UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M. RAVI VARMA AND ORS. ETC.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

v. M. RA VI VARMA AND ORS. ETC.

January 4, 1972

JJ. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA, H. R. KHANNA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.)

Civil Service--0/]ice Memorandum of Union Mjnistry oi Home ADair& dated June 22, 1949 laying. down that seniority of Central Government &trvt.:nts· ,in the same gradt shalt be !fOVerned by length o/ jervice-Sub1• que'!t(v Office Memorandum dated December 20, 1959 lavin.~ down that .s~~lority to be deter1nined on 1he basis of general principles anne:ced 10 Memorandum-Memorandum of 1959 is not retrospective--Persons DP-po/hted 6efore it are goverlled by 1949 Memorandum.

In. ~fdel" t~ provide for the seniority of Centrai Government servants ·displ,aeed 'from Pakistan the Home Ministry by Office Memorandum dated JUne 22, 1949 laid down that the seniority o( all Central Government servants in the same grade shall be governed by the length of their service in that grade. By 1959 the object underlying that memorandum had been achieved. Accordingly by another memorandum dated O~cember 20, 1959 the Home Ministry decided that in respect of persons appointed after that date the' !}'neral rules annexed to the memorandJm sl\all apply, one of those being that seniority shall be governed by the date of cbn-·firmation and not length of service.

In 1957 the Central Board of ReVenue issued circular wheteby seniority in. the: offices under it was to be determined on the basis of date of ·eonfirmation. In. 1962 revised ·seniority list of employees under the Central Board pf Revenue was prepared on the basis of date of confirma-tion~ As result respondents and R wh<i were Inspectdrs of Central Excise lost several positions in the seniority. These respondents had been appointed in 1947 and confirmed in 1956. They filed writ petitions in the High . Court of Mysore. The High Court held that the memoran-,dum of ,1949 applied to their case and their sen'ority must.be decided on the basis. of length of service and not the date of confirmation.

S and T wore employees under the Directorate General of Health ·Services, Government of India. They had jo'ned service in 1950 and !951 respectively. In the seniority list, which had h'en prepared on the basis of leng'h of service in accordance with the Office Mem0ran~um ·of 1949 their po,itions were 32 and 34. Su'Jsequent!y Memorandum dated June 19 1963 was is•ued by the D'rectdrate Ge"eral of Hea!th Ser-vices in which it was stated that Scheduled Cas'tes and Sched•_1Jrd TriJ.,es c"andidates who _were confirrMd in reserved vacancies wo'11d rank senior to temryorary. includin~ quasi-permanent pers0n'\ ir .. e~oective of · their pOsitions in the seniority list. As t-eslllt of the a'"lolicat:on of this orin-·ciple S and T lost seniority bv several positions. Tliev filed writ "etitions in the Hioh Court of Puni•h and Haryana. The Single Judge di•missed their petitions but the Division Bench allowed them on the ground that the Memorandum d1ted June 19, 1963 iss•ied by the Directorate of Health S<>:rvicP:S--wfl~ not in consonance with the Home Ministry's Memo---randa 1949 and 1959.

Against the judl!IIlents of the High Courts the Uriioo of India and -0thcrs 3ppealed to this Court,

Dismissing the appeals,

HELD : (I) The Ollie'!: Memorandum dated December 22, 1959' expressly made it clear that the general principles embodied in the anoexure thereto were not to have retrospective effect. In order to put. the matter beyond any pale of controve'rsy, it was mentioned that "here-after the seniority of all persons appointed in the various Central Services after the date of these instructions should be determined in accordanceo with the General .principles annexed hereto". was, therefOre, manifest. that except in cenain cases with which the present appeals were not COD• cerw..d the Office Memorandum dated Dec'ember 22, 1959 and the provi-sions laid do\.\'ll in the Ann~xure thereto could not apply to pefsons ap· pointed to the various central services before the date of that Mem<>-randum. LI 000 G]

there was thus no escape from the conclusion that the seniority of arid respondents who were appointed p:rior to December 22, 1959 would have to be determined on the basis of their length of servire in accord-ance with the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and not on the basis of date of their confirmation, This position was conJirm'd by the Ceritral Board of Revenue in its letter dated August 27, 1971 addressed. to all Collectors of Central Excise. [1002 B; 1001 El

Merv.vn Coutindo &: Ors. v. Collector of Custon1s, B·onr.bay & Ors., [1966] 3 S.C.R. 600, reforred to.

(ii) It was no doubt tru' that direction was given in the Memoran-and R respondents who were appointed prior to December 22, 1959 would and Scheduled Tribe candidates confirmed in reserv'd vacancies should be ranked senior to temporary, including quasi~permanent- persons ifres· pective of their pos.ition in the seniority Jist but such direction Went beyond the rule of seniority contained in the office Memorandum dated'. December 22, 1959 .issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect of employees appointed bef<*e the' date. It was not disputed that accord-· ing to the Government of India allocation of Business Rules, 1961 gene' ral questions relating to recruitment promotion and seniority in Central services had to be dealt with by the Min'stry of Home Affairs. As S and: T respondents were apoointed prior to December 22, 1959 their seniority wac; governed by the rule of length of service_ as contained in the A.nnexure-lo the Memorandum dated December 22, 1959. [I 003 E-HJ

C1v1L APPELLATE 1UR1SDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1845 and 1846 of 1968.

Appeals by spi;cial leave from the judgment and order dated' January JO. 1968 and October 20, 1967 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1519 of 1967 and 1216 of 1965 respectiv~'y. ·

Jagdish Swarup .. Solicitor-General of India al;td S. P. Nayar, for the appellants ( m all the appeals). ·

S. S. Jam/i an1 M. Veerappa, for respondent No. I (irr

C.As. Nos. 1845 and l 846 of 1968).

S. L Bhatia, for respondents Nos. I and 2 (in C.A. No. 5() of 1969).

S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the Inter-vener (in C.A. No. 1845 of 1968).

the Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Khanna, J, Whether the criterion to determine the seniority -Of Ravi Varma and Ganapathi Kini resp0ndents shou:d be length of service in accordance with the Office Mem()randum dated June 22, 1949 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,' as claimed by the said respondents, or wheLher it should be the date of confir-mation, as claimed by the appellants, is the main question which arises for decision in civil appeals Nos. 1845 and 1846 of 1968 which have oeen filed by the Umon of India and two others by special leiive against the judgment of Mysore High Court. Simi.ar question arises in respect of the seniority of Suresh Kumar and·. Tara Chand Jain, respondents in civil appeal No. 50 of 1969 which has been filed by the Union of India and two others on certificate granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court agdinst the judgment of that Court reversing in Letters Patent appeal the -Oecision of the single judge and i;suing writ in favour of those respondents. The High Court heid jn all the cases that the seniority of the concerned respondents should .be determined on the basis of the length of service in accordance with the above mentioned Office Memorandum. '

Before giving the facts of the three cases, it would be pertinent to refer to two Office Memoranda issued biy· the Ministry of HJme Affairs. One of 'the memoranda is dated June 22, 1949. It was mentioned in this memorandum that the Government of India had under consideration the question of the. fixation of seniority of displaced government servants and tempo·ary employees in the various grades. Employees of the Central Government who were displaced' from their offices in Pakistan, according to the memo-randum, had been absorbed in offices under thi: control of the same administrative ministry or on nC'mination by the Transfer Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affair~ in other offices. All those persons had been appointed, with few exceptions, on tem-porary basis. The Ministry of Home Affairs accordingly con-- veyed the following decision :

"It has now been decided in consultation with the Federal Public Service Commission that the question of seniority in each grade should also be examined in the same context and specific rules suitable for each service prescribed in framing those instructions. The question of seniority of Assis•ants in the Secret·1riat was recently examined very carefully in consultation with all the Ministries and Federal Public Service Comm.is-

sion and the decisions reached are incorporated iii para 8 of the 'Instructions for the initial constitution ol the grade of Assistants' an extract of which is attached. It has been decided that this rule should genera]. y be taken as the model in rraming tlie rules of seniority for other services and iii respect of persons employed in any parucular grade seniority should, as general rule, be deterniilied on the l;jasis of the length of service in that Grade irrespective of whether the latter was under .the Central or Provincial Gove.nment of India or Pakistan. It has been found difficult to work on the basis of 'comparable' posts or grades and it has there-fore been deciJed that 'Service in an equivalent Grade', should, generally be defined as service on rate of pay higher than the minimum of the time scale of the grade concerned. The seniority of persons appointed on per-manent or quasi-permanent basis before the 1st J anu-ary, 1944 should, however not be disturbed."Direction was accordingly issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs that the principles given in the Mcmo·andum be borne in mind in determining the seniority of 'Government servants of various categories employed under the Minis ry of Finance, etc.' On December 22, 1959 another Office Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the sut~ect of the general principles for determining seniority of various ca•egories of ]*t!r-sons employed in Central services. Material part of this memo-randum was as under :

"The instructions contained in this Ministry's Office Memorandum No. 30/44/48-Apptts, dated the 22nd June, 1949, were issued in order to safeguard the inte-rests of disp[1]aceu Government servan!s appointed to the Central Services affer partition. As it was not possible to re~u'ate the seniority of only di[0]placed Government servants by giving them credit for previous service, the instructions were made applicable to all categories of persons appoin:ed to Central S 'rvices. The principles contained in the 22nd June, 1949, orders were extended to-

(i) ex-Government servants of Burma appointed to Central Services; and

(ii) the employees of former part 'B' States taken over to the Centre as result of Federal Financial Integration.

The instructions contained in this Ministry's Office Memorandum No. 32/10/49-CS dated the 31st March, 1950 and No. 32/49-CS(C), dated the 20:h Septem-ber, 1952 similarly regulate the seniority cf candida1es with war service appointed to the Central Services.

2. The question has been raised whether it is neces. sary to contmue to apply the instructions contained in the Office Memoranda cited above. Displaced Govern-1rient servants have by and la·rge been absorUed" in the various Central Services and their seniority has been fixed with ret'erence to the p:.evious service rend~red by them. Similarly, the seniority of ex-employees of the Govemmrnt of Burma and of Part 'B' States as we I as of candidates with war service has already been deter-mined in accordance with the instructions ci1ed above. As the specific objects underlying the instructions cited ·above have been achieved, there is no longer any re1son to apply those instructions in preference to the normal principles for determination of seniorLy. It has, there-fore, been decided in ccnsultation with the Union PubEc Se'.vice Commis;io:i, that hereafter the sen:ority of all persons appointed to the variou'i Central Services a.~ter the date of these instructions shou:d be determined in accordance with the General principles annexed hereto. 3. The instructions contained in the variou5 office memoranda cited in paragra~h l above are hereby can-celled, except in regard to delennimtion of senicr'.ty of persons appointed to the va"iou; Central Service; prior to the dale of this Office Memcrandum. The revised General p·inciples emtodied in the Anncxure wi'l not apply with retrospective effect, hut wi11 ccme into force with effect from the date of issue of these orders. unless differen• date in ,-espect of any particular service/ grade from which these revi~ed princip:es are to be adopted for ourpos~s of cetenninin!!; senbritv _has already been or is hereafter agreed to by this Ministry."

Re!evant parts of paragrarh; 1. 3 and 4 of the Annexure to this Memorandum were as under :

"2. Subjec·t to the provi,ion of para 3 bi!low. per-sons appointed in substantive or officiating capacity to grade prior to the issue of these general principles shall retain the relative seniority already as~il!/nej to them or such seniority as may hereafter be assi~ned to them under the existing orders applicable to their cases

and shail en-bloc be senior to all .others in that grade.

3. Subject to the provisions of para 4 below, per-manent' officers of each grade shall be ranked senior to persons who are officiating in that grade.

4. Direct Recruiis :

Notwithstanding the provisions of para 3 ab'ove, the 1elative seniority of all direct recruits shall be deter-mined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment, on the recommendations of the U.P.S.C. or other selecting authority, persons appointed as result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as result of subsequent selection. . .... "

Ravi Varma, respondent No. 1 in civil appeal No. 1845 .:•: 1968, was appointed as an Inspector in the Central Excise Co'-lectorate in Madras on 27-5-47 and was confirmed on 7-4-56. Ganapathi Kini, respondent No. 1 in civil appeal No. 1846, was appointed as an Inspector in the Central Excise Collectorate in Madras on 28-5-47. In view of the war service rendered by Ganapathi Kini, his service for purposes of seniority was computed with effect from 10-10-46 and he was confirmed on 7-4-56. Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma were shown at serial Nos. 115 and 141 in accordance with the length of service in seniority list of inspectors prepared in 1959. Subsequently on the directions of the Central Board of Revenue contained in letter dated October 19, 1962, revised seniority list was prepared in 1963 by com-puting seniority from the date oi confirmation. In the revised list Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma were shown at serial Nos. 149 and 150, junior to persons to whom they had been shown senior in the earlier seniority list. Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma thereupon filed petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the revised seniority list prepared in 1963. The main ground taken in the wri't petitions was that the seniority should be determined according: to length of service in terms of Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Impleaded in the writ petitions as respondento were the Union of India. the Central Board of Revenue and !he Collector of Central Excise as also those inspectors of Central Excise who, according to the petitioners, were junior to them but who on account of being shown senior to the petitioners in the revised seniority list, had been appointed as Senior Grade Inspectors of Central Excise.

The above mentioneJ writ petitions were resisted by the appel-lants. The learned judges of the Mysore High Court referred to the memoranda dated June 22, 1949 and Decem1*r 22, 1959 1&-L7JoSuvcrnz

and held that the altered rule embodied in the Memorandwn dated December 22, 1959 for the determination of seniority would be inapplicable to persons appointed before June 22, 1949 like Ganapathi Kini. Argument was advanced on behalf of the appel-lants that on July 3, 1957 the Central Board of Revenue had again adopted the rule that the date of the confirmation should form the basis for determination cl seniority. This argumen't did not find favour with the learned judges and it was observed :

"But what is however clear is that in the case of person like the petitioner who was appointed before June 22, 1949 the rule made by the Ministry of Home Affairs on that date was what constituted the basis for the determination of seniority and not the rule which was revived by the Central Board of Revenue on July 3, 1957."

Direction was accordingly issued that Ganapathi Kini's seniority should be determined on the basis of the formula contained in the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 and the revised seniority list be rectified accordingly.

In the petition filed ·lt' Ravi Varma the High Court made short order wherein, after referring 'the decision in the case of Ganapathi Kini, the learned judges granted similar relief to Ravi Varma.

Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 1 and Tara Chand Jain, res-pondent No. 2 in civil appeal No. 50 of 1969 were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the Medical Stores Depot, Kamal under the Directorate General of Healih Services on October 9, 1950 and November 26, 1951 respectively. Both of them were con-firmed on March 31, 1960. In the seniori';y list which was pre-pared in accordance with Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 Suresh Kwnar and Tara f:hand Jain, respondents, were shown at serial Nos. 32 and 34 in accordance with their forigth of service. Subsequently Memorandum dated June r9, 1963 was received from the Directorate General of Health Services in which there was reference to the Ministrv of Home Affab Office Memorandum dated December 22: 1959. It was stated in the Memorandum from the Directorate Geneo·al of Health Services that scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates who were confirmed in reserved vacancies would rank senior to temporary, including quasi-permanent persons irrespective of their positions in the seniority list. revised seniority list was thereafter pre-pared and .number of scheduled castes candidates who had been ;recruited later but had been confit"med earlier than Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain were shown senior. Suresh Kumar and

Tara Chand Jain were thus shown at serial Nos. 40 and 42 in the revised seniority li~t. Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain there-after filed petition under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the instructions contained in the Memoran-dl!m dated June 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services as we!J as the revised seniority list and other conse-B · quential reliefs. Impleaded as respondents in the petition were the Union of India, the Director General of Health Services, the Deputy Assistant Director General Medical Stores, as well as 10 other scheduled castes employees of the Medical Stores Depot . Kamal who had been shown senior to the peti'tioners in the revised seniority list.

The above petitions were resisted biy the appellants and \Yere dismissed by the learned single judge. On Letters Patent appeal the judgment of the single judge was reversed and it was held that Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain having been appointed prior to December 22, 1959 were governed by the rule of seniority contained in the Office Memorandum dated June 22, ,1949 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. This position, in the opinion of 'the learned judges, was not affected by tl)e subsequent Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. So far as the Memorandum dated June 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services was concerned, it was found to be. not in consonance with the Office Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on June 22, 1949 and December 22, 1959. As such, the Memorandum issued by the Directorate General of Health Services, according to the learned judges, could not affect the seniority of Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain. . In the result the revised seniority list was held to be invalid and the Union of India ·and two other appellants were directed to prepare revised seniority list in accordance with the original seniority o.f Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain.

