the Departmental Promotion Committee should not have started the rotation to post of Director of Health Services with a Specialist. On the other hand, the contention of the Himachal Pradesh Government before the High Court was that Rule 9 was silent on the question as to the category with which the roster should be started and, therefore, the State Government decided to supplement the Rule by starting the roster with the category of Speci- I alists having regard to the fact that the seni<>r-most Specialist Officer ' available on the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting on 3. 11. 1979 had put in greater length of qualifying service than the senior-most HPHS (Grade I) Officer.

Rule 21 of the Rules provides that if any difficulty ii felt in giving effect to provisions of these Rules the Government may in consultation with the Public Service Commission give such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of those Rules, as appear to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the difficulty. In view of the fact that Rule 9(4) does not provide the category with which the roster may be started, 1016 SUPli. llME COURT li. ill'ollts [1~8:i. j i s. C.! l. whethor with HPHS (Grade I) Officer or Specialists, difficulty appears to have arisen in starting the roster. Therefore, the Government stopped in and supplemented the Rule by directing that the roster may be started with the category of Specialists keeping in view the length of qualifying service in each of the two grades, namely, Specialists and HPHS (Grade I) Officers.

The learned Judges of the High Court have expressed the view that the Specialists had an advantage for their category starting the roster by the senior most of the Specialists having put in more number of years of qualifying service than the HPHS (Grade I) Officers. We are of the opinion that the learned Judges were perfectly justified in taking this view and that the Government was right in getting the roster started with Specialists instead of of HPHS (Grade I) Officers. For the reasons stated above Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 1980 is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 2384 of 1980 is dismissed. The principle on which relative seniority should be fixed having been settled in ·this judgment. it shall be fixed accordingly and the matter of selection of Deputy Directors and Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh shall be decided afresh according to the Rules and in the _. light of this judgment. Under the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. N. V. K. C. A.

2104 of 1980 allowed and C. A. 2384 of 1980. dismissed. I