2021 INSC 0809
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).     7535     OF 2021
         (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 3896 of 2019)
SHYAM SUNDER OBEROI & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has jointly been filed by the employees who
are   substantively   appointed   as   Lower   Division   Clerks(in   short
“LDC”)   after   going   through   the   regular   process   of   recruitment   and
qualifying   written   and   typing   tests   in   the   year   1987   assailing   the
1

judgment  passed by  the  Division  Bench  of the High Court of Delhi
dated   6 th
  December,   2018   directing   the   respondents   who   were
appointed   on   ad­hoc   basis   in   the   years   1983­1989   and   later
qualified   the   typing   test   in   the   first   or   second   attempt   in   the   year
1992   or   thereafter   are   placed   en­block   senior   to   the   appellants   in
the   seniority   list   of   LDC   on   being   regularized   by   Order   dated   17 th
November, 2000 from the date of their initial ad­hoc appointment.  
3. Although   in   the   Order   dated   17 th
  November   2000,   it   was
clearly   mentioned   that   the   seniority   of   the   respondents   ad­hoc
employees who are regularised after qualifying typing test from the
date of their initial appointment, shall be fixed separately according
to   rules.     Admittedly,   there   are   no   rules/guidelines   available   for
determining   seniority   of   the   employees   appointed   in   the   cadre   of
LDC   of   the   ministerial   staff   under   the   subordinate   judiciary   of
Delhi.
4. Admittedly,   the   respondents   were   initially   appointed   as   LDC
on   ad­hoc   basis   during   the   period   1983­1989   and   their   term   of
appointment   was   extended   from   time   to   time.     Since   they   were
continued   for   a   long   period  of   time,   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.  1820   of
2

1990   was   filed   by   them   before   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   seeking
regularization of service.  
5. During the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 1820 of 1990, a
fresh appointment process was initiated, pursuant to which a panel
of 180 candidates was prepared and it was notified that the written
test   and   typing   test   is   scheduled   to   be   held   on   23 rd
  August,   1992
and   their   grievance   was   that   if   such   candidates   are   being
appointed,   that   will   jeopardize   their   claim   of   seniority   and   taking
note   thereof,   by   an   interim   Order   dated   20 th
  August,   1992   while
keeping 26 vacancies reserved for ad­hoc employees, granted them
protection of seniority and deferred the test which was to be held on
23 rd
 August, 1992.
6.   By a subsequent order dated 12 th
 November 1992, the learned
Single Judge of the High Court while granting exemption to the ad­
hoc   employees   from   appearing   in   the   written   test   directed   to
consider them for regularization after qualifying typing test.   It was
further   directed   by   the   High   Court   in   its   Order   dated   12 th
November,   1992   that   the   seniority   of   the   respondent   ad­hoc
employees in the cadre of LDC vis­à­vis fresh recruits, who were to
3

be   appointed   from   the   panel   of   180   candidates   shall   remain
protected.
7. Such   of   the   employees/LDCs   who   were   working   on   ad­hoc
basis and qualified the typing test pursuant to an order dated 12 th
November, 1992 passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
1820  of   1990  followed  with   the   Order   of   the  Division   Bench   of  the
High Court dated 6 th
  April, 1994 in the earlier proceedings initiated
at their instance, the District and Session Judge, Delhi(respondent
no.   1),   by   an   Order   dated   17 th
  November,   2000   regularised   the
services of such ad­hoc LDCs who qualified the typing test from the
date of their initial appointment.   At the given point of time, it was
specifically mentioned that such of the LDCs who stand regularized
from   the   date   of   initial   appointment   pursuant   to   an   Order   dated
17 th
  November   2000,   their   seniority   shall   be   separately   fixed   in
accordance with rules.
8. The   order   passed   by   the   District   and   Session   Judge,   Delhi
dated 17 th
  November 2000 became a subject matter of challenge by
filing   of   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.   7462   of   2000   before   the   learned
Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   at   the   instance   of   the   present
4

appellants   and   few   others   who   are   similarly   situated   appointed   as
LDCs   through   open   selection   during   the   year   1987,   after   going
through   the   process   of   selection   for   making   substantive
appointment.
9. The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   by   Order   dated
10 th
  March   2015,   after   taking   into   consideration   the   material
available   on   record,   and   as   there   was   no   rule   existing   in
determining   seniority   of   LDCs   working   in   the   ministerial   cadre   of
the   subordinate   Courts,   placing   reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this
Court in   Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Association Vs.
State   of   Maharashtra   1990(2)   SCC   712   in   para   47(B)   held   as
under:­
“In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.  Impugned
list/order   dated   17.11.2000   is   quashed   to   the   limited   extent   that
the   private   respondent   nos.   3   to   25   are   given   seniority   above   the
petitioners.   The order  dated 17.11.2000 will remain to the extent
that it regularizes the services of the private respondents, of course
however   the   same   is   not   to   have   the   effect   of   giving   private
respondents   seniority   above   the   petitioners   as   claimed   by   the
private   respondents   and   also   supported   by   the   respondent   no.
1/employer.  No costs.”
10. Since the respondents were deprived of their seniority from the
date   of   appointment,   the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated
5