The learned Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants has at the outset referred to Memoranda dated June 22, 1949 and Decemtler 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and has argued that after the issue of the latter Memorandum the seniority of all Central Government employees should be deter-mined by the date of their confirmation and not on the basis of the length of service. In this connection, we find that the migration of la1'ge number of Government employees after the partition of the country from areas now forming part of Pakistan, resulted . in J situation wherein the Government had to review the rules re!ating to seniority. As most of those displaced Government • s~rvants had been employed on temporary basis and as it was felt that they ,should be given some weightage in the marter of seniority on compassionate grounds, the rule was evolved ihat the seniority

should be determined on the basis of the length of service in equi-valent grades. The seniorrty of persons appointed on permanent basis or quasi-permanent basis be.fore January l, 1944 was, how-ever, left undisturbed. Further, as it was not possible to regulate the seniority of only displaced Government servants by giving them credit for previous service, the instructions were made applicable to ali categories of persons appointed to Central services. Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 was consequently issued. The above principles were also extended to other category of Govern-ment employees, including those with war service.

The matter was reviewed thereafter in 1959. The Government then found that dispraced Government servants had by and large been absorbed in the various Central· services and their seniority had been fixed with reference to the previous service rendered by them. Same was found to be the position of other Government servants who had been given the benefit of the prineiples contained in Memorandum dated June 22, .1949. As the objects underlying the instructions of June 22, 1949 had been achieved and it was no longer considered necessary 'to apply those instructions in pre-ference to the normal principle for determination of seniority, it was decided that the seniority of Central Government employees would henceforth be determined in accordance with the general principles contained in Annexure 'to the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on December 22, 1959. One of those principles was that permanent officers of' each grade would bie ranked senior to persons who were officiating in that grade. The effect of that, as submitted by the learned Solicitor General, was that the seniority was to be determined by the date of confir-mation and not on the basis of length of service as was the rule contained in the Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949.

The Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959, however, expressly made it clear that the general principles embodied in the Annexure thereto were not to have retrospective effect. In order to put the matter beyond any pale of controversy, it was mentioned that 'hereafter the seniority of all persons' appointed to the various Central Services after the date of these instructions shonld be determined in accordance with the General principles annexed hereto'. It is, therefore, manifest that except in certain cases with which we are not concerned, the Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 and the provisions laid down in the Annexure _thereto could not apply to persons appointed to the various Central services before the date of that Memorandum.

Tt may also be mentioned that while dealing with the above Memorandum, this Court in the case of Mervyn Coutindo & Ors.

v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Ors. (1) observed that these principles were not to apply retrospectively 1*it were given effect to fonn the date of their issue, subject to certain reservations with which we are not concerned.

It has next been argued by the learned Solicitor General that whatever might be the position in respect of the employees in other Central services, so far as the clerk;, supervisors and inspectors under the Central Board of Revenue were concerned, decision was taken that for purposes of promotion, the pennanent emplo-yees should have precedence before non-permanent employees. Our attention in this connection has been invited to letter dated March 15, 1958 sent by the Central Board of Revenue to all Col-lectors of Central Excise. In this letter there was reference to an earlier Jetter dated July 3, 1957 from the Board and it was mentioned that the instructiQIIS contained in the earlier letter that for purposes of promotion from ministerial grade to inspectors grade, permanent clerks would first be considered before consider-D mg persons who were non-permanent, should be followed in res-pect of promotions to other grades also. The Solicitor General accordingly contends that the direction contained in the Memo-randuin dated December 22, 1959 that it could not apply to em-ployees appointed before that date would not hold good in the case of clerks, supervisors and inspectors functioning under the Central Board of Revenue. It is, in our opinion, not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter because we find that the Central Board of Revenue as per letter dated August 27, 1971 addressed to all Collectors of Central Excise, gave fresh instructions regard-ing the principles of seniority. In this letter there was reference to the Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and it was stated :

"In supersession of all previous orders on the suQ-ject, it has now been decided that in so far as the non-gazetted staff in the Central Excise. Customs and Narco-tics Departments and other subordinate offices are con-G cerned, the seniority of persons appointed to various posts and services after receipt of these orders should be regulated in accordance with the Ministry of Home Affairs 0.Ms. referred to above."

It would follow from the above that so far as the non-gazetted staff in the Central Excise, Customs and Narcotics Departments and other subordinate offices of the. Central Board of Revenue are

(ll !l966] l S.C.R. 600.

concerned, the question of seniority would have to be decided in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 19,10-1959. As the said Office Memorandum has, except in certain cases with which we are not concerned, applied the rule of seniority contained in the Annexure thereto only to employees appointed after the date of. that Memorandum, there is no escape from the conclusion that the seniority of Ganapathi Kini and Ravi Varma, respondents, who were appointed prior to December 22, 1959, would have to be determined on the basis of their· length of serviee in accordance with Office Memorandum dated JU;ne 22, 1949 and not on the basis of the date of their confirmation.

In civil appeal No. 50 of 1969 the learned Solicitor General has referred to.Office Memoranda dated January 28, 1952, April 20, 1961 a.nd March 27, 1963 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to show departure from the rule of seniority for the bonefit o.f members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Office Memorandum dated January 28, 1952 makes provision for com-munal representation in services for candidates ~longing to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as also the Anglo-Indian community. The Memorandum gives model roster which should be applied in filling the vacandes. Perusal of the Memorandum shows that it relates only to recruitment and has nothing to do with the rule of seniority.Office Memorandum dated April 20, 1961 deals with the ques-tion of sel).iority of direct recruits who were confirmed jn an order different from the original order of_ merit. According to the Memorandum, it often happens that scheduled caste or scheduled tribe candidate occupying lower position in the merit list is appointed permanently to reserved vacancy, while candidates above him in the merit list are not appointed at that time. If such candidates are appointed in the following year, they are not entitled to higher seniority on the ground that in the previous year they had obtained higher position· in the merit list. It is pfain that the above Office Memorandum did not deal with the question of seniority on the basis of length of service as contained in Office Memorandum dated June 22, 1949 but with the question as to what would be the effect if direct recruit scheduled- caste or scheduled tribe candidate though occupying lower position in the merit list, is confirmed earlier in reserved vacancy. We are in the present case not concerned with any merit list nor with any question of seniodty based on s11cb ·a list. As such, Office Memo-randum dated Aµri! 20, 1961 is also of not any material help to the appellants. It may be stat.ed that. the. counsel for the appel-lants in the High Court conceded that the above Memorandum had no direct relevance in the present controversy.

The third Office Memorandum dated March 27, 1963 referred to by the learned Solicitor General deals with the subject of main-tenance of roster for giving effect to the reservations provided for scheduled castes and scheduled tribies in Central Government services. This Memorandum has bearing only on the question of recruitment and provides no guidelines for determining senio-rity. We, thus, jind that none of the three Office Memoranda relied upon by the Solicitor General is of any material assistance to the appellants. '

We may now advert to the Memorandum dated June 19, 1963 issued by the Directorate General of Health Services. AFJ men-tioned earlier, it was after the receipt of this Memorandum that the seniority list of class III employees of the Government Medical Stores Depot, Karnal was revised. and the seniority was determirled on the basis of the date of confirmation and not on the b~sis of length of service. The above Memorandum from the Directorate General of Health Services expressly refers to the Office Memo-randum dat~d December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of_ Home Affairs and seeks implementation of that. It is no doubt true that direction was given in the Memorandum of the Directorate General of Health Services that scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates confirmed in reserved vacancies should be ranked senior to temporary, inclu.ding quasi-permanent persons, irrespec-tive of their position in the seniority list, but such direction went beyond the rule of seniority contained in the Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in respect of employees appointed b~fore that date. As mentioned earlier Office Memorandum dated December 22, 1959 did not disturb the seniority of Central Government employees who had been appointed prior to the date of that Memorandum, except in certain cases with which We are not concerned. It is not disputed that according to the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 general questions relating to recruitment, promotion and seniority i.n Central services like the one with which we are concerned, have to be dealt with by the Ministry of Home Affiars. As Suresh Kumar and Tara Chand Jain, respondents, were ap-pointed prior to December 22, 1959 their ~eniority was governed by the rule of length of service as contained in Office Meinorandum

dated June 22, 1949 and not by the rule based upon date of con-fumation as contained in the Annexure to the Memorandum dated December 22, 1959.

Reference was made by the learned Solicitor General to the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of lndia([1]) wherein it has been laid dow.n that the service rules may be framed and altered unilaterly by the Government. No occasion for invoking the above dictum arises in this case because the learned counsel for the contesting respondents have not questioned the right of the Government to frame and alter unilaterly the service rules.

In the result, all the three appeals fail, and are dismissed with costs.

One hearing fee.

Appeals dismissed .

.t)ll96SJ 1s.c.R.1ss.

r'~~ " 1V ,.