2021 INSC 0328
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4482 OF 2021
(arising out of SLP(C)No.28392 of 2018) 
TEK CHAND AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD 
(B.B.M.S.) AND OTHERS           . ..RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The   appellants   were   promoted   to   the   post   of   Leading
Fireman   on   09.02.2012   under   the   Bhakra   Beas   Management
Board   Class­III   and   Class­IV   Employees   (Recruitment   and
Conditions   of   Service)   Regulations,   1994   (hereinafter   called   “the
Regulations”).   Their promotions have been annulled by the High
Court,   holding   them   to   be   ineligible   for   promotion   under   the
Regulations.
1

3. The   post   of   Fireman   is   a   feeder   post   for   that   of   Leading
Fireman. The appellants are admittedly senior to respondent no.3
having   been   appointed   as   Fireman   on   09.02.1991.     Respondent
no.3 was appointed as Fireman on 09.01.1992.   The respondent
filed   a   writ   petition   claiming   to   be   considered   for   promotion   as
Leading   Fireman   in   view   of   available   vacancies.     The   appellants
came to be promoted during the pendency of the writ petition and
were impleaded as respondents. No relief was sought against the
appellants.   The   High   Court   annulled   the   promotion   of   the
appellants   as   ineligible   under   the   Regulations,   and   directed   the
promotion of respondent no.3.
4. Shri   S.N.   Bhat,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,
submitted   that   the   appellants   are   admittedly   senior   to
respondent no.3. Regulation 5 provided that promotion was to be
based on the seniority­cum­merit principle.   The appellants held
a   good   service   record.   The   Departmental   Promotion   Committee
after   consideration   of   their   candidature   promoted   them   on
09.02.2012 as Leading Fireman. Respondent no.3 had sought no
relief for annulling the promotion of the appellants, yet the High
2

Court travelled beyond the pleadings to grant a relief not sought
by respondent no.3.  
5. Shri   Bhat   submits   that   the   possession   of   an   appreciation
certificate   under   serial   3   of   Schedule   ‘A’   of   the   Regulations   was
not   an   independent   requirement   in   addition   to   a   good   service
record.   It   was   but   only   a   facet   of   the   good   service   record.     He
relies upon a passage from  Principles of Statutory Interpretation
by Justice G.P. Singh, 9 th
 Edition, which reads as under:
“It   is   also   not   unusual   to   find   use   of   pairs   of
words as a composite class. An example of this
nature is found in section 22(1) of the Common
Regulation   Act,   1965   which   uses   the
expression   ‘sports   and   pastimes’   as   a
composite class. In interpreting this expression
LORD   HOFFMAN   said:   “As   a   matter   of
language   I   think   that   ‘sports   and   pastimes’   is
not   two   classes   of   activities   but   a   single
composite class which uses two words in order
to avoid arguments over whether an activity is
a   sport   or   pastime.   The   law   constantly   uses
pairs   of   words   in   this   way.   As   long   as   the
activity   can   properly   be   called   a   sport   or   a
pastime, it falls within the composite class. [R.
v. Oxfordshire County Council, (1999) 3 All ER
385 p.396 (HL)]”
The   High   Court   erred   in   holding   that   the   two   were   conjunctive
requirements   and   in   absence   of   appreciation   certificates,   the
3

appellants were ineligible to be considered for promotion.   Under
the   Regulations,   promotion   was   to   be   based   on   seniority­cum­
merit.     Since   the   appellants   held   good   service   records   and   were
senior   to   respondent   no.3,   they   were   rightly   promoted   on
09.02.2012.   Appellants   nos.1   and   3   have   since   retired   from
service.     The   promotion   of   the   appellants   was   protected,   both
before   the   High   Court   and   during   the   pendency   of   the   present
appeal.     They   have   uninterruptedly   continued   on   the   post   of
Leading   Fireman.     Respondent   no.3   has   also   been   promoted
subsequently on 21.07.2014 with effect from 09.02.2012.
6. Shri   Kailash   Vasdev,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the   management,   submitted   that   promotion   from   the   post   of
Fireman to Leading Fireman under the Regulations are based on
seniority­cum­merit   principle   alone.     The   appellants   are
admittedly   senior   to   respondent   no.3.     There   were   21   other
persons above respondent no.3 in the seniority list of Fireman, as
mentioned   in   the   counter   affidavit   before   the   High   Court.
Respondent   no.3   could   not   have   been   granted   promotion
4

superseding   so   many   persons   without   examination   of   their
claims. 
7. Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel  for  respondent no.3,
submitted   that   the   requirements   to   show   appreciable   initiative
and   to   obtain   good   reports   cannot   be   telescoped   together,   as
suggested   on   behalf   of   the   appellants,   but   are   separate
requirements.     The   respondent   alone   possesses   an   appreciable
initiative certificate dated 14.08.2011 from the Chief Engineer.  It
was   acknowledged   that   the   respondent   has   also   since   been
promoted   with   effect   from   09.02.2012.     The   respondent,   though
junior but being more meritorious than the appellants, there has
been no violation of the seniority­cum­merit principle. 
8. We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the
parties. Regulations 4(5) and 5, relevant to the controversy, read
as follows:
“4. Mode of appointment­
xxxxxx
5

