Holding

The seniority list and subsequent appointments are invalid because officiating promotions made before the 1978 Rules must be treated as substantive, and seniority should be based on length of continuous service as Divisional Medical Officers, not on zone‑wise confirmation or quota‑rotation.

Summary

Eight petitioners, originally Assistant Medical Officers, were promoted on an officiating basis to Divisional Medical Officer posts between 1971 and 1974 under the 1965 and 1973 Railway Medical Service Rules, which treated such posts as selection posts. A seniority list prepared in 1979 under the 1978 Rules (which introduced a "non‑selection" seniority‑cum‑suitability principle) excluded the petitioners, leading to their being passed over for promotion to Medical Superintendent. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners’ officiating appointments must be treated as substantive for seniority purposes, that seniority should be based on continuous service as Divisional Medical Officers, and that zone‑wise confirmation dates or quota‑rotation rules could not govern seniority for an all‑India cadre. Consequently, the seniority list and subsequent appointments were quashed and a fresh list ordered.

Issues considered

The validity of the combined seniority list prepared under the 1978 Rules for officers promoted before its commencement.
Whether officiating appointments to Divisional Medical Officer posts should be treated as substantive for seniority determination.
Whether zone‑wise confirmation dates can be used to fix seniority for promotion to the all‑India cadre of Medical Superintendents.
Whether the quota and rotation principle can be applied retrospectively to seniority between promotees and direct recruits.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to seniority over direct recruits appointed later.
Whether the principle of selection on merit under the 1965/1973 Rules governs the petitioners' promotions.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(1)

Subjects

senioritypromotionRailway Medical Serviceselection vs non‑selectiontemporary vs permanent postsArticle 14Article 16quotarotationofficiating appointmentAll India cadre

Judgment

818

D.K. MITRA AND ORS.
A
v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
B
July I, 1985

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI
MUKHARJI, JJ.]

c Indian Railway Medical Service (District Medical Officers) Recruitmenl
Rules 1965/lndlan Railway Medical Service (District Medical Officers) Recruit-
ment Rules 1973/lndian Railway Medical Service (Dirisional Medical Officers/
Senior Medical Officers) Recruitment Rules 1975/lndian Railway Medical Ser11i{e
(Chief Medical Officers, Additional Chief Medical Officers, Med/cal
Superintendents and Divisional/Senior Medical Officers) Recruitment R11/es
D 1978-lndian Railway Medical Service-Combined seniority list of Divisional
Medical Officers-Promotees and direct recruits-Promotion to post of Medical
Superintendent-Validity of-Pron1otion-Principle of''non~selection''-~Yhether
equivalent to "seniority-cu1n-suitabili1y"-Non-classijication of posts into perma-
nent and tenrporary- Whether all posts to be regarded as pern:anent-Person&
appointed substantfrely whetlrcr could be senior to persons appvinted in officiating
capactiy-Persons appointed to the higher post on the basis of ·'selection'-
E 1¥hetlter could be junior to the persons appointed subsequently-Zone wise confir-
nration-Whethe:· permissible in case of an All India Service-Detern1inalion of
seniority-Confirmation date whether relevant-Criteria for fixing inter-se
se11iority between promotees a.-1d direct recruits-What is- Quota for direct recruit-
ment-Not maintained for long period-Whether there could be rotation of
posts.
F
The Indian Railways Medical Service consists of Assistant Divisional
Medical Officers Class I (before January 1, 1973 described as Assistant Medical
Officers Class II). Divisional Medical Officers, Medical Superintendents, Chief
Medical Officers and Director General of Medical Services.

G
The Petitioners in the writ petition who were Assistant Medical Officers
Class II were confirmed, one in 1962 and the others in 1963. During the years
1970 to 72 they were selected by Departmental Promotion Committees for
officiating appointments to the Class I post of Divisional Medical Officers. At
that time the Indian Railway Medical Service (District Medical Officers)
H Recruitment Rules 1965 were applicable. Those Rules were repealed and
replaced by the Indian Railway Medical Service (District Medical Officers)
Recruitmeat Rules JQ73. Under the Rules of 1965 and the Rules 1973 the
pQ~ts of Di~tri~t ?vfe4ical Offlcers w¢re treated a$ selection post3.
D.K. MITRA V. UNION 819

The existing pay scale of Rs. 350-900 attached to the post of Assistant
Medical Officer was revised by the Third Pay Commission and split into two A
pay scales, a higher Class I scale of Rs. 700-1600 and a lower Class II scale of
Rs. 650-1200 and the posts of Assistant Medical Officers were divided into those
carrying the higher pay scale and those carrying the lower pay scale.
The upgraded posts in the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 were
designated as "Assistant Divisional Medical Officers". The petitioners
were plactd in the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 and were
d~signated as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from January
B
1, 1973.

The Rules of 1973 were replaced by the Indian Railway Medical
Service (Divisional Medical Officers/Senior Medical Officers) Recruitment Rules
1975, which were further-replaced by the Indian Railway Medical Service (Chief
Medical Officers. Additional Chief Medical Officers, Medical Superintendents c
and Divisional Senior Medical Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1978. Under these
Rules promotion is effected on the principle of ''non-selection", that is, on
"seniority-cum-suitability'' basis.

The Rules of 1965 showed that there were 101 posts in the grade of
Divisional Medical Officers. The Rules of 1973 mentioned 109 posts and refer- D
red to them as permanent posts only. The Railway Ministry for the
promotion of Assistant Medical Officers to the Class I posts of Divisional
Medical Officers indicated the number of existing vacancies for the purpose of
permanent promotion and the number of anticipated vacancies for the purpose
of officiating appointments, the number under each category being specified
zone-wise. A Class I Departmental Promotion Committee met on several
occasions and considered the cases of candidates who had completed five yean
E
and abov~ of service as A<>sistant Medical Officers for substantive promotion
and for officiating promotion, the field of choice being extended to six times
the number of vancancies. The petitioners were selected on the basis of merit
• and appointed to officiate as Divisional Medical Officers on different dates in
1971 and 1972, except petitioner No. 7 who was promoted and appointed in
1974. F
The RailwHy Board on October 30, 1979 published a combined seniority
list of Divisional Medical Officers recruited directly or by promotion. Respon~
dents Nos. 4 to 64 included both promotees and direct recruits and were shown
in that list. The petitioners did not find place in the seniority list. Subsequently
on the basis of that seniority list, some of the respondent Divisional Medical G
Officers were appointed on August 31, 1934 to officiate as l\iledical Superinten-
dents.

In the Writ Petition under Art. 32 the _petitioners challenged the validity
of the combined seniority list dated 30th October, 1979 of Divisional Medical
Officers and of the officiating promotions to the posts of Medical Superinten- H
dents as violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, contending: that they
were promoted as Didsioaal Medical Officers much earlier than the promotee
respondents; that their promotion was made by selection on the basis of merit
820 SUPllBMll COURT REPORTS (1985) MUPPL. 1.C.I..

adjudged by the Departmental Promotion Committees under the Rules of !965;
A that they had continued in service as Divisional Medical Officers against vacan-
cies in permanent posts without interruption for periods ranging between 8
years to 12 years, and that the promote• respondents, who had held such posts
for shorter periods, had been confirmed before the petitioners and shown senior
in the seniority list and preferred for promotion as Medical Superintendents;
that the petitioners should have been confirn1ed in the normal course; that the
promotcc respondents have been confirmed zone-wise, and such confirmation
B cannot serve as a proper reference for determine seniority because when confir-
mation is granted zone-wise, it depends on the fortuitous accrual of vacancies
arising arbitrarily at different times and in different numbers in different
individual zones; that if the date of confirmation is adopted as the criterion,
confirmation should not be reckoned on a zonal basis. Promotion to the
post of Medical Superintendents, which is an all India cadre post should
c properly be drawn on an All lndia basis and that if confirmation has to be
considered zone-wise then for the purpose of promotion to the all-India
cadre of Medical Superintendents the only logical and uniform criterion
shouJd be the total lenght of continuous service as Divisional Medical
Officers reckoned from the date of promotion; that for the purpose of fixing
seniority in the grade of Divisional Medical Officers the seniority in the grade
of Assistant Medical Officers or Assistant Divisional Medical Officers is of no
D material significance because under the Rules in force when the promotion in
the instant case were made, the petitioners were governed by the principle of
selection on the basis of merit; that the quota prescribed for direct recruitment
and for promotion under the Rules bas been wrongly applied at the stage of
confirmation when it should have been applied at the stage of appointment;
and that there is no provision for applying the principle of rotation of vacancies
between direct recruits (lnd promotees for the purpose of determining relative
E seniority between them.

The respondents, however contended: that the seniority list has been
correctly prepared, it contains the names of only those officers who were either
directly recuited as Divisional Medical Officers or had been approved for
permanent promotion against the quota of posts reserved for them 10 vacan~
cies allotted among the individual Railways on the basis of the cadre position
of each Railway, and ill.at none of the pt:titioners qualified for inclusion in the
seniority list as they had been promoted in an officiating capacity to temporary
vacancies in the posts of Divisional Medical Officers; that the petitioners have
no right to be treated at par with those officers who were holding permanent
posts on a confirmed basis, as confirmation was made on the basis of their
G selection for permanent promotion as Divisional Medical officers and their
seniority was also fixed on that basis. According to the practice followed by
the Railway Administration three select lists were prepared. List A set out
the names of officers selected for sub'.>tantive promotion against permanent.
vacancies. List B included the names of officers selected for officiating promo-
tion against temporary vacancies. Tho petitioners were placed in List B. The
H third list. List C, bore the names of officers included in List B by earlier Depart-
mental Promotion Comn1ittees but not cansidered as "suitable yet" for substan-
tive promotion by subsequent Departmental Promotion Committees. The inter-
se senipritf between the.direct recruit an<j \h~ promot~e DivisiQna1 Medical
j),K, MITRA V. UNION 8ll
Officers has been carefully fixed with reference to the direct recruitment and
promotioral qotas in force from time to time, without affecting the date of A
confirmation of the Divisional Medical Officers. The petitioners cannot claim
inclusion in the impugned seniority list as none of them had been promoted as
Divisional Medical Officers on a permanent basis against the quota of seats
reserved for such promotions under the relevant Rules, and cannot get weight-
age of five )Cars of substantive service rendered in the lower grade because the
principle providing such wcigbtage for seniority has not been applied to the B
Medical Department of the Railways.

Allowin& the petition,

HELD: I. The seniority list published by the Railway Ministry's letter
No. 152-E/5'·0 (El A) dated November 22, 1979 as well as the appointments c
made to the posts of Medical Superintendents by the Railway Ministry's letter
No. E(O) 111-81 PM6 199 dated August 31, 1981 are quashed. The Railway
administration is directed to draw up a fresh Seniority List of Divisional
I\1edical Officers and to make fresh appointmenls fron1 among Divisional
:tvfedical Officers to the posts of Medical Superintendents. [847 H; 848 A-B]
D

2. There is nothing to indicate why the Railway Ministry sought to
fill some of the vacancies in the permanent posts on a substantive basis and
the others on an officiating basis. The explanation offered is that substantive
appointments were made to permanent vacancies and officiating appointments
were made to temporary vacancies. The documents on record do not speak of
temporary vacances at all. There is no material suggesting the need for treatin& E
some ofthe vacancies as temporary and to show that some vacancies would have
ceased to exist within the foreseeable future or upon the happening of some
anticipated contingency,, On the contrary, the petitioners had continued to fill
the vacancies to which the petitioners were appointed shou Id be regarded as
permanent vacancies. [831 D~G]

F
3. The explanation that officiating appointn1ents were made when some
of the candidates considered for substantive appointment were found to be of
inferior calibre for such appointment and, therefore, some of the vacancies
; were left to be filled on an officiating basis is not plausible. The communication
of the Railway Ministry to the Departmental Promotion Committee spccifyina
G
r
the number and nature of the appointments to be made was issued long before
the cases of individual officers were examined for promotion. It was only after
the Departmental Promotion Committee had been informed of the Railway
Ministry's requirement that it commenced its task of selecting candidates for
substantive appointment and for officiating appointment. The material
produced by the respondents shows that the petitioners did not at any time
fall within the field of choice for making substantive appointments. That was H
because their seniority in the grade of Assistant Medical Officers did not at the
relevant time bring them within the field of choice for substantive appointment.
They were considered for officiating appointment only, and not for substantive
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (i98S) SUPPL S.C.il.

appointment. It was the mere statistical fact of their seniority as Assistant
A Medical Officers, and not their merit, that precluded their consideration for
substantive appointment as Divisional Medical Officers at the relevant
limo. [831 H; 832 A-DJ

4. IC from the outset the temporary vacancies bad been resarded as
--·
permanent vacancies, and substantive appointments had been made instead of
B officiating appointments, the petitioners would have been appointed substan-
tively to those permanent vacancies. In the entire field of choice in which they
fall, they were found to be the most meritorious Ever since their respective
appointments in 1971, 1972 and 1974 the petitioners have continued to
serve without interruption as Divisional Medical Officers and were doing
so 1,vhen this writ petition was filed in 1981. They have continued to serve
in the posts for a significant number of years, and there is no indication that
c their appointments will come to an end merely because the vacancies have
been described as temporary. There is no material to show that their confiden·
tial Records contained any adverse entries or that otherwise they were not fit on
their merit for substantive appointment to permanent vacaocies. The pehtioners
have now been appointed Divisional Medical Officers on a substantive basis.
The only reason why they were not originally appointed substantively to perma-
nent vacancies as Divisional Medical Officers is that only a limited number of
D substantive appointments was desired by the Railway Ministry and the
petitioners were not considered for those substantive appointments because they
did not fall within the field of choice, having regard to their place of seniority
in the lower grade of Assistant Medical Officers. [832 F-H; 833 A-BJ

l!I S. The petitioners arc entitled to say that they should be considered at
par, for the purpose of fixing seniority, with those appointed to permanent
posts in a substantive capacity. There is nothing to indicate why they should
not be entitled to the benefits which the substantive holders of permanent posts
enjoy. For the purpose of determining seniority among promotees the
petitioners should be treated as having been appointed to permanent vacancies
from the respective dates of their original appointment and the entire period of
F officiating service performed by them should be taken into account as if that
service was of the same character as that performed by the substantive holders
of permanent posts. [834 A·C]

Baleshwar Prasad v. State of UP., [1981] I S.C.R. 449, 462 and O.P.
Sing/av. Union of India, [1984J 2 S.C.C. 450, followed.
G
6. In the instant case, as the petitioners are continuing to hold the posts
of Divisional Medical Officers for aeveral years, the inclusion of their names in
List Bis wholly meaningless. [834 DJ
1
H
7. If lenght of continuous service reckont>d from the date of promotion
furnishes the criterion for determining seniority between the petitioners and the
substantively appointed Divisional Medical Officers, that principle should apply
ii.Kt. MITRA V, UNION 823

with equal vigour as between the petitioners and those promotec respondents
who also began to serve, like the petitioners, in officiatiag appointments as A
Divisional Medical Officers. There is no reason why such promotee respondents,
although appointed subsequently to the petitioners, should be treated as senior
to them. [834 E-F]

s. The date of confirmaUon is the material date for determining relative
seniorty. The Railway administration in according confirmation has been B
influenced by two principle factors. One is that confirmation has been conside-
red zone-wise. Confirmation has been made as vacancies have arisen within a
particular zone. The vacancies differ fron1 zone to zone. They no not ariso
equally in different zones, but turn on factors peculiar to each zone, such as the
~trength of the cadre within the zone, and the differing number of vacancies
arising in different zones at different times. In other words, confirmation based
on the placement of an officer within a particular zone 1nust necessarily be
determined by factors confined to that zone and unrelated to an all India
standard It is apparent that confirmations limited by such a local perspective
c:innot serve as a legitimate base for drawing up a seniority list intended for
efft"cting promotions to the all India cadre of Medical ~uperintendents. To
adopt the date of confirmation as the governing point in such circumstances is
to inject an element of inequality into the very foundation of the promotion
process. It is conceivable that the Railway Administration has adopted the rule
D
of ac.:ording confirmations zone-wise for certain practical consideration and
the validity of that practice need not be adjudicated on. But such confirmations
cannot legitimately constitute the basic norm for drawing up a seniority list of
Divisional Medical Officers for the purpofe of promotion to the grade of
Medical Superintendents. The principle must be that seniority should be
related to the length of continuous service as Divisional Medical Officers recko- E
ned from the date of promotion to the post; such service should not include any
period served in a forti.;itous, stop-gap or ad hoc appointment.
[834 G-H; 835 A-E]

9. After implementation of the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission, all the officers comprising the two groups were Assistant ~1edical
Officers, and an Assistant M ~dical Officer was nothing but as Assistant
Medical Officer who drew the higher revised scale of pay. The conclusion is
inescapable that Assistant Divisional Medical Officers were, for the purpose of
promotion as Divisional Medical Officers, governed by the Rules of 1965 and
the Rules of 1973. Those Rules mention Assistant Medical Officers as a source
of recruitment, without referring to any limiting qualification that they should
be officers drawing a Class II scale of pay. The expression "Assistant Medical G
Officer" in those Rules is comprehensive enough to include all Assistant Medical
Officers, whether drawing the class II revised scale of pay or entitled to the
Class I revised scale of pay. And all such Officers were, under those Rules,
governed by the priniciple of selection on merit for promotion as Divisional
Medical Officers. The Assistant Medical Officers were designated as Assistant
Divisional Medical Officers with effect from January 1, when the Rules H
of 1965 were still in force The Rules of 1973 came into force in August, 1973.
It is true that when Assistant Medical Officers were designated as Assistant
Divisional Medical Officers in the revised Class I scale of Rs. 700-1600 by
824 SUPREME cotJR T REPoRTS (1985) SUPPL. S.C.!l.

Notification No. E(GP) 74/l/IS3 dated July 24, 1976, the notification spoke of
A the "appointment" of Class II Assistant Medical Officers as Assistant
Divisional Medical Officers, but having regard to the terms of the schedule to
the letter dated December 31, 1974 such notifications must be understood to
mean that the Assistant Officers had been assigned the Class I scale of Ra. 700-
1600 and merely described as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers. They conti-
nued to belong to the broad category of "Assistant Medical Officers". Upon
Assistant Medical officers being designated as Assistant Divisional ti.1edical
B Officers under the new scheme, there was no corresponding amendment in the
Rules of 1965 or the Rules of 1973. It is for the first time, under the Rules of
1978, that the post of Divisional Medical Officer is described as a "non-
selection" post to be filled by promotion from the ranks of Assistant Divisional
Medical Officers and by direct recruitment. The only Assistant Medical Officers
now entitled to promotion as Divisional Medical Officers were those drawing
c the Class I scale of Rs 700·1600 and designated as "Assistant Divisional
Medical Officers". The new sub-division of Assistant Medical Officers described
as Assistant Divisional Jv1edical Officers was deemed to have taken birth on
January I, 1973 five and a half years before the Rules of 1978 were brought into
force. It could never have been intended that this class of Officers should exist
in a v .cuum where no rules operated. There was no vacuum because they were
comprehended within the expression "Assistant Medical Oftlcer" in the Rules
D of 1965 and the Rules of 1973, and therefore, no amendment was consider~d
necessary in those Rules to take congnisance of this class. [«37 E-H; 838 A-G]

10. The principle of selection by merit, enunciated in the Rules ofl 965
and the Rules of 1973 governed the promotion of Assistant Medical Officers
(including Assistant Divisional Medical Officers) to the posts vf Divisional
E Medical Officer before the Rules of 1978 came into force Both before and after
January 1, 1973, during the period before the Rules of 1978 came into force_ the
principle of "non-selection", that is seniority-cum-suitability in the lower grade,
which was provided in the Rules of 1978 did not apply to the promotion of
Assistant Medical Officers (including Assistant Divisional Medical Officers)
to the posts of Divisional Medical Officers (838 G-H; 839 A] /

F 11. The confirmation of the petitioners and all other officers appointed to
the posts of Divisional Medical Officer before the Rules of 1978 came into force
must be governed by the Rules of 1965 and the Rules of 1973. The promotions
and appointments made under the Rules of 1965, on the repeal of thoce
rules by the Rules of 1973, fall to be governed by the Rules of 1973. [839 D-EJ

G 12. The inter se seniority between the members of a service will
ordinarily depend on the date of entry into the grade. That is an event
governed by the Rules of recruitment, whether it be direct recruitment or pro..
motion on the basis of selection on merit or on the basis of seniority in the
lower grade or some other factor. Where seniority is fiited in a grade according
to the length of service in that grade, that implies a reference back to the date
H of entry. It is wholly immaterial when the seniority list is prepared. [840 C-E]

In the instant case, applying the criteria for determining seniority vis-a-vis
the promotee respondents and the petitioners to the case of petitioners and the
D.K. MITRA V. UNION 82$

direct recruits, the petitioners must be held senior to the dire£l recruits
appointed subsequently to them. [842 D-E] A
O.P. Sing/av. Union of lndia,[1984) 2 S.CC. 450, followed.

13. The rules themselves do not lay down any principle of rotation.
They specify the quotas only. lt was for the first time on May 26/27, 1976 that
the Railway Ministry by its Letter No. E(O) 1-74/SR-6/IO directed that "the B
seniority of Class II officers of the Medical Department, promoted to Class l
Senior Scale against the quota earmarked for ii particular year vis·a-vis the
officers recruited against the direct recruitment quota for that year wHI be fixed
on a rotational basis with reference to the dirCct recruitn1ent and Pf9motional
quotas in force from time to time." This directive, however, can' ge Ot no
assistance to the respondents. It may be open to an administration lo work the
quota rul~ through a principle of rotation, but that implies that a quota rule is
c
being actively operated and effect is being given to it. Jn the present cas_e, the
quotas laid down by the Rules were not observed at all and no direct recruit-
ment was made, during the years 1973 to 1976. Indeed, the proces~ 'or 'direct
recruitment was employed on a substantial basis only from 1978 onwards. There
was power under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1973 to relax the provisions of those
rules, which would include the provision requirin$ the observance of specified D
quotas for recruitment from promotional and from direct r:ecruitment
sources. [843 G·H; 844 A-DJ

A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors., [1983] 3 S.C.C. 601, followed, and
A.K. Subraman & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 2 S.C R. 979
inapplicable.
E
P,S. Mahal v. Union of India, [1984] 4S.C.C. 545 and Blshan Sarup Gupta
v. Union of India, [1975] Supp, S.C.R. 491, referred to. [847 Ej

14. The directly recruited Divisional M~dical Officers are entitled to
seniority only from the date of their entry into service and not from any F
anterior date, and therefore cannot enjoy seniority above the petition~rs.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 8353 of 1981.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
G
P.P. Rao and Parijat Sinha for the Petitioners.

M.M. Abdul Khader, Girish Chandra and Mis; A Subhashini for
the Respondents. H

The Judgment of the Courl was delivered by
8~6 SUPltEME COURT REPORTS (1985) SUPPL. s.c.k.

PATHAK, J: By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitu-
A tion the petitioners challenge the validity of a combined seniority
list dated October 30, 1979 of Divisional Medical Officers and of
promotions and officiating appointments made on the basis of that
seniority list to posts of Medical Superintendents In the Indian
Railways Medical Service.
B
Medical Service in the Indian Rail ;vays is structured in ascend·
ing levels. At the base, for the purpose of this case, is the cadre of
Assistant Divisional Medical Officers Class I (who before January I,
1973 were described as Assistant Medical Officers Class II). Above
them is the cadre of Divisional Medical Officers. The next
c above is the cadre of Medical Superintendents. Still higher rank
Chief Medical Officers, and the apex of the heirarchy is held by the
Director General of Medical Services.

There are eight petitioners. They were Assistant Medical
D Officers Class II and had been confirmed in that grade, one
petitioner in 19 62 and the others in 1963.

During the years 1970 to 1972, the petitioners were selected by
Departmental Promotion Committees for officiating appointments
to the Class I posts of Divisional Medical Officers, when the Indian
E Railway Medical Service (District Medical Officers) Recruitment
Rules, 1965 were in force. Those mies were repealed and replaced
by the Indian Railways Medical Service (District Medical Officers)
Recruitment Rules, 1973. Under the Rules of 1965 and the Rules
of 1973, the posts of District Medical Officers were treated as
F selection posts.

To give effect to the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission, the scale3 of pay of existing categories of officers were
revised. The existing pay scale of Rs. 350·900 attached to the posts
of Assistant Medical Officer was revised and split into two payscales,
G
a higher Class I scale of Rs. 700-1600 and a lower Class II scale of
Rs. 650-1200. The posts of Assistant Medical Officers were divided
into those carrying the higher pay scale and those carrying the higher
pay scale. A very large number of posts of Assistant Medical Officer
H were upgraded to the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1600, and were
designated as "Assistant Divisional Medical Officer". The petitioners
were placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 and were
designated as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from
i>.ic. MITRA v. uNiON (Pathak, J.) 821
January I. 1973. The screening of over 2000 Assistant Medical
Officers for the purpose of upgrading them to the higher scale kept A
the Screening Commitee busy from 1974 to 1976 or so, and
practically no recruitment was made during those year either by
permanent promotion or direct recruitment to the posts of Divisional
Medical Officer.
B
The rules of 1973 were replaced by the Indian Railway
Medical Service (Divisional Medical Officers/Senior Medical Officers)
Recruitment Rules, 1975. These, in their turn, yielded place to the
Indian Railway Medical Service (Chief Medical Officers, Additional
Chief · edical Officers, Medical Superintendents and DivisionaliSenior
Medical Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1978. Under the Rules of 1978, C
promotion is effected on the principle of "non-selection", an expres·
sion in the Rules which is construed by the Railway administration
as "seniority-cum-suitability".