10 th
  March,   2015   came   to   be   challenged   at   their   instance   by   filing
Letters Patent Appeal No. 328 of 2015.
11. While   examining   the   question   in   regard   to   determining
seniority   of   ad­hoc   employees   who   qualified   the   typing   test   at   the
later stage and were regularized from the initial date of appointment
by   Order   dated   17 th
  November   2000,   the   emphasis   of   the   Division
Bench   was   on   the   Order   dated   20 th
  August,   1992   passed   by   the
High Court in the earlier round of litigation in Civil Writ Petition No.
1820   of   1990   noticing   the   apprehension   shown   by   the   respondent
ad­hoc   employees   that   180   candidates   who   are   in   the   panel,   their
typing   test   is   being   scheduled   on   23 rd
  August,   1992     and   at   the
given point of time, such of the candidates who qualified the written
and   typing   test,   on   being   appointed   may   jeopardize   their   right   of
seniority and at least their seniority qua them be protected and by
an   interim   Order   dated  20 th
  August,  1992,  seniority   of   such   of   the
ad­hoc   employees   who   were   considered   for   regularization   were
directed   to   be   protected   qua   the   panel   of   180   candidates   who
qualified   the   written   and   typing   test   and   that   was   noticed   by   the
6

learned Single Judge of the High Court while disposing of Civil Writ
Petition No. 1820 of 1990 by its Order dated 12 th
 November, 1992.
12. It may be relevant to note that the present appellants are not
concerned/related   to   the   candidates   who   were   in   the   panel   of   180
candidates   of   which   a   reference   has   been   made   by   the   learned
Single Judge of the High Court in its Order dated 20 th
 August, 1992
but   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   in   its   impugned
judgment, took note of the Order dated 20 th
 August 1992 passed by
the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   in   the   earlier
proceedings   of   which   a   reference   has   been   made   allowed   the   LPA
preferred   by   the   respondents   by   Order   dated   6 th
  December,   2018
and observed as under:­
“14. The above statement before the Court on behalf of respondent
no.   1   was   honoured   when   the   order   dated   17 th
  November,   2000
was issued regularizing the services of the appellants from the date
of their initial appointments.   Once it was made clear by the order
dated   20 th
  August,   1992   that   the   filling   up   of   the   vacancies   on
regular   basis   would   be   subject   to   the   right   of   the   present
appellants   in   the   matter   of   seniority,   as   and   when   they   were
regularized,   it   could   not   have   been   contended   by   the   writ
petitioners   i.e.   Respondent   nos.   2   to   37   that   notwithstanding   the
order   dated   20 th
  August,   1992   of   this   Court,   which   has   become
final,   the   writ   petitioners   would   be   considered   seniors   to   the
present appellants.  Once the appellants had been regularized from
a   certain   date,   their   seniority   obviously   had   to   be   counted   from
that   date.     That   was   in   fact   the   whole   purpose   of   the   appellants
seeking regularization from the date of their initial appointments.
7

15. It   is   also   not   as   if   the   present   appellants   were   not   qualified
and,   therefore,   could   not   have   been   regularized   from   the   dates   of
their  initial appointment.   It is another  matter that  the appellants
did not undergo a written test but then they had worked for nearly
seven  years  as  LDCs  when  they   were  made   to  undergo   the   typing
test.   Again, pursuant to the judicial orders which were passed on
12 th
 November, 1992 and 6 th
 April, 1994, they underwent tests, but
in   a   sense   a   modified   test   of   where   the   written   examination   was
dispensed   with   and   they   were   made   to   give   the   typing­cum­
shorthand test in which they qualified.  As already noticed, some of
them   had   got   a   second   chance   pursuant   to   the   order   dated   6 th
April,  1994  of   the   Division   Bench.    Nevertheless,   the   fact   remains
that   the   present   appellants   passed   the   qualifying   test   they   were
expected to pass in order to be regularized.
18. While   this   Court   concurs   with   the   decision   of   the   learned
Single   Judge   that   the   dates   of   the   regularization   of   the   present
appellants in the post from the date of their initial appointment on
ad   hoc   basis   in   terms   of   the   order   dated   17 th
  November,   2000
issued   by   the   respondent   no.   1   should   be   left   undisturbed,   this
Court disagrees with the learned Single Judge that the seniority of
the   appellants   would   not   count   from   those   very   dates   of   their
regularization.
19. To   that   extent,   the   impugned   order   of   the   learned   Single
Judge is set aside.  The net result is that the appellants will count
their   seniority   from   the   dates   of   their   respective   regularization   of
the posts as LDCs.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record with their assistance.
14. The   facts   are   not   in   dispute   and   culled   out   that   the   present
group   of   appellants   are   the   members  of   the   ministerial   cadre(LDC)
appointed   on   substantive   basis   after   going   through   the   process   of
selection   prescribed   for   holding   regular   selection   after   they   have
8

