MADAN GOPAL GARG versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

MADAN GOPAL GARG versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

An appointment in excess of the promotees' quota remains irregular until regularised upon availability of a valid vacancy within the quota; such excess appointment cannot confer seniority or right over a direct recruit validly appointed within quota. The appellant was holding the post in excess of the promotees' quota at the time respondent no. 2 was directly recruited, and therefore he could not claim seniority over respondent no. 2.

Parties
Appellant: Madan Gopal Garg; Respondent: State of Punjab; Respondent: Respondent No. 2 (not named); Respondent: Respondent No. 3 (not named)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Promotion, Quota Rule, Direct Recruitment Vs. Promotion
Service Law Seniority Promotion Quota Rule Direct Recruitment Vs. Promotion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madan Gopal Garg

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Respondent No. 2 (not named)

Respondent

Respondent No. 3 (not named)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's promotion as Controller was within the quota for promotees under the Punjab Food and Supplies Department (State Service Class II) Rules, 1966.
  2. 2 Whether the quota rule for appointments to the post of Controller had broken down due to excess promotions between 1966 and 1974.
  3. 3 Whether appointment in excess of quota can confer seniority over direct recruits within their quota.

Ratio Decidendi

An appointment in excess of the promotees' quota remains irregular until regularised upon availability of a valid vacancy within the quota; such excess appointment cannot confer seniority or right over a direct recruit validly appointed within quota. The appellant was holding the post in excess of the promotees' quota at the time respondent no. 2 was directly recruited, and therefore he could not claim seniority over respondent no. 2.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs