IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5130 OF 2009

State of Uttarakhand & Another ..Appellants  

versus

Archana Shukla & Others ..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1474 OF 2007

O R D E R

Civil Appeal No.5130 of 2009

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment  

and order dated 06th 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.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5130 OF 2009 etc.

-2-

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.

In the present case, Rule 7 is very clear and hence the  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5130 OF 2009 etc.

-3-

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.

.........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; .........................J. JULY 20, 2011 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]