gone   through   the   written   test   followed   with   the   typing   test   in   the
year   1987.     At   the   given   point   of   time,   the   respondents   were
appointed on ad­hoc basis for a fixed term during the period 1983­
1989 and after they were granted exemption from appearing in the
written   test   by   the   High   Court   in   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.   1820   of
1990 preferred at their instance, all of them qualified the typing test
in   the   first   or   second   attempt   in   the   year   1992   or   thereafter   and
were   regularized   by   the   District   and   Session   Judge   by   an   order
dated   17 th
  November,   2000   from   the   date   of   their   initial
appointment.     So   far   as   the   question   of   seniority   is   concerned,   it
was specifically mentioned that it shall be separately determined in
accordance with rules but as there were no rules/guidelines at that
time   for   determining   seniority   of   the   employees   of   the   ministerial
cadre in the subordinate service of Delhi, a presumption was drawn
as  they  were  regularized  from   the date  of appointment that  entails
consequential seniority but that came to be clarified by the learned
Single   Judge   that   they   will   not   be   entitled   to   claim   seniority   over
such   of   the   employees   who   were   appointed   on   substantive   basis
unlike  the  present appellants but that  came to  be set aside by  the
9

Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated
6 th
 December, 2018 primarily relying on the interim order passed by
the   High   Court   in   the   earlier   proceedings   dated   20 th
  August   1992
which was in reference to panel of 180 candidates who qualified the
typing   test   held   pursuant   to   Orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Delhi dated 12 th
 November, 1992 and 6 th
 April, 1994 respectively.
15. Indisputedly, the Order dated 20 th
 August, 1992 in no manner
was related to determination of seniority qua the present appellants
who   were   recruited   through   open   selection   after   qualifying   the
written test followed by typing test in the year 1987.
16. In   the   facts   and   circumstances,   a   question   certainly   arises   if
the   employees   who   were   appointed   in   the   first   instance   on   ad­hoc
basis  for  a   fixed  term   which   has   been   extended  from   time  to   time,
and have qualified the typing test at a later point of time, which is
one   of   the   pre­qualification   for   regular/substantive   appointment,
can   claim   regularization   from   initial   appointment   but   since   the
learned   Single   Judge   and   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   in
the   impugned   judgment   have   not   interfered   with   the   order   passed
by   the   District   and   Session   Judge   dated   17 th
  November,   2000   in
10

granting   the   benefit   of   regularization   from   the   date   of   initial
appointment,   after   such   a   long   passage   of   time,   it   would   not   have
been advisable for this Court to interfere so far as such appointees
seeking regularization from the date of initial appointment although
acquire the pre­requisite qualification at the later  stage, but at the
given point of time, the interim order dated 20 th
 August, 1992 of the
High   Court   in   the   earlier   proceedings   has   been   misread   by   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   while   passing   the   impugned
judgment dated 6 th
 December 2018. 
17. We consider it appropriate to observe that the employees who
were appointed on ad­hoc basis and qualified typing test at the later
stage, in absence of the scheme of rules in determining seniority, at
least   could   not   have   a   right   to   march   over   such   of   the   employees
who   were   appointed   on   substantive   basis   after   going   through   the
process   of   selection   for   holding   regular   selection   and   their   right   of
seniority   in   no   manner   be   relegated   qua   such   of   the   ad­hoc
employees who qualified typing test at a later stage and regularized
subsequently from the date of initial appointment like in the instant
case by an Order dated 17 th
 November, 2000.
11

18. In   our   considered   view,   the   Division   Bench   has   committed   a
manifest error under the impugned judgment in granting them the
benefit   of   seniority   who   were   appointed   on   ad­hoc   basis   as   LDCs
from   the   date   of   their   regularization   which   was   neither   granted   by
the   District   and   Session   Judge   by   its   Order   dated   17 th
  November,
2000 nor they were entitled for under the law.
19. Consequently,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is   allowed.   The
judgment   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   High   Court   of   Delhi
dated 6 th
 December, 2018 is accordingly set aside.  No costs.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
 
……………………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 08, 2021
12