Page 1

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. v.

ARCHANAN SHUKLA & ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5130 OF 2009)

JULY 20, 2011 [Markandey Katju and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.]

The following Order of the Court was delivered  ORDER

Civil Appeal No. 5130 of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 6th  

March, 2006 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition  No. 140/2005.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not  repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

The respondents herein were appointed on adhoc officiating post in the year 1988  for a fixed term which was continued They were regularised in the year 2004 under  the Uttaranchal Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments (Posts under the purview of  Public Service Commission)  Rules,  2002 (for  short  ‘the Rules’).  The respondents  claimed benefit of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of seniority and  this has been granted by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

We are afraid, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High Court. Rule 7 (1) of the Rules states as under: “A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the  date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and  shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the  relevant service rules or as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure,  prior in the appointment of such person under these rules.” Admittedly,  the  respondents  were  appointed  after  a  selection  under  the  

Regularization Rules in the year 2004. Hence, in our view, they can get seniority only  from the year 2004 and not from 1988. The rule is clear and hence we cannot debar  from the clear meaning of the rule.

It has been held in Raghunath Rai Bareja & Another vs. Punjab National Bank   & Others (2007) 2 SCC 230 that when there is a conflict between law and equity, it is  the law which has to prevail in accordance with the latin maxim ‘dura lex sed lex’  which means ‘the law is hard but it is the law’. Equity can only supplement the law,  but it cannot supplant or override it. This view was followed in Civil Appeal No.  2684 of 2007 titled B. Premanand & Others vs. Mohan Koikal & Others decided on  16th March, 2011.

Page 2

In the present  case,  Rules  7 is  very clear  and hence the respondents  are  not  entitled to the benefit of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of their  seniority.

Accordingly,  this  appeal  is  allowed and the impugned judgment  of  the  High  Court is set aside, No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 1474 of 2007. In view of our order passed today in Civil Appeal, No. 5130 of 2009, this appeal is  also allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs