Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

VASANT KUMAR JAISWAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided
8 September 1987
Judges listed
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 73 · 1987 INSC 243

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.

p. 74, margin A

This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which in accordance with the well settled principle of this Court as also the High Court held that in the absence of any statutory rule of executive memorandum or order laying down the rule for determination of seniority in a grade, the normal rule applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis of length in service. Counsel for the appellant contends that in the instant case there were two rules being 12(b) and 12(c) of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961 governing the case. These rules read as follows:- "(b). Promoted Government Servants: A promoted Government servant shall count his seniority from the date of his confirmation in the service to which he has been promoted and shall be placed in the gradation list immediately below the last confirmed member of that service but above all the probationers.

p. 74, margin B

Provided that where two or more promoted Government servants are confirmed with effect from the same date the appointing authority shall determine their inter-seseniority in the service in which they are confirmed, with due regard to the order in which they were included in the merit list, if any prepared for determining their suitability for promotion, and their relative seniority in the lower service from which they have been promoted. ( c) Officiating Government Servants:- The inter-se-seniority of Government servants promoted to officiate in a higher service or a higher category of posts shall during the period of their officiation, be the same as that in their substantive service or grade irrespective of the dates on which they began to officiate in the higher service or grade; Provided that- (i) If they were selected for officiation from a list in which the names of Government servants considered suitable for trial in or promotion to the higher service or grade were arranged in order of merit. Their inter-seseniority shall be determined in accordance with the

pp. 74–75, margin E

order of merit in such list; (ii) the seniority of a permanent servant appointed to officiate in another service or post by transfer shall be determined adhoc by the appointing authority;

p. 75, margin A

Provided that the seniority proposed to be assigned to such Government servant shall be determined and intimated to him in the order of appointment; (iii) where a permanent Government servant is reduced to a lower service, grade or category of posts, he shall rank in the gradation list of the latter service, grade or category of posts above all the other in that gradation list unless the authority ordering such reduction by a special order indicates a different position in the gra-

p. 75, margin B

dation list for such reduced Government servant, (iv) where an offici~ting Government servant is reverted to this substantive service or posts he shall revert to his position in that gradation list relating to his substantive appointment which he held before he was appoin-

p. 75, margin D

ted to officiate in the other service or post." In the proper perspective these two rules do not apply in this matter. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court was right. We are unable in this connectic>n to sustain the reasoning and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the said High Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 181 of 1983-Umeshnaryan Mishra & Ors. v. TheStateofM.P. & Ors.

p. 75, margin E

In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in dismissing the petition under appeal and the view it took was correct.

p. 75, margin F

In view of the short length of service of the appellant, if the appellant makes a representation, the respondent in the light of the principles of law and equity will consider such representation.

p. 75, margin G

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

p. 75, margin G

Appeal disposed of. S.L.

p. 75, margin H