DEO'S CASE: APEX COURT JUDGEMENT

7/23/2019 DEO'S CASE: APEX COURT JUDGEMENT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deos-case-apex-court-judgement 1/61

1

“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2485-2490 OF 2010

Dhole Govind Sahebrao & others … Appellantsversus

Union of India & others … RespondentsITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2491-250! OF 2010

Union of India & others … Appellants

versus A. Karunanithi … Respondent

ITHCIVIL APPEAL NO. 25"" OF 2010

Union of India & others … Appellantsversus

Awadhesh Kumar & others … RespondentsITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10!8# OF 201!

Union of India & others … Appellants

versusIssac ar!hese & others … Respondents

J U D $ M E N T

J%&'()* S(+&* ,**%/ J.

". #he present controvers$ is $et another seniorit$ dispute amon!st

emplo$ees of the %ustoms and %entral 'cise Department. #he controvers$

herein has emer!ed on account of a reconstitution of cadres. In the first

instance( a separate cadre was constituted( out of the e'istin! ministerial

cadre( for dischar!in! electronic data processin! responsibilities. #his was

Digitally signed byParveen Kumar ChawlaDate: 2015.03.2616:56:33 ISTReason:

Signature Not Verified



2

necessitated b$ the decision of the department to introduce computeri)ation(

in its functionin!. #he instant computeri)ation pro*ect( which commenced in

"++",+-( seems to have been full$ implemented in or around --,/.

%onse0uent upon achievement of the above ob*ective( the separate cadre

so created( was sou!ht to be re,amal!amated with the e'istin! ministerial

cadre. #he above noticed bifurcation and re,amal!amation( resulted in a

co,incidental career advancement( for those who had accepted to brea1

awa$ from the ori!inal ministerial cadre. Some of those who were ori!inall$

placed at inferior positions in the seniorit$ list of the ori!inal ministerial cadre(

ac0uired superiorit$ over their counterparts 2in the ori!inal ministerial cadre3(

conse0uent upon their promotion within the cadre of data entr$ operators(

which resulted in their ac0uirin! a hi!her position in seniorit$( over and

above those who were senior to them in the ori!inal ministerial cadre.

4efore embar1in! upon the niceties of the seniorit$ dispute( it is imperative

to delve upon the reasons of the afore,stated bifurcation( and

re,amal!amation of cadres. #he instant aspect of the matter is accordin!l$

bein! dealt with( in the followin! para!raphs.

-. #he ministerial cadre as it ori!inall$ e'isted( comprised of posts of

Deput$ 5ffice Superintendents 26evels " and -3( Upper Division %ler1s(

6ower Division %ler1s( Steno!raphers 2Senior Grade and 5rdinar$ Grade3(

Draftsmen etc. %onditions of service of members of the ori!inal ministerial

cadre( were re!ulated b$ the %entral 'cise and 6and %ustoms Department

Group 7%8 9osts Recruitment Rules( "+:+ 2hereinafter referred to as( the



3

"+:+ Rules3. ;embers of the ori!inal ministerial cadre re!ulated b$ the

provisions of the "+:+ Rules were eli!ible for promotion to the post of

Inspector 25rdinar$ Scale3 , an e'ecutive cadre post. And thereupon( even

further promotion( in the e'ecutive cadre.

/. %onse0uent upon the recommendations made b$ the <ourth %entral

9a$ %ommission in para!raph "".=> of its report( the Government of India

too1 upon itself the responsibilit$ to e'amine the rationali)ation of pa$ scales

for posts responsible for dischar!in! wor1 relatin! to data entr$. #he tas1

sou!ht to be underta1en was to prescribe uniform pa$ scales and

desi!nations for electronic data processin! posts( in consultation with the

Department of 9ersonnel. %onse0uent upon the su!!estions made b$ a

committee set up b$ the Department of lectronics in ?ovember( "+@( the

Government of India decided to introduce the followin! uniform pattern for

lectronic Data 9rocessin! 9ostsB,

S.N. D)(&+%(+ 3) P% S%6

D%% E+ O3%)

". Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 7A8

Rs."">,"> #his will be entr$!rade for hi!her secondar$ with1nowled!e of dataentr$ wor1

-. Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 748

Rs."/>,-- #his will be entr$!rade for !raduationwith 1nowled!e of data entr$ wor1 or promotional !rade for Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7A8



4

/. Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 7%8

Rs."=,-/ 9romotional Grade

=. Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 7D8

Rs.",- 9romotional Grade

>. Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 78

Rs.-,/> 9romotional Grade

D%% P))(+&7P&%(+& S%

". Data 9rocessin! AssistantGrade 7A8

Rs.",- ntr$ !rade for !raduates withDiplomaC%ertificate in

%omputer Application

-. Data 9rocessin! AssistantGrade 748

Rs.-,/- 9romotional Grade

/. 9ro!rammer Rs.-/:>,/> Direct entr$ for holdersof de!ree inn!ineerin! or post,!raduation inScienceC;aths etc.( or post,!raduation in

%omputer Application

5r

4$ promotion fromData 9rocessin!

Assistant Grade 748

=. Senior 9ro!rammer Rs./,=> 9romotional Grade

In continuation of the aforesaid office memorandum dated "".+."+@+( the

Government of India issued a further memorandum dated @."."++(

su!!estin! *ob descriptions for various levels of data entr$ operators and

pro!rammin! staff( which could be adopted b$ different

ministriesCdepartments of the Government of India( with suitable



5

modifications to meet their individual re0uirements. #he su!!estions

incorporated in the anne'ures appended to the office memorandum dated

@."."++( revealed five cate!ories of data entr$ operators( differentiated and

distin!uished as underB,

". Data ntr$ 5perator,AB "">,->,">

All t$pes of data preparation and validation includin!alpha,numeric data entr$( !raphic data entr$( voice,entr$( opticalentr$ etc.( and associated verification( and pre,pro!rammedvalidation( te't processin! etc.( on an$ t$pe of machinesCe0uipmentCinstrument endowed with facilities for data

entr$ andCor preparation for data entr$ andCor pre,pro!rammedvalidation of entered data includin! 1e$ punchin! machine( 1e$to ma!netic media machine( 1e$ to optical media machine( an$t$pe of computerCD9 e0uipment( an$ computer basede0uipmentCcomputer based instrumentCcomputer based onlineor real time s$stemsCcomputer networ1 based s$stems.

-. Data ntr$ 5perator,4B "/>,/,"==,=,--

In addition to those *obs mentioned for Data ntr$ 5perator,A(9oolin!( %ountin!( %ollatin!( %odin!( %onsole 5peration(

assistin! in the preparation of Statistics( billin!( inputCoutputhandlin! etc.( on an$ t$pe of machineCe0uipmentCinstrumentendowed with facilities for data entr$ or preparation for dataentr$ andCor validation of entered data as specified under thedescription for Data ntr$ 5perator,A.

/. Data ntr$ 5perator,%B

In addition to those *obs and machine e0uipment instrumentmentioned for Data ntr$ 5perator,4( trainin! of operators(schedulin! of *obs and more s1ill,based validation of

alpha,numeric or !raphic data as determined b$ the needs of the or!ani)ation.

=. Data ntr$ 5perator,DB

In addition to those *obs mentioned for Data ntr$ 5perator,%(pro!rammin! relatin! to data preparation andCor validation( andfor a few staff who are considered to have the re0uired aptitudeand dependin! upon the need( supervision of the wor1 of Data

ntr$ 5perator,A( 4 and %.



6

>. Data ntr$ 5perator,B

Supervision of the wor1 of data preparation( schedulin! anddistribution of *obs amon! other Data ntr$ 5perators( plannin!(schedulin!( coordination and implementation of interrelated and

inte!rated data preparation *obs( pro!rammin! relatin! to datapreparation andCor validation traction and if necessar$ to dosupportin! *ob of data entr$( verification( validation etc.dependin! on e'i!encies of wor1.E

=. In order to implement the recommendations made b$ the <ourth

%entral 9a$ %ommission( the %entral 4oard of 'cise & %ustoms(

Department of Revenue( ;inistr$ of <inance( framed the lectronic Data

9rocessin! 9osts 2Group 7%8 #echnical 9osts3 Recruitment Rules( "++-

2hereinafter referred to as( the "++- Rules3. #he aforesaid rules were

framed b$ the 9resident of India in e'ercise of the powers conferred b$ the

proviso to Article /+ of the %onstitution of India. Rule > of the "++- Rules

provided( that all persons holdin! the ministerial posts of Ke$ 9unch

5perators( #erminal 5perators and 6ower Division %ler1s( who were

performin! the duties of #erminal 5perators prior to the commencement of

the "++- Rules( would be deemed to be appointed as Data ntr$ 5perators

Grade 7A8. Rule > of the "++- Rules further postulated( that all Data ntr$

5perators Grade 7A8 appointed at the time of the commencement of the "++-

Rules( would ran1 en,bloc1 senior to those appointed after the

commencement of the Rules.

>. Rule : of the "++- Rules authori)ed( the %entral Government to rela'

an$ other provision of the rules with respect to an$ class or cate!or$ of

persons. 5n -.-."++/( in e'ercise of the powers conferred on the %entral



7

Government( the %entral 'cise Department permitted its erstwhile

emplo$ees( to appl$ for posts of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7A8( sub*ect to

the condition( that the$ had completed / $ears8 re!ular service and satisfied

the conditions of eli!ibilit$ stipulated in the "++- Rules. 5n +.+."++/( the

%ustoms Department( issued a circular informin! the emplo$ees who had

e'ercised their option for appointment to the post of Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 7A8( that their option was final and could not be revo1ed. A number of

emplo$ees holdin! ministerial cadre posts in the %ustoms and %entral

'cise Department( accordin!l$ came to be appointed as Data ntr$

5perators Grade 7A8.

. Under the mandate of the "++- Rules( the post of Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 7A8 was assi!ned the pa$ scale of Rs."">,->,">. It was the lowest

post under the "++- Rules. #he Schedule appended to the "++- Rules

provided( that to be eli!ible for appointment to the post of Data ntr$

5perator Grade 7A8( an individual should have 0ualified the "-th standard or

e0uivalent e'amination. Additionall$( heCshe should possess a speed of not

less than @ 1e$ depressions per hour( for data entr$ wor1. #he onward

promotion from the post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7A8 was to the post of

Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 748. #he said promotional post was in the pa$

scale of Rs."/>,/,"==,=,"@,4,>,--. #o be eli!ible for promotion

to the post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 748( the schedule stipulated $ears8

re!ular service as Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7A8. #he post of Data ntr$

5perator Grade 748 was liable to be filled e'clusivel$ b$ promotion( failin!



8

which( on transfer b$ deputation. 5nward promotion from the post of Data

ntr$ 5perator Grade 748( was to the post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7%8.

#he said promotional post( was in the pa$ scale of

Rs."=,=,"@,4,>,-/. Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 748 with / $ears8

re!ular service in the !rade( were considered eli!ible for promotion to the

post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7%8. #he schedule appended to the "++-

Rules provided( that the post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7%8 would be

filled up e'clusivel$ b$ promotion( failin! which( on transfer b$ deputation.

#he hi!hest post under the "++- Rules( was the post of Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 7D8. #he said post was to be filled up b$ promotion from amon!st

Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 7%8( with = $ears8 re!ular service in the !rade.

#he post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7D8( was earmar1ed the pa$ scale of

Rs.",>,-/,4,,-. Fust as in other cases referred to

hereinabove( promotion to the post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7D8 was to

be made e'clusivel$ b$ promotion( failin! which( on transfer b$ deputation.

:. A perusal of the cadre of posts evolved under the "++- Rules would

reveal( that the %ustoms and %entral 'cise Department created a four,level

cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( i.e. Grades 7A8( 748( 7%8 and 7D8. #his was in

contradistinction to the five,level cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators su!!ested in

the deliberations carried out b$ the Government of India 2as alread$ noticed

above3. A perusal of the "++- Rules further reveals( that the cadre of Data

ntr$ 5perators( was separate from the ori!inal ministerial cadre. 9ersons

from the ori!inal ministerial cadre were not eli!ible for promotion to the



9

different levels of posts created under the "++- Rules. 6i1ewise( members

of different levels in the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( were no lon!er

eli!ible for onward promotion to an$ post of ministerial cadre. ;ost

si!nificantl$( an incumbent holdin! a cadre post under the "++- Rules was

no lon!er eli!ible for promotion to the post of Inspector 25rdinar$ Scale3 in

the e'ecutive cadre. And therefore( not eli!ible for an$ onward promotion in

the e'ecutive cadre. Accordin!l$ it is inevitable to conclude( that after the

promul!ation of the "++- Rules( the %ustoms and %entral 'cise

Department comprised of a separate and distinct ministerial cadre( as also( a

separate and distinct cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators.

@. #he factual position depicted in the pleadin!s filed before this %ourt

reveals( that throu!hout India onl$ -""( >- and ": emplo$ees !ot promoted

to the posts of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 748( Grade 7%8 and Grade 7D8

respectivel$( under the "++- Rules. #he remainin! individuals inducted into

the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators from the ori!inal ministerial cadre( have

continued to occup$ the post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7A8( even after

havin! rendered services for more than ","> $ears i.e.( without obtainin! a

sin!le promotion. As a!ainst the aforesaid career pro!ression under the

"++- Rules( the administration found that the ministerial cadre emplo$ees

holdin! the posts of 6ower Division %ler1( Upper Division %ler1( and

erstwhile #a' Assistant etc. were promoted 2durin! the same period of

service3 to the post of Inspector 25rdinar$ Scale3( and even further up to the

post of %ommissioner on the e'ecutive side( and up to the post of %hief



10

Accounts 5fficer on the ministerial side( on account of better promotion

avenues available to the ministerial cadre. In order to resolve the distinction

in the two cadres of emplo$ees( the %entral 4oard of 'cise & %ustoms

invited su!!estions from all the %ommisionerates for the re,mer!er of

cadres. #he matter was e'amined also in the li!ht of the fact that the

purpose for which the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators was created( had been

achieved. #he deliberations lead to restructureCre,amal!amation( b$

abolishin! the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators. #o !ive effect to the e'ecutive

determination the 9resident of India( in e'ercise of the powers conferred on

him b$ the proviso to Article /+ of the %onstitution of India( framed two sets

of rules for the %ustoms and 'cise Department( namel$( the %entral 'cise

and %ustoms Department #a' Assistant 2Group 7%8 9ost3 Recruitment Rules(

-/ 2hereinafter referred to as( the #A Rules( -/3 and the %entral 'cise

and %ustoms Department Senior #a' Assistant 2Group 7%8 9ost3 Recruitment

Rules( -/ 2hereinafter referred to as( the S#A Rules( -/3. In order to

understand the re,mer!erCre,amal!amation of the cadres in the %ustoms

and 'cise Department( it is imperative for us to delve upon the effect of the

#A Rules( -/( as also( the S#A Rules( -/. e shall e'amine the

aforementioned two sets of rules( in the followin! para!raphs.

+. #he #A Rules( -/ provided for the initial constitution of the cadre of

#a' Assistants( throu!h Rule = thereof. Rule = of the #A Rules( -/ is

bein! e'tracted hereunderB,



12

passin! the departmental computer proficienc$ e'amination( would be

deemed to be promoted as #a' Assistants 2from the date of passin! such

e'amination3. Rule = of the #A Rules( -/ e'pressl$ postulates( that Upper

Division %ler1s and Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 7A8( would be placed

en,bloc1 senior to others appointed as #a' Assistants( and further( that their

inter,se seniorit$ would be determined from the date of their re!ular

appointment to the respective !rade. <or their inter,se placement( Rule = of

the #A Rules( -/ further postulated( that 6ower Division %ler1s would be

placed below the Upper Division %ler1s and Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 7A8.

A perusal of Rule = of the #A Rules( -/ reveals an amal!amation of three

posts( namel$( Upper Division %ler1( Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7A8 and

6ower Division %ler1. All these posts were amal!amated into a freshl$

created cadre of #a' Assistants under the #A Rules( -/.

". hile deliberatin! on the #A Rules( -/( it is also imperative to

notice( that Rule > of the #A Rules( -/ provided for the methods of

recruitment( a!e limits and other 0ualifications( for appointment to the post of

#a' Assistant. #he details of the aforesaid particulars are found in the

schedule appended to the #A Rules( -/. A perusal of the above schedule

reveals( that + of the appointments made to the post of #a' Assistant

were to be b$ direct recruitment( and " b$ wa$ of promotion. <or

promotion( the followin! conditions of eli!ibilit$ were stipulated in column "-

of the schedule appended to the #A Rules( -/B,



13

<rom amon!st the 6ower Division %ler1s and Jead Javaldars whohave rendered seven $ears of service in the Grade on re!ular basisand possess the followin! 0ualifications( namel$B,

2a3 ;atriculation or e0uivalent 0ualification from a reco!ni)ed

institution( and2b3 Data ntr$ Speed of > 1e$ depression per hour andpassed the Departmental e'amination with 1nowled!e of t$pin!in Jindi or n!lish at a speed of -> wpm and / wpmrespectivel$.E

It is apparent from the perusal of Rule >( coupled with the schedule

appended to #A Rules( -/( that the initial mer!er of the ministerial cadre

and the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators was made( a!ainst the post of #a'

Assistants. In sum and substance( therefore( irrespective of the post 2in

ministerial or Data ntr$ 5perators8 cadre3 occupied( the lowest level of

amal!amation was( a!ainst the post of #a' Assistant.

"". Insofar as the S#A Rules( -/ are concerned( the initial constitution

therein was postulated in Rule > thereof. Rule > aforementioned is bein!

e'tracted hereunderB,

>. Initial %onstitution., 2i3 All the persons appointed on the re!ular basis at the time of commencement of these rules to the Grade of

Assistant( #a' Assistant( Upper Division %ler1 2Special 9a$3( Datantr$ 5perator Grade 748 and 7%8 shall be deemed to have beenappointed as Senior #a' Assistants under these rules. #he servicerendered b$ them before commencement of these rules shall be ta1en

into account for decidin! the eli!ibilit$ for promotion to the ne't hi!her !rade.

2ii3 Assistants 2Rs.>,@3 and Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7%82Rs.>@3 are bein! redesi!nated as Senior #a' Assistants inthe same scale of pa$. #herefore( the Assistants and Data ntr$5perator Grade L%L shall be placed enbloc1 senior to the other cate!ories. Jowever their inter,se,placement shall be done accordin!to the date from which the$ had actuall$ been appointed to these!rades on re!ular basis sub*ect to the condition that their inter,se

placement in their respective cate!or$ shall not be altered.



15

Grade 7%8 were in the pa$ scale of Rs.>,@( and thereb$( were

en*o$in! the hi!hest scale amon!st the posts mer!ed( to constitute the

cadre of Senior #a' Assistants. In order to re!ulate the inter,se

seniorit$ between the mer!ed posts of Assistants and Data ntr$

5perators Grade 7%8( Rule >2ii3 of the S#A Rules( -/ further

provided( that the inter,se placement of persons holdin! such posts(

would be based on the date on which such persons had been actuall$

appointed in the pa$ scale of Rs.>,@( on re!ular basis.

2ii3 In the same fashion as Assistants and Data ntr$ 5perators

Grade 7%8( Rule >2iii3 of the S#A Rules( -/ provided( that Data ntr$

5perators Grade 748 and #a' Assistants( who were earlier placed in the

pa$ scale of Rs.=>,:( and thereafter placed in the hi!her scale

of Rs.>,@( would be placed en,bloc1 below Assistants and Data

ntr$ 5perators Grade 7%8. In other words( the posts of Data ntr$

5perators Grade 748 and #a' Assistants which had an inferior position

ad*ud!ed on the basis of pa$ scales( vis,N,vis Data ntr$ 5perators

Grade 7%8 and Assistants( prior to the promul!ation of the S#A Rules(

-/( were placed en,masse below Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 7%8

and Assistants( so as to preserve the said inferior position in the cadre

of Senior #a' Assistants. Insofar as the inter,se placement between

the Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 748 and #a' Assistants is concerned(

Rule >2iii3 of the S#A Rules( -/ provided( that the date of their



16

re!ular appointment in their respective !rades( would determine their

inter,se seniorit$ in the cadre of Senior #a' Assistants.

2iii3 <or e'actl$ the same reasons as have been indicated in 2i3 and

2ii3 above( namel$( the pa$ scale in which the respective posts were

placed prior to the creation of the cadre of Senior #a' Assistants under

the S#A Rules( -/( the posts of Upper Division %ler1 were placed at

the bottom of the cadre of Senior #a' Assistants( at the initial

constitution of the said cadre( under the mandate of Rule >2iv3 of the

S#A Rules( -/.

"-. It is imperative to point out here( that the erstwhile ministerial cadre

was primaril$ en!a!ed in dischar!in! duties of a procedural nature( whereas

those en!a!ed in the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators were considered to be

primaril$ en!a!ed in dischar!in! duties in the field of computer applications.

It is( therefore( that Rule >2v3 of the S#A Rules( -/ provided( that all

emplo$ees appointed as Senior #a' Assistants( at the initial constitution of

the aforesaid cadre( under the S#A Rules( -/( would be re0uired to pass

departmental e'aminations( so as to achieve the proficienc$ re0uired in

dischar!in! duties relatin! to the application of relevant procedures( as also(

with reference to computer applications.

"/. It is in the bac1!round of the aforesaid factual and le!al position( that

we would venture to ad*udicate upon the controvers$ raised in these

connected civil appeals.



17

"=. It is relevant to mention( that in the first instance( a challen!e to the

rules referred to hereinabove( was raised at the hands of the erstwhile

members of the ministerial cadre( namel$( those members of the ori!inal

ministerial cadre( who had not opted for appointmentCabsorption into the

cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators. In their challen!e raised before the %entral

Administrative #ribunal( ;adras 4ench( %hennai 2hereinafter referred to as(

the Administrative #ribunal3( a common order dated /."-.-/ was passed(

while disposin! of 5ri!inal Application nos. >>@( >/@ and ++ of -/( and a

common order dated /.=.-= was passed while disposin! of 5ri!inal

Application nos. =- and /+ of -/. Another order dated -=..-= was

passed( while disposin! of 5ri!inal Application no. "-> of -/. And

li1ewise( an order dated [email protected]= was passed( while disposin! of 5ri!inal

Application no. ""> of -/. And finall$( an order dated "=.".-= was

passed while disposin! of 5ri!inal Application no. :" of -=. It would be

relevant to mention( that the solitar$ contention raised at the hands of the

erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre 2who had not opted for the

appointmentCabsorption into the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators3 was( that the

process of bifurcation of cadres followed b$ the re,amal!amation thereof(

had adversel$ affected their seniorit$. Accordin!l$( the erstwhile members of

the ministerial cadre( claimed restoration of the position of their seniorit$ as it

ori!inall$ e'isted( with reference to such other members of the ministerial

cadre who had opted for absorption into cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( and

who had thereafter( as a matter of re,amal!amation 2under the provisions of



19

-=. #he contestin! respondents have not challen!ed the entire rulesrelatin! to the restructure of the cadres and the mer!erCinte!ration of ministerial cadre and technical cadre before the #ribunal. It is onl$ therules relatin! to the fi'ation of inter se placement of the erstwhileministerial cadre staff and the erstwhile technical cadre staff in the

restructured cadre which are challen!ed before the #ribunal. #hecontestin! respondents( who are presentl$ wor1in! as 9reventive5fficers on ad hoc basis( claim that for determinin! the inter seplacement of the ministerial cadre staff and the technical cadre staff inthe restructured cadre( the date of initial appointment in the services of the %entral 'cise and %ustoms Departments should be ta1en intoconsideration. 5n the other hand( the writ petitioners claim that thefi'ation of inter se seniorit$ should be on the basis of the date of re!ular appointment in the respective !rades( but sub*ect to thecondition that inter,se placement in the respective cate!or$( is le!al

and reasonable.E

It is( therefore apparent( that the issue a!itated before the Ji!h %ourt was

the same as had been a!itated before the Administrative #ribunal. hile

ad*udicatin! upon the propositions canvassed before it( the Ji!h %ourt in

para!raph /> of the impu!ned *ud!ment and order( observed as underB,

/>. e have no 0uarrel with the proposition of law enunciated b$the Ape' %ourt. 4ut( in the cases on hand( all the parties emer!e fromthe same cadre of 6D% and onl$ b$ virtue of option( some parties haveopted to the post of Data ntr$ 5perators and b$ virtue of theimpu!ned Rules the$ were afforded fortuitous advanta!e that toowithout an$ strin!ent conditions li1e passin! the Departmental #estsli1e the case of a 6D% who is re0uired to pass the same to see1promotion to the ne't cate!or$ of UD%( while the rest of the 6D%s.who have not opted for the post of Data ntr$ 5perators and werestic1 on to the much hi!her responsible position( were put in a mostdisadvanta!eous position. #he inter se seniorit$ has been fi'ed b$ theimpu!ned Rules onl$ based on the pa$ and !ivin! a !o,b$e to all thenorms prescribed b$ the Ape' %ourt. Since the impu!ned le!islationsuffers from the vice of discrimination and unreasonableness( we holdthat the impu!ned Rules are arbitrar$ and violative of Articles "= and" of the %onstitution( since the$ !ive unreasonable advanta!e and asteep forward for an otherwise low cate!or$ persons li1e Data ntr$5perators as a!ainst the 6D%sCUD%sC#a' Assistants( who performhi!hl$ responsible and comple' duties unli1e mere enterin! a data b$the Data ntr$ 5perators.E



20

#hereupon( the Ji!h %ourt considered the controvers$ in the followin!

perspectiveB,

/@. It was shown( b$ instances( b$ the learned senior counsel for

the respondents that while in a short span of time( that too( withoutan$ condition li1e passin! out an$ Departmental #est( the Data ntr$5perators moved from one Grade to other with hi!her pa$ structure(the 6D%s( who have not opted for the post of Data ntr$ 5perator(have remained and sta!nated as 6D%s. itself and because of theimpu!ned Rules( the position has further worsened( since it bloc1edtheir further promotional avenues( b$ placin! persons li1e Data ntr$5perators( who have alread$ en*o$ed the fruits of promotion morethan once( over and above 6D%sCUD%sC#a' Assistants in the inter seseniorit$ list. It is to be mentioned that promotion is an incidence of

service.''' ''' ''' '''

=/. A forcible ar!ument was advanced on the part of therespondents demonstratin! how b$ virtue of the impu!ned Rules( the6D%s( who have not opted to be posted as Data ntr$ 5perators wereseverel$ pre*udiced and how the restructured cadres have paved wa$for the *unior D5s to have a march over the other senior emplo$eesof the erstwhile ministerial cadre and !et fortuitous advanta!e. It hasalso been demonstrated b$ materials how the impu!ned Rules are

wor1in! hard a!ainst the senior eli!ible candidates without an$promotional avenue( since bein! bloc1ed b$ the far *unior Data ntr$5perators. #hou!h( as held b$ the Ape' %ourt( seniorit$ is not afundamental ri!ht( the State should have created promotional avenuesfor the respondents havin! re!ard to its constitutional obli!ationsadumbrated in Articles "= and " of the %onstitution of India.

==. #herefore( the official respondents would not be *ustified inbloc1in! the promotional avenues of the respondentsCUD%s or #a'

Assistants( as the case ma$ be( without framin! proper rules andframin! fault$ and arbitrar$ Rules li1e the ones in dispute. 9romotion(as held b$ the Ape' %ourt is a condition and incidence of service andas held b$ the Ape' %ourt in the above Fud!ement( even there is anobli!ation on the part of the State under Articles "= and " of the%onstitution to create promotional avenues for the emplo$ees and an$Rule or procedure( which !oes a!ainst the above dictum( could wellbe termed as an arbitrar$ e'ercise of power and violative of Articles "=and " of the %onstitution.

=>. #he impu!ned Rules put 6D%sCUD%sCSpecial 9a$ UD%sC#a' Assistants in a most disadvanta!eous position than their far *uniors of



21

Data ntr$ 5perators( even thou!h the nature of duties and powerse'ercised b$ them while holdin! the post of 6D%sCUD%sCSpecial 9a$UD%sC#a' Assistants not onl$ carr$ a comple' nature of duties butalso hi!h responsibilities( which would increase manifold b$ promotionfrom 6D% to UD%CSpecial 9a$ UD% and from UD%CSpecial 9a$ UD%

to #a' Assistant. #herefore( we have no hesitation to hold that theimpu!ned Rules are violative of Articles "= and " of the %onstitutionand are liable to be 0uashed.E

#he above consideration reveals( that the co,incidental pre*udice suffered b$

the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre( conse0uent upon the mer!er

of cadres constituted the foundational basis( of the determination. #heir lost

chances of promotion( and the pre*udice suffered b$ them on the sub*ect of

seniorit$( on account of deprivation of the chances of promotion( remained

uppermost in the mind of the Ji!h %ourt( while recordin! its final conclusion

in para!raph = as underB,

=. e have !iven our an'ious consideration to all the aspects of the case put forth b$ both sides and found that the #ribunal has

anal$)ed the case in a proper perspective and havin! re!ard to the!uidelines issued b$ the Ape' %ourt re!ardin! fi'ation of inter seseniorit$ in such cases and has arrived at an unerrin! conclusion tohold that the seniorit$ principle stipulated in the impu!ned notificationsis unfair to the ministerial cadre of the Department and considerin!an$ other date than the date of initial appointment is discriminator$and arbitrar$. e are unable to find an$ ille!alit$ or irre!ularit$ or perversit$ in approach in the well considered and merited decisionarrived at b$ the #ribunal. #herefore( we see no merit in thecontentions raised b$ the petitionersCData ntr$ 5perators and thesame deserve to be re*ected.E

". #he challen!e to the impu!ned orders passed b$ the Administrative

#ribunal( and affirmed b$ the Ji!h %ourt( will need an evaluation at our

hands( in the bac1!round of the consideration applied in the ad*udication of

the controvers$. e shall( at the first instance( venture to determine whether

the propositions applied for the determination of the controvers$ b$ the



22

Administrative #ribunal and b$ the Ji!h %ourt( were in consonance with the

law declared b$ this %ourt.

":. It would be relevant to mention( that the disputed issue of seniorit$(

came to be determined in the impu!ned orders( b$ placin! reliance on 5m

9ra1ash Sharma8s case 2supra3. #o understand the controvers$ settled b$

this %ourt in the aforementioned *ud!ment( it is essential to e'tract the

conclusions drawn therein. #he same are accordin!l$ bein! e'tracted

hereunderB,

-. Department st$led as wor1shop mentioned at Serial ?o. - above wasmer!ed with the department office of the %hief lectrical n!ineer(4omba$. #his mer!er continued till Ful$ /"( "+:+. ffective from Au!ust "("+:+( all the three ori!inal departments trifurcated on Au!ust /"( "+>were re,amal!amated in the matter of staff and a common seniorit$ listwas introduced in respect of all the four cadres which were prior toSeptember "+> on a common seniorit$ list. 9ursuant to theamal!amation common seniorit$ list 2Anne'ure 3 was drawn up. It

purports to be the combined seniorit$ list of the Railwa$ Administration(lectrical Department( %entral Railwa$( Fhansi. alidit$ of the seniorit$ listis impu!ned in this appeal. In this seniorit$ list Appellant " is at Serial ?o./( Appellant - is at Serial ?o. =( and Appellant / is at Serial ?o. ". #hedepartment has assi!ned seniorit$ to Respondents /,( in the sameseniorit$ list at Serial ?os. -( >( and + respectivel$ in the cadre of headcler1s. #he appellants contend that when the three departments had acommon seniorit$ list( the appellants were senior to Respondents / to (but after trifurcation and re,amal!amation Respondents / to whobelon!ed to erstwhile wor1shop staff and who were amal!amated withthe staff of the %hief lectrical n!ineer( 4omba$( obtained acceleratedpromotion because of eas$ availabilit$ of vacancies. %onse0uentl$( whenre,amal!amation was introduced from Au!ust "( "+:+ when Respondents/ to reverted to the common seniorit$ list with appellants and other similarl$ situated persons( the$ scored a march over the appellantsbecause of a fortuitous event. #he contention in terms is that where staff emplo$ed in different units under the administrative control of one hi!her officer are borne on a common seniorit$ list( when because of trifurcationre,amal!amation all are brou!ht bac1 on the common seniorit$ list( their position ante must be reflected in the seniorit$ list. 5ri!inal seniorit$ it issaid must prevail otherwise an$ other view would be denial of e0ualit$ of



23

opportunit$ in the matter of public emplo$ment !uaranteed under Article" of the %onstitution. Accordin!l$ the appellants challen!ed the seniorit$list in rit 9etition "="> of "+@/ in the Ji!h %ourt of Fudicature at

Allahabad. A Division 4ench of the Ji!h %ourt b$ a short cr$ptic order re*ected the writ petition observin! that the %ourt did not find an$ merit in

the writ petition. Jence this appeal b$ special leave.

/. #he appellants have an iron,clad case. #he facts( not disputed( tosummarise briefl$ are that under the Divisional lectrical n!ineer therewere three separate departments under his administrative control.;embers of the staff of the three departments were borne on a commonseniorit$ list. In other words the$ were deemed to belon! to one office inthe matter of seniorit$ and promotion. #his is not onl$ not disputed but theaverment to that effect in para of the petition has been admitted in thecounter,affidavit filed on behalf of the Railwa$ Administration. It is a!ain

admitted that the three appellants since their entr$ into service weresenior to Respondents / to . <or the administrative convenience theRailwa$ Administration trifurcated the cadres. In other words( three unitswere separated from each other which resulted in each unit havin! itsown seniorit$ list and the common seniorit$ list became irrelevant fromthe date of the trifurcation. #he Unit ?o. - called the wor1shop wasamal!amated with the office of the %hief lectrical n!ineer( 4omba$.#hat is not controverted. Respondents / to belon!ed to theadministrative staff in the department st$led as the wor1shop. #he resultof the trifurcation and amal!amation of the wor1shop with the 4omba$

office was that the wor1shop staff includin! Respondents / to wereta1en over on the seniorit$ list maintained b$ the 4omba$ office. It isadmitted that on account of availabilit$ of vacancies in the 4omba$ officeRespondents / to !ot some accelerated promotions in the cadre of head cler1s. Surprisin!l$ after a span of -/ $ears( Railwa$ Administrationreconsidered its earlier decision and detached the wor1shop staff fromthe office of the %hief lectrical n!ineer( 4omba$ and brou!ht it bac1 toFhansi and three former departments under Divisional lectrical n!ineer were amal!amated. In other words situation ante as on Au!ust /"( "+>was restored( and members of the staff were brou!ht on common

seniorit$ list cadre,wise. #his factual averment is unambi!uousl$admitted. %onse0uent upon amal!amation in "+:+ a fresh commonseniorit$ list was drawn up in which cadre,wise Respondent / was shownsenior to Appellants " and - and Respondents >( and + were shownsenior to Appellant /. 5bviousl$ when the amal!amation too1 place(Respondents / to could not score a march over erstwhile seniors onan$ valid principle of seniorit$. #his would un0uestionabl$ be denial of e0ualit$ under Article " of the %onstitution. It ma$ be that the$ mi!hthave en*o$ed some accelerated promotion when wor1shop staff wasamal!amated with the 4omba$ office. 4ut when the$ were repatriatedand re,amal!amated with ori!inal two offices and brou!ht bac1 on the



24

common seniorit$ list( the$ must find their ori!inal place 0ua theappellants. #his is not a case where appellants were passed over at thetime of selection or denied promotion on the !round of unsuitabilit$. Insuch a situation status 0uo ante has to be restored. 5bviousl$Respondents / to will be below the appellants and an$ other view to the

contrar$ would be violative of Article " as it would constitute denial of e0ualit$ in the matter of promotion. #herefore( the seniorit$ list drawn upon a principle contrar$ to what is discussed herein would be bad in lawand deserves to be 0uashed.E

A perusal of the above *ud!ment reveals( that there were three independent

divisions( under a sin!ular control( namel$( 2"3 Divisional lectrical

n!ineers( Fhansi( 2-3 5ffice of the Assistant lectrical n!ineers

2or1shop3( Fhansi( and 2/3 5ffice of the Assistant lectrical n!ineer(

Fabalpur. #hese three divisions had separate offices. #he clerical staff of

the said departments( namel$( cler1s( senior cler1s( head cler1s and chief

cler1s( were borne on a common seniorit$ list till /".@."+>. <rom ".+."+>

onwards( these three divisionsCdepartments( earlier under the sin!ular

control of the Divisional lectrical n!ineer( Fhansi( were separated from

each other 2conse0uent upon the introduction of divisionali)ation( in the

railwa$s3. #hese three divisions( therefore( became three independent

departments. #he clerical staff of the three separated departments( came to

be placed in independent seniorit$ lists. #he aforesaid process came to be

reversed( and the earlier trifurcation( was undone b$ re,amal!amation( which

resulted in the restoration of status quo ante( as it prevailed up to /".@."+>.

In the bac1!round of the foundational facts narrated hereinabove( this %ourt

concluded that the process of trifurcation( followed b$ the process of

re,amal!amation( restorin! the status quo ante( could not result in some of



25

the members of the erstwhile common cadre in scorin! a march with

reference to seniorit$( over others who were earlier senior to them. e shall

first endeavour to determine whether the le!al position declared b$ this

%ourt in 5m 9ra1ash Sharma8s case 2supra3 could have been applied to the

present controvers$.

"@. #he factual position in 5m 9ra1ash Sharma8s case 2supra3 reveals(

that the emplo$ees whose inter,se seniorit$ dispute arose for consideration(

were holdin! the position of cler1s( senior cler1s( head cler1s and chief

cler1s in three divisions under the control of the Divisional lectrical

n!ineer( Fhansi. #he said three divisions were made independent

departments( and the emplo$ees wor1in! in each of the departments whilst

continuin! as cler1s( senior cler1s( head cler1s and chief cler1s( were placed

in different seniorit$ lists. All the above posts in the three departments were

re,amal!amated. %onse0uent upon re,amal!amation( a common seniorit$

list came to be framed for cler1s( senior cler1s( head cler1s and chief cler1s.

