R. S. MAKASHI & ORS. versus I. M. MENON & ORS.

R. S. MAKASHI & ORS. versus I. M. MENON & ORS.

The impugned seniority principles under rule 4(a), (c) and the proviso to rule 7 are valid and constitutional; government has authority under Article 309 to frame rules of inter se seniority for integrated personnel from various sources, and the principles adopted are reasonable. Seniority lists must be revised only to correct deviation from the rules where juniors were ranked above seniors contrary to the rules.

Parties
Appellants: R.S. Makashi & Ors.; Respondents: I.M. Menon & Ors.; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 December 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated March 3, 1980 of Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 106 of 1980
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgments set aside; writ petition allowed only to limited extent.
Legal Topics
Seniority Rules, Government Servants, Deputation, Laches, Absorption and Integration, Equality Under Articles 14 and 16, Rule Making Power Under Article 309
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Seniority Rules Government Servants Deputation Laches Absorption and Integration +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.S. Makashi & Ors.

Appellants

I.M. Menon & Ors.

Respondents

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated March 3, 1980 of Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 106 of 1980

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clauses (a) and (c) of rule 4 and the proviso to rule 7 of the Bombay Rationing Organisation (Fixation of Seniority) Rules, 1968 are violative of Articles 14 and 16
  2. 2 Whether petition is barred by laches
  3. 3 Whether seniority lists are to be revised according to valid principles

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned seniority principles under rule 4(a), (c) and the proviso to rule 7 are valid and constitutional; government has authority under Article 309 to frame rules of inter se seniority for integrated personnel from various sources, and the principles adopted are reasonable. Seniority lists must be revised only to correct deviation from the rules where juniors were ranked above seniors contrary to the rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgments set aside; writ petition allowed only to limited extent.

Orders

  • Respondents 23 and 24 (State of Maharashtra and Controller of Rationing, Bombay) directed to revise impugned seniority lists and refix ranking in light of Court's judgment.
  • Writ petition (Misc. Petition No. 166 of 1976) allowed only to limited extent; dismissed otherwise.