Supreme Court of India
SURENDRA SINGH BENIWAL versus HUKAM SINGH & ORS
- Decided
- 23 April 2009
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, H.L. DATTU
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2009] 6 S.C.R. 880 · 2009 INSC 595
- Also cited as
- (2009) 6 SCC 469
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
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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. 1-A. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26.6.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttrakhand by means of which the Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of learned Single Judge who had dismisse_d the review petition filed by the appellant.
pp. 880–881, margin G
The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was appointed as Lecturer in English on 15.1.1981 in Murli Manohar Inter College· lshurteel, District Muzaffarnagar. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, on his own request, was transferred from the Murli Manohar Inter College to Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Hardiwar on 21.7.1997. Since then the respondent No.1 has been continuously working in the said instit~tion as lecturer in English. The appellant was promoted as lecturer in Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College on 6.11.1989. The authorities concerned issued seniority list on 26.12.2000 showing the date of appointment of respondent No. 1 as lecturer in English w.e.f. 15.1.1981 while the date of seniority of appellant was shown as 6.11.1989. The seniority list was issued after the approval of District Inspector of Schools. Appellant was given ad-hoc promotion to the post of Principal on 1.7.2001.
p. 881, margin B
Respondent No. 1 made a representation before the authority concerned regarding his seniority and claimed that he should be placed at serial number 1 in the seniority list on the basis of his seniority as lecturer as the respondent No.1 was much senior to the appellant, but to no avail.
p. 881, margin E
Feeling aggrieved by the seniority list, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge by order dated 8.12.2006 allowed the writ petition.
p. 881, margin F
Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, he appellant filed a review petition which was rejected by order dated 23.2.2007.
p. 881, margin G
Against the dismissal of review petition, the appellant filed a Special Appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on 20.6.2007. Hence, the present appeal by special leave. -1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and have gone through the record.
p. 882, margin A
The short question involved in this case is about interpretation of Rule 61 (2) of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which reads as under: "61 (2): A teacher on being transferred in pursuance of Chapter- (a) shall become the teacher of the institution to which has been transferred and his pay and service condition shall remain the same unless legally varied. (b) shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of teachers serving on the same cadre and category in institution. (c) in compliance to the provisions of sub-clause(b) service rendered prior to the transfer in the institution from which the teacher has been transferred shall be treated service rendered to the institution to which he has been transferred."
p. 882, margin A
A perusal of clause (b) of the aforesaid Rule shows if a teacher goes on voluntary transfer from one institution another, then the transferee teacher shall be placed at bottom of the seniority list of the teachers serving on the same cadre and category in the transferee institution. As regards clause (c}, in our opinion, it has to be read harmoniously clause (b) and so reading it, we are of the opinion that clause (c) deals with matters other than seniority e.g. pensionary benefits etc. However, as regards seniority, the clear rule ORS. been laid down in clause (b) i.e. that if a teacher seeks transfer from college/institution to another college/institution, transferee teacher shall be placed at the bottom of list. The reason for making Rule 61(2)(b) is obvious. teacher applies for voluntary transfer from one another, then if his seniority in the old college is maintained the new college, there would be great heart burning teachers in the transferee college. Hence, the rule that i.f a teacher applies for voluntary transfer from to another, such a transfer can only be done by transferee teacher at the bottom of the seniority list of teachers serving on the same cadre and category transferee institution.
pp. 882–883, margin F
As regards the words "same cadre and much has been made out of it in the impugned However, we are of the opinion that the interpretation the impugned judgment is not correct.
p. 883, margin C
Since the respondent No. 1 applied for transfer, obviously, he has to be placed at the bottom seniority list of the lecturers already working there. meaning of the words"same cadre and category".
p. 883, margin A
In the facts and circumstances of the case, is allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of learned Single Judge are set-aside. The writ petition dismissed. No orders. R.P. Appeal
p. 883, margin E