It is in the above circumstances( that this %ourt concluded( that the process

of trifurcation( and subse0uent re,amal!amation( would result in denial of

e0ualit$( if persons who were *unior prior to /".@."+>( were assi!ned

positions of seniorit$ above to those who were senior to them prior to the

trifurcation. And that( such an action would result in denial of e0ualit$(

provided for under Article " of the %onstitution of India. It was( therefore

concluded( that conse0uent upon the re,amal!amation( resultin! in the

emplo$ees bein! brou!ht bac1 in the common seniorit$ list( the$ must be



26

arra$ed in the seniorit$ list( in the same manner as the$ were positioned

prior to the trifurcation.

"+. Insofar as the present controvers$ is concerned( it is apparent from

the factual narration recorded hereinabove( that the ministerial cadre as it

ori!inall$ e'isted( comprised of posts of Deput$ 5ffice Superintendent

26evels " and -3( Upper Division %ler1( 6ower Division %ler1( Steno!rapher

2Senior Grade and 5rdinar$ Grade3( Draftsman etc. %onse0uent upon

promul!ation of the lectronic Data 9rocessin! 9osts 2Group 7%8 #echnical

9osts3 Recruitment Rules( "++-( a separate cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators

came to be created. Appointment thereto( at the time of initial constitution of

the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( was made out of the ori!inal ministerial

cadre. #he posts under the "++- Rules( had a different nomenclature(

vis,N,vis the posts in the ministerial cadre. #heir duties and responsibilities

were separate and distinct( from that of the ministerial cadre. So were their

avenues of promotion. #he lowest post in the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators

was desi!nated as Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7A8. 5nward promotion was

to the post of Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 748( and thereafter( to Data ntr$

5perator Grade 7%8( and finall$( to Data ntr$ 5perator Grade 7D8. In the

above view of the matter( it is not possible for us to accept( that the creation

of the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( can be described as a mere bifurcation

of the ori!inal cadre. A bifurcation simpliciter would envisa!e a division of

the same posts( as the$ ori!inall$ e'isted( in two separate units. #he

controvers$ ad*udicated upon in 5m 9ra1ash Sharma8s case 2supra3 is



27

illustrative of a simpliciter bifurcation 2actuall$ trifurcation3( where the cadre

posts remained the same( but there was a vertical division( whereb$ the said

posts were re,constituted as two 2actuall$ three3 separate cadres.

#hereafter( the cadres were re,amal!amated( so as to restore the earlier

position. In the present controvers$( it is not possible to conclude( that the

ori!inal position was ever restored. %onse0uent upon the promul!ation of

the #A Rules( -/ and the S#A Rules( -/( the amal!amation resulted in

appointments to the cadres of #a' Assistants and Senior #a' Assistants.

?either of the parties concerned( held either of these posts prior to the

promul!ation of the abovementioned rules. It is( therefore( that we must

conclude( that the *ud!ment rendered in 5m 9ra1ash Sharma8s case 2supra3

was incorrectl$ applied( while ad*udicatin! upon the present controvers$.

-. It is also not possible for us to accept( that the promul!ation of the #A

Rules( -/ and the S#A Rules( -/ can be termed as a process of

re,amal!amation of the erstwhile cadre. %onse0uent upon the promul!ation

of the above rules( posts from the ministerial cadre 2re!ulated b$ the %entral

'cise and 6and %ustoms Department Group 7%8 9osts Recruitment Rules(

"+:+3( and the posts under the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators 2re!ulated b$

the lectronic Data 9rocessin! 9osts 2Group 7%8 #echnical 9osts3

Recruitment Rules( "++-3( came to be mer!ed into independent cadres of

#a' Assistants and Senior #a' Assistants. hat was contemplated under the

#A rules( -/ and the S#A Rules( -/( was an amal!amation of posts from

two separate cadres. #his certainl$ did not result in restoration of the status



28

quo ante( as it e'isted prior to the promul!ation of the "++- Rules. #he

position here is of amal!amation( and not re,amal!amation as is in 5m

9ra1ash Sharma8s case 2supra3. ;embers of the two separate cadres(

which were sou!ht to be amal!amated( were re0uired at the time of initial

constitution of the cadres( to 0ualif$ the departmental e'amination( and

alternativel$ the departmental computer proficienc$ e'amination( under

Rules =2-3 and =2/3 of the #A Rules( -/ and under Rule >2v3 of the S#A

Rules( -/. #he above departmental e'aminations would render them

suitable to dischar!e the duties of the posts of #a' Assistants and Senior #a'

Assistants respectivel$. It is therefore apparent( that on the amal!amation of

the pre,e'istin! cadres( the$ would be re0uired to dischar!e additional duties

of a different nature( for which their proficienc$ was bein! ensured throu!h

the prescribed departmental e'aminations. It is( therefore( not possible for

us to conclude( that the #A Rules( -/ and the S#A Rules( -/ had the

effect of re,amal!amation of the ministerial cadre and the cadre of Data

ntr$ 5perators( so as to restore the position which e'isted( before the

creation of the cadre of Date ntr$ 5perators.

-". At the cost of repetition we wish to reiterate( that the factual scenario

which emer!es for determination in the present controvers$( is not a1in to

that which had arisen for consideration before this %ourt in 5m 9ra1ash

Sharma8s case 2supra3. #herein( the ori!inal cadre which comprised of the

posts of cler1s( senior cler1s( head cler1s and chief cler1( was trifurcated and

then re,amal!amated. #he re,amal!amated cadre also comprised of posts



29

of cler1s( senior cler1s( head cler1s and chief cler1s. #he conclusions drawn

in the above *ud!ment( therefore( cannot be applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case. e are satisfied in concludin!( that the

%ourts below clearl$ erred in disposin! ofCdeterminin! the controvers$ in

hand b$ appl$in! the law declared b$ this %ourt in 5m 9ra1ash Sharma8s

case 2supra3.

--. e shall now venture to deal with another aspect of the matter(

emer!in! out of the impu!ned order passed b$ the Ji!h %ourt. #he

conclusions drawn b$ the Ji!h %ourt( as have been recorded in para!raph

= of the impu!ned *ud!ment and order dated "/.=.-:( emer!ed out of a

consideration which was noticed in para!raphs /@ to =>. 9ara!raphs /@ and

=/ to = of the impu!ned *ud!ment and order( have alread$ been e'tracted

hereinabove. A perusal of the above consideration reveals( that the Ji!h

%ourt was swa$ed b$ the co,incidental pre*udice suffered b$ the erstwhile

members of the ministerial cadre( resultin! in lost chances of promotion.

#he aforesaid consideration could have been *ustified onl$ if chances of

promotion are treated as conditions of service. Insofar as the instant aspect

of the matter is concerned( this %ourt has repeatedl$ e'amined the issue

whether chances of promotion constitute conditions of service. In this

behalf( reference ma$ be made to a few *ud!ments rendered b$ this %ourtB

2i3 <irst of all( we ma$ advert to the decision rendered b$ this %ourt

in State of ;aharashtra & Anr. v. %handra1ant Anant Kul1arni & 5rs.(



30

2"+@"3 = S%% "/( wherein a three Fud!e 4ench of this %ourt held as

underB,

". ;ere chances of promotion are not conditions of service

and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a chan!e in the conditions of service. A ri!ht to be considered for promotion is a term of service( but mere chances of promotion are not. Under theDepartmental 'amination Rules for S#5s( "+>=( framed b$ theformer State Government of ;adh$a 9radesh( as amended onFanuar$ -( "+( mere passin! of the departmentale'amination conferred no ri!ht on the S#Is of 4omba$( topromotion. 4$ passin! the e'amination( the$ merel$ becameeli!ible for promotion. #he$ had to be brou!ht on to a select list

not merel$ on the len!th of service( but on the basis of merit,cum,seniorit$ principle. It was( therefore( nothin! but amere chance of promotion. In conse0uence of the impu!nedorders of reversion( all that happened is that some of the S#Is(who had wron!l$ been promoted as S#5s Grade III had to bereverted and thereb$ lost a few places. In contrast( theconditions of service of AS#5s from ;adh$a 9radesh andJ$derabad( at least so far as one sta!e of promotion above theone held b$ them before the reor!anisation of States( could notbe altered without the previous sanction of the %entral

Government as laid down in the 9roviso to sub,section 2:3 of Section ""> of the Act.E

2ii3 Reference ma$ also be made to the decision of this %ourt in

9alaru Ram1rishnaiah & 5rs. v. Union of India & Anr.( 2"+@+3 - S%%

>="( wherein a three Fud!e 4ench of this %ourt held as underB,

"-. In the case of Ramchandra Shan1ar Deodhar( 2"+:=3 "S%% /":( the petitioners and other allocated #ahsildars frome',J$derabad State had under the notification of the Ra*9ramu1h dated September ">( "+>> all the vacancies in theposts of Deput$ %ollector in the e',J$derabad State available tothem for promotion but under subse0uent rules of Ful$ /( "+>+(> per cent of the vacancies were to be filled b$ directrecruitment and onl$ the remainin! > per cent were availablefor promotion and that too on divisional basis. #he effect of thischan!e obviousl$ was that now onl$ > per cent vacancies inthe post of Deput$ %ollector bein! available in place of all thevacancies it was to ta1e almost double the time for man$ other

http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','54377','1');

http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','54377','1');



31

allocated #ahsildars to !et promoted as Deput$ %ollectors. Inother words it resulted in dela$ed chance of promotion. It was(inter alia( ur!ed on behalf of the petitioners that the situationbrou!ht about b$ the rules of Ful$ /( "+>+ constituted variationto their pre*udice in the conditions of service applicable to them

immediatel$ prior to the reor!anisation of the State and the ruleswere conse0uentl$ invalid. hile repellin! this submission the%onstitution 4ench heldB 2S%% p. /-+( para ">3

All that happened as a result of ma1in! promotions to theposts of Deput$ %ollectors divisionwise and limitin! suchpromotions to > per cent of the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deput$ %ollector was to reducethe chances of promotion available to the petitioners. It isnow well settled b$ the decision of this %ourt in State of

;$sore v. G. 4. 9urohit( "+: S6R :>/( that thou!h ari!ht to be considered for promotion is a condition of service( mere chances of promotion are not. A rule whichmerel$ affect chances of promotion cannot be re!ardedas var$in! a condition of service. In 9urohit case 2supra3(the districtwise seniorit$ of sanitar$ inspectors waschan!ed to Statewise seniorit$( and as a result of thischan!e the respondents went down in seniorit$ andbecame ver$ *unior. #his( it was ur!ed( affected their chances of promotion which were protected under the

proviso to Section "">( sub,section 2:3. #his contentionwas ne!atived and anchoo( F.( 2as he then was3(spea1in! on behalf of this %ourt observedB 7It is said onbehalf of the respondents that as their chances of promotion have been affected their conditions of servicehave been chan!ed to their disadvanta!e. e see noforce in this ar!ument because chances of promotion arenot conditions of service.8 It is( therefore( clear that neither the Rules of /,:,"+>+( nor the procedure for ma1in!promotions to the posts of Deput$ %ollector divisionwisevaries the conditions of service of the petitioners to their disadvanta!e.E

''' ''' '''

">. It cannot be disputed that the Director General of 5rdnance <actories who had issued the %ircular dated?ovember ( "+- had the power to issue the subse0uent%ircular dated Fanuar$ -( "+ also. In view of the le!alposition pointed out above the aforesaid circular could not betreated to be one affectin! adversel$ an$ condition of service of



32

the Supervisors 7A8. Its onl$ effect was that the chance of promotion which had been accelerated b$ the %ircular ?ovember ( "+- was deferred and made dependent onselection accordin! to the Rules. Apparentl$( after the comin!into force of the order dated December -@( "+> and the

%ircular dated Fanuar$ -( "+ promotions could not be made *ust on completion of two $ears8 satisfactor$ service under theearlier %ircular dated ?ovember ( "+- the same havin! beensuperseded b$ the later circular. It is further obvious that in thisview of the matter Supervisors 7A8 who had been promotedbefore the comin! into force of the order dated December -@("+> and the %ircular dated Fanuar$ -( "+ stood in a classseparate from those whose promotions were to be madethereafter. #he fact that some Supervisors 7A8 had beenpromoted before the comin! into force of the order dated

December -@( "+> and the %ircular dated Fanuar$ -( "+could not( therefore( constitute the basis for an ar!ument thatthose Supervisors 7A8 whose cases came up for considerationfor promotion thereafter and who were promoted in due coursein accordance with the rules were discriminated a!ainst. #he$apparentl$ did not fall in the same cate!or$.E

2iii3 #his %ourt had also declared the position of law( on the above

aspect of the matter( in S$ed Khalid Ri)vi & 5rs. v. Union of India &

5rs.( "++/ Supp. 2/3 S%% >:>( wherein a three Fud!e 4ench

observed as underB,

/. #he ne't 0uestion is whether the seniorit$ is a condition of service or a part of rules of recruitmentO In State of ;.9. v.Shardul Sin!h( 2"+:3 " S%% "@( this %ourt held that the termconditions of service means all those conditions which re!ulatethe holdin! of a post b$ a person ri!ht from the time of hisappointment 2emphasis supplied3 to his retirement and evenbe$ond( in matters li1e pensions etc. In I.?. Subba Redd$ v.

Andhra Universit$( 2"+::3 " S%% >>=( the same view wasreiterated. In ;ohd. Shu*at Ali v. Union of India( 2"+:>3 / S%%:( a %onstitution 4ench held that the rule which confers a ri!htto actual promotion or a ri!ht to be considered for promotion is arule prescribin! a condition of the service. In ;ohd. 4ha1ar v.Krishna Redd$( "+: S6R :@( another %onstitution 4ench heldthat an$ rule which affects the promotion of a person relates tohis condition of service. In State of ;$sore v. G.4. 9urohit( "+:S6R :>/( this %ourt held that a rule which merel$ affects



33

chances of promotion cannot be re!arded as var$in! a conditionof service. %hances of promotion are not conditions of service.#he same view was reiterated in another %onstitution 4ench

*ud!ment in Ramchandra Shan1ar Deodhar v. State of ;aharashtra( 2"+:=3 " S%% /":. ?o doubt conditions of service

ma$ be classified as salar$( confirmation( promotion( seniorit$(tenure or termination of service etc. as held in State of 9un*ab v.Kailash ?ath( 2"+@+3 " S%% /-"( b$ a 4ench of two Fud!es butthe conte't in which the law therein was laid must be noted. #he0uestion therein was whether non,prosecution for a !raveoffence after e'pir$ of four $ears is a condition of serviceO hilene!ativin! the contention that non,prosecution after e'pir$ of =$ears is not a condition of service( this %ourt elaborated thesub*ect and the above view was ta1en. #he ratio therein doesnot have an$ bearin! on the point in issue. 9erhaps the

0uestion ma$ bear relevance( if an emplo$ee was initiall$recruited into the service accordin! to the rules and promotionwas re!ulated in the same rules to hi!her echelons of service. Inthat arena promotion ma$ be considered to be a condition of service. In A.K. 4hatna!ar v. Union of India( 2"++"3 " S%% >==(this %ourt held that seniorit$ is an incidence of service andwhere the service rules prescribe the method of its computationit is s0uarel$ !overned b$ such rules. In their absence ordinaril$the len!th of service is ta1en into account. In that case the directrecruits were made senior to the recruits b$ re!ularisation

althou!h the appellants were appointed earlier in point of timeand uninterruptedl$ remained in service as temporar$appointees alon! with the appellants but later on when recruitedb$ direct recruitment( the$ were held senior to the promotees.

/". ?o emplo$ee has a ri!ht to promotion but he has onl$ theri!ht to be considered for promotion accordin! to rules. %hancesof promotion are not conditions of service and are defeasible.#a1e an illustration that the 9romotion Re!ulations envisa!emaintainin! inte!rit$ and !ood record b$ D$. S.9. of State 9olice

Service as eli!ibilit$ condition for inclusion in the select,list for recruitment b$ promotion to Indian 9olice Service. Inclusion andapproval of the name in the select,list b$ the U9S%( after considerin! the ob*ections if an$ b$ the %entral Government isalso a condition precedent. Suppose if 748 is far *unior to 7A8 inState Services and 748 was found more meritorious and suitableand was put in a select,list of "+@ and accordin!l$ 748 wasappointed to the Indian 9olice Service after followin! theprocedure. 7A8 was thereb$ superseded b$ 748. #wo $ears later 7A8 was found fit and suitable in "+@= and was accordin!l$appointed accordin! to rules. %an 7A8 thereafter sa$ that 748



34

bein! far *unior to him in State Service( 7A8 should becomesenior to 748 in the Indian 9olice Service. #he answer isobviousl$ no because 748 had stolen a march over 7A8 andbecame senior to 7A8. Jere maintainin! inte!rit$ and !oodrecord are conditions of recruitment and seniorit$ is an

incidence of service. #a1e another illustration that the StateService provides rule of reservation to the scheduled castesand scheduled tribes. 7A8 is a !eneral candidate holdin! ?o. "ran1 accordin! to the roster as he was most meritorious in theState service amon! !eneral candidates. 748 scheduled castescandidate holds ?o. / point in the roster and 7%8( scheduled tribeholds ?o. > in the roster. Suppose Indian 9olice ServiceRecruitment Rules also provide reservation to the Scheduled%astes and Scheduled #ribes as well. 4$ operation of thee0ualit$ of opportunit$ b$ Articles "=( "2"3( "2=3 and //>( 748

and 7%8 were recruited b$ promotion from State Services to%entral Services and were appointed earlier to 7A8 in "+@. 7A8thereafter in the ne't $ear was found suitable as a !eneralcandidate and was appointed to the Indian 9olice Service. %an7A8 thereafter contend that since 748 and 7%8 were appointed b$virtue of reservation( thou!h were less meritorious and *unior tohim in the State service and !radation list would not becomesenior to him in the cadre as I9S officer. Undoubtedl$ 748 and7%8( b$ rule of reservation( had stolen a march over 7A8 from theState Service. 4$ operation of rule of reservation 748 and 7%8

became senior and 7A8 became *unior in the %entral Services.Reservation and roster were conditions of recruitment andseniorit$ was onl$ an incidence of service. #he eli!ibilit$ for recruitment to the Indian 9olice Service( thus( is a condition of recruitment and not a condition of service. Accordin!l$ we holdthat seniorit$( thou!h( normall$ an incidence of service( Seniorit$Rules( Recruitment Rules and 9romotion Re!ulations form partof the conditions of recruitment to the Indian 9olice Service b$promotion( which should be strictl$ complied with beforebecomin! eli!ible for consideration for promotion and are not

rela'able.E2iv3 ;ore recent in time( is the *ud!ment rendered b$ another three

Fud!e Division 4ench in S.S. 4ola & 5rs. v. 4.D. Sardana & 5rs.(

2"++:3 @ S%% >--. #he ma*orit$ opinion in the above *ud!ment was

rendered b$ Fustice K. Ramaswam$. In the process of consideration(

he observed as underB,



35

"=>. It is true that the Rules made under the proviso to Article/+ of the %onstitution can be issued b$ amendin! or alterin!the Rules with retrospectivit$ as consistentl$ held b$ this %ourtin a catena of decisions( vi).( 4.S. adera v. Union of India( AIR"++ S% ""@M Ra* Kumar v. Union of India( 2"+:>3 = S%% "/M K.

?a!ara* v. State of A.9.( 2"+@>3 " S%% >-/M #.R. Kapur v. Stateof Jar$ana( "+@ Supp. S%% >@=( and a host of other decisions. 4ut the 0uestion is whether the Rules can beamended ta1in! awa$ the vested ri!ht. As re!ards the ri!ht toseniorit$( this %ourt elaboratel$ considered the incidence of theri!ht to seniorit$ and amendment of the Act in the latest decisionin Asho1 Kumar Gupta v. State of U.9.( 2P+::3 > S%% -"(relievin! the need to reiterate all of them once over. Suffice it tostate that it is settled law that a distinction between ri!ht andinterest has alwa$s been maintained. Seniorit$ is a facet of

interest. #he rules prescribe the method of selectionCrecruitment. Seniorit$ is !overned b$ the e'istin! rulesand is re0uired to be wor1ed out accordin!l$. ?o one has avested ri!ht to promotion or seniorit$ but an officer has aninterest to seniorit$ ac0uired b$ wor1in! out the Rules. It wouldbe ta1en awa$ onl$ b$ operation of valid law. Ri!ht to beconsidered for promotion is a rule prescribed b$ conditions of service. A rule which affects the promotion of a person relates toconditions of service. #he rule merel$ affectin! the chances of promotion cannot be re!arded as var$in! the conditions of

service. %hances of promotion are not conditions of service. Arule which merel$ affects the chances of promotion does notamount to chan!e in the conditions of service.E

%onse0uent upon the above detailed consideration( Fustice K.

Ramaswam$ recorded his conclusion in para!raph ">/. 5n the issue

in hand( sub,para!raph A4 of para!raph ">/ is relevant and is bein!

e'tracted hereunderB,

AB. A distinction between ri!ht to be considered for promotionand an interest to be considered for promotion has alwa$s beenmaintained. Seniorit$ is a facet of interest. #he rules prescribethe method of recruitmentCselection. Seniorit$ is !overned b$ therules e'istin! as on the date of consideration for promotion.Seniorit$ is re0uired to be wor1ed out accordin! to the e'istin!rules. ?o one has a vested ri!ht to promotion or seniorit$. 4ut anofficer has an interest to seniorit$ ac0uired b$ wor1in! out therules. #he seniorit$ should be ta1en awa$ onl$ b$ operation of



36

valid law. Ri!ht to be considered for promotion is a ruleprescribed b$ conditions of service. A rule which affects chancesof promotion of a person relates to conditions of service. #heruleCprovision in an Act merel$ affectin! the chances of promotion would not be re!arded as var$in! the conditions of

service. #he chances of promotion are not conditions of service. A rule which merel$ affects the chances of promotion does notamount to chan!e in the conditions of service. Jowever( once adeclaration of law( on the basis of e'istin! rules( is made b$ aconstitutional court and a mandamus is issued or direction !ivenfor its enforcement b$ preparin! the seniorit$ list( operation of the declaration of law and the mandamus and directions issuedb$ the %ourt is the result of the declaration of law but not theoperation of the rules per se.E

Fustice S. Sa!hir Ahmad concurred with the view e'pressed b$ Fustice

K. Ramaswam$. A dissentin! view was recorded b$ Fustice G.4.

9attanai1. 5n the sub*ect in hand( however( there was no dissent.

#he conclusions recorded b$ Fustice G.4. 9attanai1 were to the

followin! effectB,

"++. #o the said effect the *ud!ment of this %ourt in the case of State of 9un*ab v. Kishan Das( 2"+:"3 " S%% /"+( wherein this%ourt observed an order forfeitin! the past service which hasearned a !overnment servant increments in the post or ran1 heholds( howsoever adverse it is to him( affectin! his seniorit$within the ran1 to which he belon!s or his future chances of promotion( does not attract Article /""2-3 of the %onstitutionsince it is not covered b$ the e'pression reduction in ran1.

-. #hus to have a particular position in the seniorit$ listwithin a cadre can neither be said to be accrued or vested ri!ht

of a !overnment servant and losin! some places in the seniorit$list within the cadre does not amount to reduction in ran1 eventhou!h the future chances of promotion !et dela$ed thereb$. Itwas ur!ed b$ ;r Sachar and ;r ;ahabir Sin!h appearin! for the direct recruits that the effect of redetermination of theseniorit$ in accordance with the provisions of the Act is not onl$that the direct recruits lose a few places of seniorit$ in the ran1of 'ecutive n!ineer but their future chances of promotion are!reatl$ *eopardised and that ri!ht havin! been ta1en awa$ the

Act must be held to be invalid. It is difficult to accept this

contention since chances of promotion of a !overnment servant



37

are not a condition of service. In the case of State of ;aharashtra v. %handra1ant Anant Kul1arni( 2"+@"3 = S%% "/(this %ourt heldB 2S%% p. "="( para "3

". ;ere chances of promotion are not conditions of

service and the fact that there was reduction in thechances of promotion did not tantamount to a chan!e inthe conditions of service. A ri!ht to be considered for promotion is a term of service( but mere chances of promotion are not.E

-". #o the said effect a *ud!ment of this %ourt in the case of K. Fa!adeesan v. Union of India( 2"++3 - S%% --@( whereinthis %ourt heldB 2S%% pp. -/,/"( para :3

#he onl$ effect is that his chances of promotion or his

ri!ht to be considered for promotion to the hi!her post isadversel$ affected. #his cannot be re!arded asretrospective effect bein! !iven to the amendment of therules carried out b$ the impu!ned notification and thechallen!e to the said notification on that !round must fail.E

--. A!ain in the case of Union of India v. S.6. Dutta( 2"++"3 "S%% >>( this %ourt heldB 2S%% p. >"-( para ":3

In our opinion( what was affected b$ the chan!e of polic$were merel$ the chances of promotion of the Air

ice,;arshals in the ?avi!ation Stream. As far as theposts of Air ;arshals open to the Air ice,;arshals in thesaid stream were concerned( their ri!ht or eli!ibilit$ to beconsidered for promotion still remained and hence( therewas no chan!e in their conditions of service.E

''' ''' '''-"-. So far as the rules dealin! with Irri!ation 4ranch areconcerned( the said rules namel$ the 9un*ab Service of n!ineers 2Irri!ation 4ranch3 %lass I Service Rules( "+= have

not been considered earlier b$ this %ourt at an$ point of time.5ne Shri ;.6. Gupta was appointed to the post of Assistant'ecutive n!ineer as a direct recruit on -:,@,"+:"( pursuant tothe result of a competitive e'amination held b$ the Jar$ana9ublic Service %ommission in December "+:. #he said ShriGupta was promoted to the post of 'ecutive n!ineer on":,+,"+:. Je made a representation to the State Governmentto fi' up his seniorit$ in accordance with the service rules but asthe said representation was not disposed of for more than three$ears he approached the Ji!h %ourt of 9un*ab and Jar$ana b$

filin! %9 ?o. =//> of "+@=. #hat petition was disposed of b$



38

the Ji!h %ourt on the underta1in! !iven b$ the State that theseniorit$ will be fi'ed up soon. #he said underta1in! not havin!been complied with( the said Shri Gupta approached the Ji!h%ourt in Fanuar$ "+@ b$ filin! a contempt petition. InSeptember "+@ the State Government fi'ed the inter se

seniorit$ of the said Shri Gupta and other members of theService and Gupta was shown at Serial ?o. :-. #wo promoteeshad been shown at Serial ?os. := and :>. #hose two promoteesfiled a writ petition challen!in! the fi'ation of inter se seniorit$between the direct recruits and promotees and the Ji!h %ourt of 9un*ab and Jar$ana b$ its *ud!ment passed in ;a$ "+@:0uashed the order dated -+,+,"+@ whereunder the seniorit$ of the direct recruits and promotees has been fi'ed and calledupon the State Government to pass a spea1in! order assi!nin!position in the !radation list. #he State Government issued a

fresh notification on -=,:,"+@: !ivin! detailed reasonsreaffirmin! the earlier seniorit$ which had been notified on-+,+,"+@. 9rior to the aforesaid notification of the StateGovernment Shri Gupta had filed a writ petition in the 9un*aband Jar$ana Ji!h %ourt which had been re!istered as %9?o. "- of "+@ claimin! his seniorit$ at ?o. -- instead of :-which had been !iven to him under the notification dated-+,+,"+@. #he promotees also filed a writ petition challen!in!the !overnment order dated -=,:,"+@: which was re!istered as%9 ?o. >:@ of "+@:. 4oth the writ petitions( one filed b$ the

direct recruit( Shri Gupta( 2%9 ?o. "- of "+@3 and the other filed b$ the promotees 2%9 ?o. >:@ of "+@:3 were disposedof b$ the learned Sin!le Fud!e b$ *ud!ments dated -=,","++-and =,/,"++-( respectivel$( whereunder the learned Sin!leFud!e accepted the stand of the promotees and Shri Gupta wasplaced below one Shri 5.9. Ga!ne*a. #he said Shri Gupta filedtwo appeals to the Division 4ench a!ainst the *ud!ment of thelearned Sin!le Fud!e( which was re!istered as 6etters 9atent

Appeals ?os. /: and ="" of "++-. #he aforesaid letters patentappeals were allowed b$ *ud!ment dated -:,@,"++-. #his

*ud!ment of the Division 4ench of the 9un*ab and Jar$ana Ji!h%ourt was challen!ed b$ the State of Jar$ana in the Supreme%ourt which has been re!istered as %As ?os. "==@,=+ of "++/.#his %ourt !ranted leave and sta$ed the operation of the

*ud!ment in the matter of fi'ation of seniorit$. #he promoteesalso challen!ed the said *ud!ment of the Division 4ench in this%ourt which has been re!istered as %As ?os. "=>-,"=>/ of "++/. Durin! the pendenc$ of these appeals in this %ourt( an5rdinance was promul!ated on "/,>,"+@> as 5rdinance ?o. of "++> and the said 5rdinance was replaced b$ the impu!ned

Act - of "++> b$ the Jar$ana 6e!islature. #he validit$ of the



40

2v3 <inall$( reference ma$ be made to a decision rendered b$ this

%ourt in Union of India & 5rs. v. %olonel G.S. Grewal( 2-"=3 : S%%

//( wherein this %ourt observed as underB,

-@. As pointed out above( the #ribunal has partl$ allowed the5A of the respondent primaril$ on the !round that the decisioncontained in the Government 5rder dated -/,=,-" amendsthe promotion polic$ retrospectivel$ thereb$ ta1in! awa$ theri!hts alread$ accrued to the respondent in terms of the earlier polic$. It is also mentioned that the revised polic$ fundamentall$chan!es the applicant8s prospects of promotion. hat is i!noredis that the promotions alread$ !ranted to the respondent havenot been ta1en awa$. Insofar as future chances of promotions

are concerned( no vested ri!ht accrues as chance of promotionis not a condition of service. #herefore( in the first instance( the#ribunal will have to spell out as to what was the vested ri!htwhich had alread$ accrued to the respondent and that is ta1enawa$ b$ the 9olic$ decision dated -/,=,-". In this process(other thin! which becomes relevant is to consider that once therespondent is permanentl$ seconded in DGQA and he isallowed to remain there( can there be a chan!e in his serviceconditions vis,N,vis others who are his counterparts in DGQA(but whose permanent secondment is not in cloudO #o put it

otherwise( the sole reason for issuin! Government 9olic$ dated-/,=,-" was to ta1e care of those cases where permanentsecondment to DGQA was wron!l$ !iven. As per the appellants(since the respondent had suffered final supersession( he wasnot entitled to be seconded permanentl$ to DGQA. #his isdisputed b$ the respondent. #hat aspect will have to be decidedfirst. #hat apart( even if it be so( as contended b$ the appellants(the appellants have not recalled the permanent secondmentorder. #he$ have allowed the respondent to sta$ in DGQAmaintainin! his promotion as %olonel as well( which was !iven

pursuant to this secondment. #he 0uestion( in suchcircumstances( that would arise is whether the respondent canbe treated differentl$ even if he is allowed to remain in DGQAvi). whether not allowin! him to ta1e further promotions( whichbenefit is still available to others whose permanent secondmentis not in dispute( would amount to discrimination or arbitrarinessthereb$ offendin! Articles "= and " of the %onstitution of India.In our opinion( these( and other related issues( will have to bear!ued and thrashed out for comin! to a proper conclusion.E



41

-/. It is apparent from a collective perusal of the conclusions recorded in

the *ud!ments e'tracted in the fore!oin! para!raph( that chances of

promotion do not constitute a condition of service. In that view of the matter(

it is inevitable to hold( that the Ji!h %ourt erred in recordin! its eventual

determination on the basis of the fact that the promul!ation of the #A Rules(

-/ and the S#A Rules( -/ was discriminator$ and arbitrar$ with re!ard

to the fi'ation of the inter se seniorit$( since the same seriousl$ pre*udiced

the chances of promotion of the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre(

namel$( those members of the ori!inal ministerial cadre( who had not opted

for appointmentCabsorption into the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( with

reference to and in comparison with( those members of the ori!inal

ministerial cadre who had opted for appointmentCabsorption into the cadre of

Data ntr$ 5perators.

-=. As a proposition of law it is imperative for us to record( that chances of

promotion do not constitute conditions of service( and as such( mere

alteration of chances of promotion( would not per se call for *udicial

interference. #he above !eneral proposition would not be applicable( in

case the chances of promotion are altered arbitraril$( or on the basis of

considerations which are shown to be perverse or mala fide.

->. In the bac1!round of the factual and le!al position debated and

concluded hereinabove( onl$ one submission survives for our consideration(

namel$( whether the inter se seniorit$ determined at the initial constitution of

the cadres of #a' Assistants and Senior #a' Assistants under Rule = of the



42

#A Rules( -/ and Rule > of the S#A Rules( -/( respectivel$( is

acceptable in law. It is not the case of the appellants( that an$ perversit$ or

malafides are involved in the above determination( it is however the pointed

submission of the appellants( that the same is arbitrar$ and discriminator$.

And therefore( violative of the provisions of Articles "= and " of the

%onstitution of India. In this behalf( the submission advanced on their behalf

was two,fold. <irstl$( that dissimilar posts had been e0uated. And secondl$(

that the e0uation of posts determined merel$ on the pa$,scales attached to

them( would not be acceptable in law.

-. Insofar as the former of the said two contentions is concerned( the

submission was a!ain two,fold. <irstl$( reliance had been placed on Rule =

of the #A Rules( -/. Under Rule =2"3 thereof( Upper Division %ler1s and

Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 7A8 had been e0uated with one another( and

members belon!in! to the aforesaid two cadres had been !iven the hi!hest

position in the seniorit$ list 2at the sta!e of the initial constitution3. #he inter

se seniorit$ amon!st the Upper Division %ler1s and Data ntr$ 5perators( is

mandated to be determined( for purposes of further promotion( with effect

from the date on which the concerned incumbent was appointed on re!ular

basis as such. #he submission advanced b$ the learned counsel was( that

sub,rule 2-3 of Rule = of the #A Rules( -/( re0uired a Data ntr$ 5perator

Grade 7A8( who had come to be appointed as #a' Assistant( at the initial

constitution under the #A Rules( -/( to pass a departmental e'amination

within two $ears of such appointment( failin! which such Data ntr$ 5perator



43

Grade 7A8( would not be entitled to an$ further increment. Accordin!l$( the

submission advanced at the hands of learned counsel was( that the

aforesaid mandate clearl$ demonstrated( that a Data ntr$ 5perator Grade

7A8( had per se been found to be deficit( for dischar!in! duties a!ainst the

post of #a' Assistant. #he aforesaid deficienc$ was sou!ht to be satisfied

and fulfilled( accordin! to learned counsel( b$ re0uirin! the Data ntr$

5perator Grade 7A8( to 0ualif$ a departmental e'amination( within a period of

two $ears. #hat bein! the ac1nowled!ed position emer!in! from the

statutor$ rules( the contention advanced was( that the post of Data ntr$

5perator Grade 7A8( could not have been treated as e0ual to the post of

Upper Division %ler1( and as such( the determination of inter se seniorit$ for

onward promotion re!ulated b$ Rule =2"3 of the #A Rules( -/( must be

deemed to be both arbitrar$ and discriminator$( and as such( violative of

Articles "= and " of the %onstitution of India.

-:. In order to counter the submission advanced at the hands of the

learned counsel( as has been narrated in the fore!oin! para!raph( it was the

contention of learned counsel representin! the erstwhile Data ntr$

5perators Grade 7A8( who came to be appointed as #a' Assistants( at the

initial constitution of the aforesaid cadre( under the mandate of Rule = of the

#A Rules( -/( that the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre( on the

above analo!$( must also be li1ewise considered to be deficit in effectivel$

dischar!in! the duties assi!ned to the post of #a' Assistant( inasmuch as(

sub,rule 2/3 of Rule = of the #A Rules( -/ li1ewise mandates( that a



44

member of the ministerial cadre holdin! the post of 6ower Division %ler1 on

re!ular basis( and fallin! within the seniorit$ list determined b$ the appointin!

authorit$( would have to pass the departmental computer proficienc$

e'amination. It was further submitted( that onl$ from the date of passin! the

above e'amination( the person concerned would be deemed to have been

promoted as #a' Assistant. It was the pointed contention of learned counsel(

that whilst the deficienc$ in Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 7A8( was with

reference to lac1 of 1nowled!e of relevant procedures( the deficienc$ in

members of the ministerial cadre was on account of lac1 of 1nowled!e

relatin! to computer applications.

-@. 6earned senior counsel representin! the Union of India painsta1in!l$

pointed out( that the ministerial cadre as it was ori!inall$ constituted( handled

all procedures manuall$. %onse0uent upon a polic$ decision havin! been

ta1en( it was decided to computeri)e the functionin! of the %ustoms and

%entral 'cise Department. #his resulted in the promul!ation of the

lectronic Data 9rocessin! 9osts 2Group 7%8 #echnical 9osts3 Recruitment

Rules( "++-. #he creation of the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators was

considered to be imperative( to !ive effect to the aforesaid administrative

determination( to computeri)e the functionin! of the %ustoms and %entral

'cise Department. Accordin! to the learned senior counsel( on completion

of the process of computeri)ation it was felt( that for an effective functionin!

of the %ustoms and %entral 'cise Department( the e'istin! persons who

were proficient in matters of relevant procedures( needed wor1in!



45

e'perience with reference to computer applications. 6i1ewise( Data ntr$

5perators( it was felt( needed proficienc$ with reference to relevant

procedures. #herefore( it was pointed out( that neither the erstwhile

members of the ministerial cadre( nor the members of the cadre of Data

ntr$ 5perators( were full$ 0ualified to handle the duties and responsibilities

in the %ustoms and %entral 'cise Department( after its computeri)ation.

#herefore( while mer!er of above two cadres was !iven effect to( the

deficiencies in the two cadres were sou!ht to be removed b$ re0uirin! them

to 0ualif$ the prescribed departmental e'amination.

-+. A similar contention was advanced b$ learned counsel representin!

the private respondents( on the basis of Rule > of the S#A Rules( -/. e

have alread$ anal$sed hereinabove the effect of mer!er contemplated under

Rule > of the S#A Rules( -/. Despite our anal$sis of the aforesaid

provision( to which learned counsel for the rival parties have e'pressed their

approval( the contention advanced b$ the learned counsel was based on

clause 2v3 of Rule > of the S#A Rules( -/. et a!ain( the contention was(

that Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 7%8 could not be e0uated with Assistants(

and li1ewise Data ntr$ 5perators Grade 748 could not be e0uated with #a'

Assistants. #he pointed submission in this behalf was( that Data ntr$

5perators were re0uired b$ the mandate of clause 2v3 of Rule > of the S#A

Rules( -/( to 0ualif$ a departmental e'amination for achievin! proficienc$

in the relevant procedures( within two $ears( failin! which the$ would not be

eli!ible for an$ further increment. #he instant submission is a1in to the one



46

advanced at the hands of learned counsel on the basis of sub,rules 2/3 and

2=3 of Rule = of the #A Rules( -/. #he response at the hands of the

learned senior counsel representin! the Union of India( and the members of

the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators was( that the deficienc$ hi!hli!hted b$ the

learned counsel with reference to Data ntr$ 5perators need to be

e'amined closel$( inasmuch as( a similar deficienc$ was li1ewise hi!hli!hted

in clause 2v3 of Rule > of the S#A Rules( -/( even with reference to

erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre. #he erstwhile members of the

ministerial cadre( it was pointed out( were re0uired to 0ualif$ a departmental

e'amination on the sub*ect of computer applications( within two $ears( failin!

which the$ too would not be eli!ible for an$ further increment.

/. 6earned senior counsel representin! the Union of India( reiterated the

factual and le!al position( as he had hi!hli!hted with reference to Rule = of

the #A Rules( -/( whilst interpretin! Rule > of the S#A Rules( -/. et

a!ain it was pointed out( that on the completion of the computeri)ation

process( there were deficiencies in ministerial cadre( as also( in the cadre of

Data ntr$ 5perators( and therefore( at the initial constitution of the cadre of

Senior #a' Assistants( the deficiencies in both the cadres were sou!ht to be

satisfied( b$ providin! for different departmental e'aminations for them. It

was the contention of the learned senior counsel representin! the Union of

India( that the submission of learned counsel( pointin! out deficienc$ in onl$

one of the cadres( namel$( the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( was wholl$

un*ustified and unacceptable.



47

/". Javin! !iven our thou!htful consideration to the submissions

advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties( on the

basis of Rule = of the #A Rules( -/( and Rule > of the S#A Rules( -/( it

is not possible for us to conclude( that members of either of the two cadres

2the erstwhile ministerial cadre( and the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators3 can

be treated to be superior to one or the other( on account of the pointed

deficienc$( hi!hli!hted b$ the learned counsel. It clearl$ emer!es from the

provisions relied upon( that conse0uent upon the completion of the process

of computeri)ation( in the %ustoms and %entral 'cise Department( the

erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre needed to be trained in computer

applications( and the erstwhile members of the cadre of Data ntr$

5perators re0uired to be instructed in relevant procedures. #hus viewed( it

is not possible for us to accept the contention of learned counsel( that either

of the two cadres ou!ht to be treated as superior to the other. #he first

contention( premised on Rule = of the #A Rules( -/ and Rule > of the S#A

Rules( -/( respectivel$( is devoid of an$ merit( and is accordin!l$ hereb$

re*ected.

/-. e shall now deal with the second submission advanced before us

durin! the course of hearin!( namel$( the second contention noticed in

para!raph - above. #he pointed submission advanced before us was( that

the e0uation of posts under Rule = of the #A Rules( -/( and under Rule >

of the S#A Rules( -/( was based e'clusivel$ on the pa$,scales attached to

them. #he resultant inter se seniorit$ between the posts at the initial



48

constitution of the cadres under reference( was also based e'clusivel$ on

the pa$,scales of the posts sou!ht to be mer!ed. #he aforesaid

determination( under Rules = and > referred to hereinabove( accordin! to

learned counsel( is wholl$ impermissible in law.

//. In order to canvass the proposition noticed in the fore!oin! para!raph(

learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered b$ this %ourt in

%handra1ant Anant Kul1arni8s case 2supra3. #he controvers$ in the

*ud!ment cited for our consideration( was aimed at determinin!( whether

there was denial of fair and e0uitable treatment( within the meanin! of

sub,section 2>3 of Section ""> of the States Reor!ani)ation Act( "+>. #he

aforesaid fair and e0uitable treatment was( with reference to the posts of

Assistant Sales #a' 5fficers 2from the former States of ;adh$a 9radesh and

J$derabad3 and Sales #a' Inspectors 2from the former State of 4omba$3(

who were allocated to the new State of 4omba$. #he 0uestion which arose

for consideration( also had a bearin! on the ri!ht to promotion to the ne't

hi!her post of Sales #a' 5fficer. #his %ourt while determinin! the above

controvers$( held as underB,

+. 9rior to the reor!anisation of the States( a conference of the%hief Secretaries of the States that were to be affected b$ thereor!anisation was held at Delhi on ;a$ "@ and "+( "+> for thepurpose of the formulation of the principles upon which inte!ration of services was to be effected. #he Government of India b$ their letter dated April /( "+>: informed the State Government that the wor1 of inte!ration of services should be dealt with b$ them in the li!ht of the!eneral principles alread$ settled at the %hief Secretaries %onference.#his has been construed to be a valid dele!ation of powers to preparethe preliminar$ and final !radation lists under the direction and withthe sanction of the %entral Government. #he Government of India b$



49

its circular dated ;a$ ""( "+>: to all the State Governments statedinter alia that it a!reed with the views e'pressed on behalf of theStates8 representatives that it would not be appropriate to provide an$protection in the matter of departmental promotion. #his circular hasbeen interpreted as a prior approval of the %entral Government in

terms of the proviso to sub,section 2:3 of Section ""> of the Act in thematter of chan!e in the conditions of service relatin! to departmentalpromotions.

". #he followin! principles had been formulated for bein! observedas far as ma$ be( in the inte!ration of !overnment servants allotted tothe services of the new StatesB

In the matter of e0uation of postsB

2i 3 here there were re!ularl$ constituted similar cadres inthe different inte!ratin! units the cadres will ordinaril$ be

inte!rated on that basisM but2ii 3 here( however( there were no such similar cadres thefollowin! factors will be ta1en into consideration in determinin!the e0uation of posts

2a3 nature and duties of a postM

2b3 powers e'ercised b$ the officers holdin! a post( thee'tent of territorial or other char!e held or responsibilitiesdischar!edM

2c 3 the minimum 0ualifications( if an$( prescribed for recruitment to the post( and

2d 3 the salar$ of the post.E

It is well settled that these principles have a statutor$ force.

"". #here is a lon! line of decisions of this %ourt startin! from theUnion of India v. 9.K. Ro$( 2"+@3 - S%R "@( la$in! down that the%entral Government has been constituted to be the final authorit$ inthe matter of inte!ration of services under sub,section 2>3 of Section""> of the Act. #he matter of e0uation of posts is purel$ anadministrative function. It has been left entirel$ to the %entralGovernment as to how it has to deal with these 0uestions. #he %entral

Government had established an Advisor$ %ommittee for the purposeof assistin! in the proper consideration of the representations made toit. #here is nothin! in Sections ""> to "": of the Act prohibitin! the%entral Government in an$ wa$ from ta1in! the aid and assistance of the State Government in the matter of effectin! the inte!ration of services. As observed b$ this %ourt in Ro$ case the usual procedurefollowed b$ the %entral Government in the matter of inte!ration of services !enerall$( is in order. It is not open to the court to consider whether the e0uation of posts made b$ the %entral Government isri!ht or wron!. #his was a matter e'clusivel$ within the province of the



50

%entral Government. 9erhaps( the onl$ 0uestion the court can en0uireinto is whether the four principles a!reed upon at the %hief Secretaries%onference had been properl$ ta1en into account. #his is the narrowand limited field within which the supervisor$ *urisdiction of the %ourtcan operate. 4ut where( as here( in the matter of e0uation of posts(

the %entral Government had properl$ ta1en into account all the four principles decided upon at the %hief Secretaries %onference( thedecision cannot be assailed at all. In the present case( not onl$ the%entral Government had laid down the principles for inte!ration( butalso considered the representations and passed the final orders andthe provisional !radation lists were prepared and published b$ theState Government under the direction and with the sanction of the%entral Government.

"-. In accordance with the principles settled at the %hief Secretaries

%onference( the Government of India( in consultation with the %entral Advisor$ %ommittee( directed that the posts of AS#5s in the former States of ;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad should be continued in anisolated cate!or$( there bein! no correspondin! post in the successor State of 4omba$ with which the$ could be e0uated. #here were "+

AS#5s in the pa$ scale of Rs ">,",-,4,">,-> from ;adh$a9radesh and -/ AS#5s in the pa$ scale of Rs ":,@,-->,4,"/,/-from J$derabad allocated to the new State of 4omba$. In the former State of 4omba$ there was no similarl$ constituted cadre of AS#5s(but there were posts of S#Is in the pa$ scale of Rs

"-,@,"==,4,@,-,"C-,->. It would have been ine0uitable andunfair to e0uate AS#5s from ;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad withS#Is from 4omba$( loo1in! to the nature of their posts( the powers andresponsibilities and the pa$ scales attached to the same. #he AS#5sfrom ;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad were( in the first instance(superior to S#Is in their respective States and the post of AS#5 inthose States was a promotion post. In addition( AS#5s in those Stateswere Assessin! Authorities and the$ en*o$ed statutor$ powers of their own to assess ta' and lev$ penalties( whereas the S#Is in 4omba$had no such powers to assess ta' or lev$ penalt$ but had merel$ toscrutinise returns and !enerall$ act in a subordinate capacit$ to S#5s.videntl$( the State Government was wron! in directin! b$ itsResolution dated ?ovember "( "+>: that the seniorit$ of AS#5s from;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad and S#Is from 4omba$ be fi'ed inthe cadre of S#Is in the reor!anised State of 4omba$ on the basis of continuous service includin! that in the lower !rade. #he principleadopted b$ the State Government for determinin! their relative inter seseniorit$ was obviousl$ wron!( bein! contrar$ to the principles settledat the %hief Secretaries %onference. As alread$ stated( theGovernment of India( on representation b$ the affected AS#5s from;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad( in consultation with the %entral



51

Advisor$ %ommittee( directed that the inter se seniorit$ should be fi'edta1in! into account continuous service in the e0uated !rade onl$sub*ect to the inter se seniorit$ of the officers comin! from the severalinte!ratin! re!ions. Upon that basis( the State Government b$ itsResolution dated September "( "+( ri!htl$ modified ?otes / and

of its "+>: Resolution and directed that the seniorit$ as on ?ovember "( "+> of AS#5s from ;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad be fi'edabove the persons in the cadre of S#Is and that the inter se seniorit$of AS#5s from ;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad be fi'ed on the basisof their continuous service as AS#5s in their respective States.E

Javin! dealt with the controvers$ on the parameters recorded throu!h the

aforesaid observations( this %ourt concluded as underB,

"+. 4e that as it ma$( the fact remains that the condition re!ardin!the passin! of the departmental e'amination became incapable of compliance in the case of AS#5s from ;adh$a 9radesh andJ$derabad who had been promoted as S#5s Grade III. #he$ wereentitled to such promotion without passin! such e'amination. Under the relevant rules which re!ulated their conditions of service( therewas onl$ a possibilit$ of reversion in the eventualit$ of their notpassin! the e'amination within the stipulated time. Since noe'aminations admittedl$ have been held( there is no 0uestion of their reversion as AS#5s. If the decision of the Ji!h %ourt were to be

upheld( it would impl$ that man$ of the AS#5s from ;adh$a 9radeshand J$derabad who had been promoted as S#5s Grade III and durin!the past - $ears have reached the hi!her echelons of service( wouldnow have to be put bac1 as AS#5s( for no fault of their own. ;an$ of them either have retired or are on the ver!e of retirement.