4(5)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   these
regulations   appointment   by   promotion   shall   be   made   by
selection   based   on   seniority­cum­merit   and   no   employee
shall be entitled to such appointment as of right.
5. Qualification­ No person shall be appointed to the service
unless   he   possesses   the   essential   qualifications   and
experience   prescribed   in   Schedule   ‘A’   annexed   with   these
regulations.”
9. Serial   3   to   Schedule   ‘A’   (for   Group   VIII)   prescribing   the
qualifications   for   promotion   to   Leading   Fireman   from   Fireman
inter alia  reads as follows:                                                                
Sr. 
No. Name of 
Post Method 
of 
Appoint
ment Minimum Educational and other 
qualifications  Minimum 
Experience
3.   Leading 
Fireman By 
promoti
on from 
amongst
firemen Qualified   in   sub–Fire   Officer’s
course   from   National   Fire   Service
College,   Nagpur   or   equivalent
degree with heavy  vehicles driving
license
or
Qualified   in   Fire   Course   arranged
by   Ministry   of   Defence   or   Home
Affairs with heavy vehicles license
or
Departmental   candidates   without
any   course   who   show   appreciable
initiative   and   obtain   good   reports
with heavy vehicle license 5 years 
experience in
Fire Service
7 years 
experience in
Fire Service
10 years 
experience in
Fire Service
6

10. The   Regulations   provide   that   appointment   by   promotion   is
to   be   made   by   selection   based   on   seniority­cum­merit   and   no
employee   is   entitled   to   appointment   as   a   matter   of   right.
Schedule ‘A’ provides three different categories of Fireman eligible
to   be  considered  for   promotion   to   Leading  Fireman.     We   are   not
concerned   with   the   first   two   categories.     The   appellants   and
respondent   no.3,   all   belong   to   the   third   category.   They   do   not
possess   any   proficiency   qualifications   but   have   10   years’
experience as Fireman.   It was expected that they would acquire
sufficient experience by that time to be considered for promotion.
Experience   and   skill   acquired   during   on­the­job   training   is   very
different   from   expertise   acquired   based   on   preceding   proficiency
qualifications from accredited institutions. 
11.  The   term   selection   used   in   Regulation   4(5)   and   its
connotation in respect of the third category of Fireman has to be
understood in that context.   Though a good service record would
be a  sine qua non  for selection based on seniority­cum­merit, but
if a Fireman appeared to have acquired better proficiency by on­
the­job training by reason of an appreciation certificate, he would
7

certainly   be   considered   in   possession   of   an   additional   attribute.
The   appellants   have   not   been   granted   appreciable   initiative
certificates in performance of their  duties.   We find it difficult to
uphold   the   reasoning   that   both   requirements   were   mandatory
and   conjunctive   for   promotion   or   that   appreciable   initiative   was
only a facet of a good service record.  If that were so, there was no
need   to   incorporate   appreciable   initiative   as   a   separate   head   in
the   Regulations.     To   interpret   it   otherwise   is   to   render   a   part   of
the   Regulations   as   redundant.     The  language   of   the   Regulations
being   clear,   it   shall   require   a   literal   interpretation.     The   view   be
taken   by   us   is   fortified   from   the   endorsement   by   the   Chief
Engineer   on   the   appreciable   initiative   certificate   given   to
respondent no.3 that it should be annexed to his service record.
12. In other words, a person possessing good reports is eligible
to   be   considered   for   appointment   by   promotion   as   Leading
Fireman   based   on   selection.     Other   things   being   equal   between
competing   candidates,   seniority   is   to   be   given   due   weightage.
But it does not mean that even if a junior is more meritorious by
way   of   possessing   an   appreciable   initiative   certificate   which   the
8

