SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & Ors. v. STATE OF ORISSA & Ors.

Appellants-Sl(g) in the present cases, filed applications before Administrative Tribunal. The applications were disposed of, relying on the decision in C Parsuram's case. Aggrieved by the judgments passed by the Tribunal, Sl(St) filed writ petitions. High Court partly' allowed the writ petitions. It directed to reconsider the. case of promotion of Sl(g) to the post of Inspectors, and if· it was found that they had been placed below Sl(St), they · should be granted promotion (if they fulfilled minimum D eligibility criteria) from the date their counterparts in the other wing had been promoted. However, directions issued by the Tribunal to prepare the gradation list of Sl(St) and Sl(g) in accordance with the dates of passing out of the Sub-Inspector training course, was quashed. Hence . E the present appeals. · Appellants contended that courts below could not have relied on the letters written by Home Department and by Ministry of Law, as they were merely opinions and could not be treated as Executive Instructions; that in F absence of statutory rules for determining the inter-se seniority, long-standing practice for determination of such seniority, could not be disturbed at a belated stage, while the Sl(St) had further been given two promotions and that was not challenged; and that High Court erred in not taking into consideration the distinction between eligibility for G promotion and seniority. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Seniority and eligibility for promotion are two different concepts altogether, In absence of any · statutory rules, the executive instructions for fixing the H: . . 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL:) S.C.R. A inter se seniorify of two wings of the Sub-Inspectors could have been issued by the State Government. Admittedly, no such executive instruction has ever been issued. The letters issue~ by the Government Departments, being \ merely opinion of the Departments could not be conferred ·.f3\ .· ~~~~~~~~ho:Ar~~:~ti~~:·~~·~tructions .. ~~ara~ ·~~~·~nd 1. ~~ .c~r9~ 1.2. The juclgm~nt of the Tribunal treating opinion of the Law Ministry and Home Department as statutory Rules/ Executive Instructions is not worth acceptance. Mere opinion given by various departments of the Government C cannot be termed as Executive instructions. [Para 13] [878- F-H]