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

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. versus ARCHANAN SHUKLA & ORS.

Decided
20 July 2011
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, C.K. PRASAD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2011] 15 S.C.R. 615 · 2011 INSC 509
Also cited as
  • AIR 2011 SC 3162 (2 citing judgments)
  • (2011) 15 SCC 194 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Civil Appeal No. 5130 of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 616, margin C

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 6th March, 2006 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 140/2005.

p. 616, margin D

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

p. 616, margin E

The respondents herein were appointed on adhoc officiating post in the year 1988 for a fixed term which was continued They were regularised in the year 2004 under the Uttaranchal Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments (Posts under the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002

p. 616, margin E

(for short 'the Rules'). The respondents claimed benefit of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of seniority and this has been granted by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

p. 616, margin F

We are afraid, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High Court.

p. 616, margin G

Rule 7 (1) of the Rules states as under: "A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules or as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior in the appointment of such person under these rules."

pp. 616–617, margin G

Admittedly, the respondents were appointed after a selection under the Regularization Rules in the year 2004. Hence, in our view, they can get seniority only from the year 2004 and not from 1988. The rule is clear and hence we cannot debar from the clear meaning of the rule.

p. 617, margin B

It has been held in Raghunath Rai Bareja & Another vs. Punjab National Bank & Others (2007) 2 SCC 230 that when there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail in accordance with the latin maxim 'dura lex sed lex' which means 'the law is hard but it is the law'. Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it. This view was followed in Civil Appeal No. 2684 of 2007 titled B. Premanand & Others vs. Mohan Koikal & Others decided on 16'h March, 2011.

p. 617, margin C

In the present case, Rules 7 is very clear and hence the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of their seniority.

p. 617, margin E

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment Qf the High Court is set aside.Nop costs. Civil Appeal No. 1474 of 2007.

p. 617, margin F

In view of our order passed today in Civil Appeal, No. 51°30 of 2009, this appeal is also allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 617, margin F