Direct recruits not clearing departmental examination during probation period, can be placed at bottom of seniority but cannot be made juniors to subsequent batch

The case laid before the Larger Bench upon a reference made by the Division Bench, doubting the correctness of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in case of Masood Akhtar (Dr.) vs. R.K. Tripathi that direct recruits of the State Administrative Services, not clearing departmental examination during the period of probation or extended period of one year, at worst, could be placed at the bottom of the same batch in which they were selected but cannot be made junior to recruits of subsequent batch and such employees would always rank senior to recruits appointed in subsequent selection.

Reference made on premise that conclusion arrived at by the Full Bench by relying on Rule 8 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 was not legally correct, because it failed to specifically consider the effect of Rule 13 of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975.

Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq aptly quoted “Rules of 1975 would govern the conditions of service of the members of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Services but without prejudice to the generality of the Rules of 1961. What therefore can be deduced from this is that the Rules of 1961 shall continue to apply except insofar as special provisions have been made in the Rules of 1975. Therefore, it continues to apply to those who hold a post”.

He further added, “It would have been ideal if the Full Bench while answering the reference in case of Masood Akhtar (Dr.) had also specifically examined Rule 13 of the Rules of 1975 but the mere fact that the Full Bench only considered Rule 8 of the Rules of 1961 and not Rule 13 of the Rules of 1975, would not make any difference insofar as the interpretation of the Rules that we have made and further so far as the question of seniority of such Government servants, who are at that stage considered as a temporary Government servant, is concerned, even while observing that the Full Bench in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) ought to have considered the Rule 13 of the Rules of 1975, we are inclined to hold that its non-consideration does not in any manner affect the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Full Bench.”

Appearing Counsels - Mr. Naman Nagrath, Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava, Mr. Jubin Prasad, Mr. Anshuman Singh, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Mr. Abhishek Arjaria, Mr. Kedar Singh