senior does not, irrespective of the same, the senior shall march
ahead on the seniority­cum­merit principle.
13. The   fallacy   in   the   thinking   of   the   management   is   evident
from the letter of the Secretary dated 06.02.2011 in context of the
writ   petition   filed   by   respondent   no.3,   opining   that   under   the
Regulations   there   was   no   provision   for   extra   weightage   of
appreciation   letter   issued   to   employees.     We   are   unable   to
sustain the same.
14. The   seniority­cum­merit   principle   is   well   established   in
service   jurisprudence   and   does   not   need   much   discussion.     In
B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. vs. K. Addankl Babu and Ors. , (1998) 6
SCC   720,   explaining   the   principle   of   seniority­cum­merit   in
service jurisprudence, this Court observed as follows:
“10. On the other hand, as between the two principles
of seniority and merit, the criterion of “seniority­cum­
merit”   lays   greater   emphasis   on   seniority.   In   State   of
Mysore v. Syed Mahmood   [AIR 1968 SC 1113 : (1968)
3   SCR   363]   while   considering   Rule   4(3)(b)   of   the
Mysore   State   Civil   Services   General   Recruitment
Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by
selection   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­merit,   this
9

Court   has  observed   that   the   Rule   required  promotion
to   be   made   by   selection   on   the   basis   of   “seniority
subject to the fitness of the candidate to discharge the
duties   of   the   post   from   among   persons   eligible   for
promotion”.   It   was   pointed   out   that   where   the
promotion is based on seniority­cum­merit, the officer
cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue
of   his   seniority   alone   and   if   he   is   found   unfit   to
discharge   the   duties   of   the   higher   post,   he   may   be
passed   over   and   an   officer   junior   to   him   may   be
promoted.
11.   In   State   of   Kerala   v.   N.M.   Thomas   [(1976)   2   SCC
310] A.N. Ray, C.J. has thus explained the criterion of
“seniority­cum­merit”: (SCC p. 335, para 38)
“With  regard  to  promotion   the  normal  principles
are   either   merit­cum­seniority   or   seniority­cum­
merit.  Seniority­cum­merit means that  given  the
minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency
of   administration,   the   senior   though   the   less
meritorious shall have priority.”
xxxxxxxxxx
18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion
of   “seniority­cum­merit”   in   the   matter   of   promotion
postulates   that   given   the   minimum   necessary   merit
requisite   for   efficiency   of   administration,   the   senior,
even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a
comparative assessment of merit is not required to be
made.   For   assessing   the   minimum   necessary   merit,
the   competent   authority   can   lay   down   the   minimum
standard that is required and also prescribe the mode
of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible
for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can
be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal
of   performance   on   the   basis   of   service   record   and
interview   and   prescribing   the   minimum   marks   which
would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of
seniority­cum­merit.”
10

15. We are unable to sustain the view taken by the High Court
that it was only if a candidate possessed an appreciable initiative
and   also   obtained   good   reports,   then   only   he   was   eligible   to   be
considered   for   promotion.     The   use   of   the   word   ‘and’,   to   our
understanding does not make it compulsory for the candidate to
possess both because in that event the question of selection from
amongst   the   eligible   post   on   the   seniority­cum­merit   principle
would not apply  stricto senso .   
16.  Respondent no.3 had not sought any relief for setting aside
the promotion of the appellants.  The High Court travelled beyond
the pleadings in annulling  the promotion of the appellants.   The
High   Court   even   while   holding   that   promotion   was   not   a   matter
of   right,   nonetheless   instead   of   directing   consideration   of   the
claim of respondent no.3 for promotion, exceeded its jurisdiction
by   issuing   a   mandamus   for   promotion.     The   High   Court
completely   lost   sight   of   the   objection   of   the   management   that
there were many others senior to respondent no.3 in the category
of Fireman.  A writ petition by respondent no.3 could not become
11

a springboard for out of turn promotion superseding his seniors,
taking  them  by surprise without an opportunity  to contest even.
The   impugned   order   directing   promotion   of   respondent   no.3,
causes   discrimination   by   a   judicial   order   leaving   the   aggrieved
remediless   as   observed   in   Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation   Ex­
employees   Association   vs.   Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation
Ltd.     (1995)   2   SCC   15.     Appropriately   the   High   Court   ought   to
have   directed   consideration   of   respondent   no.3   for   promotion   in
accordance with law.  However, in the facts of the case we are not
inclined to interfere with the promotion of respondent no.3.
17. The   appeal   therefore   is   allowed   holding   that   the   appellants
were   eligible   to   be   considered   for   promotion.   Their   orders   of
promotion are restored subject to the principle of seniority­cum­
merit as discussed hereinabove. 
…………...................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
…………...................J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
NEW DELHI
JULY 29, 2021.
12