-. #here was thus no alternative for the State Government but tosuspend the operation of the amendment made on Fanuar$ -( "+"to Rule " 2b32ii3 of the Recruitment Rules( b$ its order dated 5ctober "("+>( which made the passin! of the S#5 e'amination a conditionprecedent for promotion of S#Is to S#5 Grade III. #here can be no

doubt that the State Government8s Resolution dated Fune "/( "+=and its memorandum of ?ovember -"( "+=( clarif$in! that the AS#5sfrom ;adh$a 9radesh and J$derabad were entitled for promotion tothe post of S#5 Grade III without passin! the departmentale'amination( placed S#Is from 4omba$ at a disadvanta!e. #o ensure7fair and e0uitable treatment8( the State Government ri!htl$ dispensedwith the re0uirement of passin! the departmental e'amination in thecase of S#Is from the former State of 4omba$.

-". In the end( revertin! bac1 to the main 0uestion. 5n an overall

view of thin!s( we are satisfied that the State Government acted with



52

the best of intentions. It endeavoured to stri1e a balance between thecompetin! claims to relative seniorit$. hen sub,section 2>3 of Section""> of the Act spea1s of fair and e0uitable treatmentE( obviousl$ itenvisa!es a decision which is fair and e0uitable to all.E

/=. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this %ourt in S.9.

Shivprasad 9ipal v. Union of India & 5rs.( 2"++@3 = S%% >+@. In the said

*ud!ment( this %ourt considered the validit$ of the notification dated

/.-."+@:( which had resulted in the constitution of a %entral 6abour Service(

b$ a mer!er of three e'istin! cadres. Accordin! to the appellant before this

%ourt( the three cadres which were sou!ht to be amal!amated( had different

statutor$ functions( different 0ualifications and different duties and powers.

4$ mer!in! the three cadres( accordin! to the appellant before this %ourt(

une0uals had been treated as e0uals. #he pointed contention on behalf of

the appellant( who belon!ed to one of the three cadres was( that he had

been placed in a condition( worse than the position he occupied in the

ori!inal cadre. #he claim of the appellant was( that his chances of promotion

had been substantiall$ diminished. 5ne of the !rounds for raisin! the

challen!e was( that the mer!er of the three cadres was in violation of Articles

"= and " of the %onstitution of India. #his %ourt havin! ta1en into

consideration the decision in the %handra1ant Anant Kul1arni8s case 2supra3(

concluded as underB,

"=. #he %adre Review %ommittee after e'aminin! the 1inds of duties dischar!ed b$ these officers decided that since the$ all wor1edin the area of labour welfare( it would be desirable that the$ couldwiden their e'perience. #his would be possible if the cadres wereinte!rated and the posts were made interchan!eable so that themembers of the cadre could !et a more varied e'perience in differentareas of labour welfare( thus ma1in! for a better,e0uipped cadre.



53

#herefore( althou!h the e'act nature of wor1 done b$ the three cadreswas different( it would be difficult to sa$ that one cadre was superior or inferior to the other cadre or service.

">. A decision to mer!e such cadres is essentiall$ a matter of polic$.

Since the three cadres carried the same pa$ scale at the relevanttime( mer!in! of the three cadres cannot be said to have caused an$pre*udice to the members of an$ of the cadres. #he total number of posts were also increased proportionatel$ when the mer!er too1 placeso that the percenta!e of posts available on promotion was not in an$manner adversel$ affected b$ the mer!er of the cadres.

". #he appellant( however( contends that as a result of the mer!er his promotional chances have been ver$ adversel$ affected becausehis position in the seniorit$ list has !one down. Rule + of the %entral

6abour Service Rules( "+@: under which the mer!er is effected( la$sdown the rules of seniorit$. It provides that the inter se seniorit$ of theofficers appointed to the various !rades mentioned in Schedule I at theinitial constitutional sta!e of the service shall be determined accordin!to the len!th of re!ular continuous service in the !rade sub*ect tomaintenance in the respective !rade of inter se seniorit$ of officersrecruited in their respective ori!inal cadres. #he proviso to this Ruleprescribes that althou!h Assistant 6abour %ommissioner 2%entral3(6abour 5fficer and Assistant elfare %ommissioner shall be e0uated(all Assistant 6abour %ommissioners 2%entral3 holdin! such posts on or before /","-,"+:- shall be en bloc senior to 6abour 5fficers and 22 3Senior 6abour 5fficers and Re!ional 6abour %ommissioners shall bee0uated. 4ut all Re!ional 6abour %ommissioners holdin! such postson or before -,/,"+@ shall be en bloc senior to the Senior 6abour 5fficers.

":. 'plainin! the proviso the respondents have said that before/","-,"+:- Assistant 6abour %ommissioners were in a hi!her pa$scale than 6abour 5fficers. #he parit$ between their pa$ scales cameabout onl$ from Fanuar$ "+:/. #hat is wh$ to preserve their inter seposition( Assistant 6abour %ommissioners appointed prior to

/","-,"+:- have been placed above 6abour 5fficers. Similarl$(Re!ional 6abour %ommissioners drew a hi!her pa$ scale than Senior 6abour 5fficers prior to "+@. #he parit$ has come about in "+@ andhence Re!ional 6abour %ommissioners holdin! such posts on or before -,/,"+@ have been placed above Senior 6abour 5fficers.

"@. #he seniorit$ rules have thus been carefull$ framed ta1in! allrelevant factors into consideration. #he respondents have also pointedout that as a matter of fact( b$ reason of the mer!er( the appellant hasnot( in fact( suffered an$ pre*udice and he has also received

promotions.



54

"+. Jowever( it is possible that b$ reason of such a mer!er( thechance of promotion of some of the emplo$ees ma$ be adversel$affected( or some others ma$ benefit in conse0uence. 4ut this cannotbe a !round for settin! aside the mer!er which is essentiall$ a polic$decision. #his %ourt in Union of India v. S.6. Dutta( 2"++"3 " S%% >>(

e'amined this contention. In S.6. Dutta case a chan!e in thepromotional polic$ was challen!ed on the !round that as a result(service conditions of the respondent were adversel$ affected since hischances of promotion were reduced. Rel$in! upon the decision in theState of ;aharashtra v. %handra1ant Anant Kul1arni( 2"+@"3 = S%%"/( this %ourt held that a mere chance of promotion was not acondition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in thechance of promotion would not amount to a chan!e in the conditionsof service.E

/>. It is in the bac1!round of the aforesaid submission advanced at the

hands of learned counsel( that we would consider the validit$ of the mer!er

of cadres contemplated b$ Rule = of the #A Rules( -/ and Rule > of the

S#A Rules( -/. #he position in the present controvers$ is not comparable

to the position e'amined b$ this %ourt in the *ud!ments referred to

hereinabove. It needs to be understood( that the cadre of Data ntr$

5perators( was created out of the ori!inal ministerial cadre. It is( therefore

apparent( that the members of the two cadres were ori!inall$ dischar!in!

similar duties. It is onl$ as a conse0uence of the administrative decision to

computeri)e the functionin! of the %ustoms and %entral 'cise Department(

that a separate cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators came to be created. #he

newl$ created cadre( e'clusivel$ functioned towards !ivin! effect to the

decision to computeri)e the functionin! of the department. #here was

thereafter a division of duties dischar!ed b$ the ori!inal members of the

ministerial cadre. 5ne cadre of emplo$ees e'clusivel$ thereafter dischar!ed

procedural duties of the department( whereas( the other cadre of emplo$ees



55

e'clusivel$ thereafter dischar!ed duties aimed at computeri)ation of the

functionin! of the department. ven thou!h( it is apparent( that the Data

ntr$ 5perators e'clusivel$ functioned towards the process of

computeri)ation of the functionin! of the %ustoms and %entral 'cise

Department( $et that could not be possible without their e'istin! e'perience

in the erstwhile ministerial cadre. %onse0uent upon the mer!er of posts(

conse0uent( upon the promul!ation of the #A Rules( -/( and the S#A

Rules( -/( the nature and duties of the two cadres were combined.

%onse0uent upon their appointment as #a' Assistants and Senior #a'

Assistants( members of the erstwhile ministerial cadre( and members of the

cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators( were re0uired to perform both procedural

duties and duties relatin! to computer applications. #he deficiencies in the

two cadres sou!ht to be mer!ed( were sou!ht to be overcome( b$ sub*ectin!

the members of the two cadres to different e'aminations( whereb$( the two

cadres were trained for dischar!in! their duties efficientl$( on mer!er( whilst

holdin! the posts of #a' AssistantsCSenior #a' Assistants. It is( therefore( not

possible for us to accept( that there was an$ serious difference between the

two mer!ed cadres( either on the issue of nature of duties( or on the sub*ect

of powers e'ercised b$ the officers holdin! the post( or the e'tent of

territorial or other char!e held( or responsibilities dischar!ed b$ them( or for

that matter( the 0ualifications prescribed for the posts. 5n account of the

aforesaid( b$ and lar!e similarit$( we are satisfied( that the mer!er of the

cadres( and the determination of the inter se seniorit$ on mer!er( were



56

*ustifiabl$ determined( on the basis of the different pa$,scales of the cadres

mer!ed( under the #A Rules( -/ and the S#A Rules( -/. 4$ the

mandate of the above Rules( all posts in e0uivalent pa$,scales were placed

at the same level. 9osts in the hi!her scale of pa$( were !iven superiorit$ on

the sub*ect of inter se seniorit$( with reference to posts in the lower scale of

pa$. In our considered view( the above determination( at the hands of the

rule framin! authorit$( on the issue canvassed before us( cannot be termed

either arbitrar$ or discriminator$. e are( therefore satisfied in concludin!(

that the provisions of Rule = of the #A Rules( -/ and Rule > of the S#A

Rules( -/( cannot be faulted on the touchstone of Articles "= and " of the

%onstitution of India.

/. <or all the reasons recorded hereinabove( we are satisfied( that the

different orders passed b$ the Administrative #ribunal( and the common

order dated "/.=.-: passed b$ the Ji!h %ourt( are liable to be set aside.

#he same are accordin!l$ hereb$ set aside. #he appeals filed b$ those who

moved to the cadre of Data ntr$ 5perators from the ministerial cadre( and

were thereupon amal!amated in the cadre of #a' AssistantsCSenior #a'

Assistants( are allowed. #he connected appeals preferred b$ the Union of

India( are also allowed. In the above view of the matter( the authorities shall

!ive effect to Rules = and > of the #A Rules( -/ and the S#A Rules( -/(

respectivel$( without an$ further dela$.

J.:J%&'()* S(+&* ,**%;



57

J.:S.A. B<';

?ew DelhiM;arch -( -">.



58

I#; ?5."4 %5UR# ?5.= S%#I5? TII



59

S U 9 R ; % 5 U R # 5 < I ? D I A

R%5RD 5< 9R5%DI?GS

%ivil Appeal ?o2s3. -=@>,-=+C-"

DJ56 G5I?D SAJ4RA5 & 5RS. Appellant2s3

RSUS

U?I5? 5< I?DIA & 5RS. Respondent2s3

I#J

%.A. ?o. -=+",->/C-"( %.A. ?o. ->::C-"( %.A. ?o. "/@C-"/

JARD 4 J5?L46 FAGDISJ SI?GJ KJJAR A?D J5?L46S.A.454D(FF.V

Date B -C/C-"> #hese appeals were called on for *ud!ment toda$.

<or Appellant2s3 ;r. K.;aruthi Rao( Adv.;s. K. Radha( Adv.for ;rs. An*ani Ai$a!ari(A5R2?93

;r. 4. . 4alaram Das( A5R ;r. 4. Krishna 9rasad(A5R



60

<or Respondent2s3;r. Fa$anth ;uthra*( Adv.

for ;r. %. K. Sasi(Adv.

;r. <a1hruddin( Sr. Adv.

;r. i*a$ Kumar(A5R

;r. 4. Krishna 9rasad(A5R

;r. 9. ?arasimhan(A5R

;r. S. R. Setia(A5R

;r. i1as ;ehta( A5R

;r. Ra!havendra S. Srivatsa( A5R

;r. Rauf Rahim( A5R

JonLble ;r. Fustice Fa!dish Sin!h Khehar pronounced the

*ud!ment of the 4ench comprisin! Jis 6ordship and JonLble ;r. Fustice S.A.

4obde.

<or the reasons recorded in the Reportable *ud!ment( which is

placed on the file( the appeals are allowed.



61

#he authorities shall !ive effect to Rules = and > of the #A

Rules( -/ and the S#A Rules( -/( respectivel$( without an$ further

dela$.

29arveen Kr. %hawla3 2Renu Diwan3

%ourt ;aster %ourt ;aster

DEO'S CASE: APEX COURT JUDGEMENT

Documents

Transcript of DEO'S CASE: APEX COURT JUDGEMENT