By a letter No.E (0) I-78/SR-6/14 dated October 30, 1979 the D
Railway Board published a combined seniorty list of Divisional
Medical Officers recruited directly or by promotion. The respondents
Nos. 4 to 64 were shown in that list. They include promotees as
well as direct recruits. The petitioners did not find place in
the seniority list. Subsequently, on the basis of their positiou in
that seniority list, some of the respondent Divisional Medical Officers E
were appointed to officiate as Medical Superintendents by a Railway
Board letter No.E(O)lll-81 PN 6/199 dated August 31, 1981.

The petitioners challenge the combined seniority list of
Divisional Medical Officers and the officiating promotions to the F
posts of Medical Superintendents. The petitioners contend that
the seniority assigned to the respondents Nos. 4 to 64 and the
consequent promotions made thereafter violate Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution. The grievance operates in two dimen·
sions, against the promotee respondents and against the direct recruit
respondents. G

We propose to consider first the grievance of the peti·
tioners in respect of the seniority accorded to the promotee
respondents as Divisional Medical Officers and their promotion to H
officiate as Medical Superintendents. The case of the petitioners is that
the petitioners were promoted as Divisional Medical Officers much
before the promotee respondents, that their promotion was made
828 SUPIUlME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPPL. s.e.I\.

by selection on the basis of merit adjudged by Departmental
A Promotion Committees under the Rules of 1965, that they had
continued in service as Divi;ional Medical Officers against
vacancies in permanent posts without interruption for periods
ranging respectively between 8 years to 12 years, and yet the
promotee respondents, who had held such posts for shorter peroids,
had been confirmed before the petitioners and shown senior in the
B
seniority list and preferred for promotion as Medical Superinten-
dents. It is contendeds that the petitioners should have been
confirmed in the normal course, the order of their promotion
against permanent vacancies. The petitioners submit that the
promotee respondents have been confirmed zone-wise, and such
c confirmation cannot serve as a proper reference for determin-
ing s~niorty, because when confirm1tion is granted zone-wise, it
depends on the fortuitous ac rual of vacancies arisdg arbitrarly at
different times and in different numbers in different individual zones.
The petitioners contend that if the date of confirmation is adopted as
the criterion, confirmation should not be reckoned on a zonal basis,
D but as if the vacancies arose in a single all India structure for, the
petitioners say, a seniority list prepared for the purpose of Promo•
lion to the post of Medical Suprientendents, which is an all India
cadre, should properly be drawn on an all India basis. The peti-
tioners urge that if confirmation has to be considered zone-wise,
E then for the purpose of promotion to the all India cadre of
Medical Superintendents the only logical and uniform criterion
should be the total length of continuous service as Divisional
Medical Officers reckond from the date of promotion. It is a criterion
which makes the arbitrary chance of coofirmation against fortuitous
vacancies in individual zones irrelevant. Finally, the petitioners
F urge that for the purpose of fixing seniority in the grade of
Divisional Medical Officers the seniority ruling in the grade of
Assistant Medical Officers or Assistant Divisional Medical Officers is
of no material sigeificance because under the Rules in force when
the Promotions in instant case were made promotions were
G governed by the principle of selection on the basis of merit.

The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the seniority
list has been correctly prepared, that it contains the names of only
those officers who were either directly recruited as Divisional Medical
H Officers or had been approved for permanent promotion against the
quota of posts reserved for them in vacancies allotted among the
individual RailwaJs on the basis of the cadre position of each Rail-
D.K. MITRA v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 829

way, and that none of the petitioners qualified for inclusion in the
seniority list as they had been promoted in an officiating capacity to
temporary vacancies in the posts of Divisional Medical Officers.
The respondents contend that the petitioners have no right to be
treated at par with those officers who were holding permanent posts
on a confirmed basis, as confirmation was made on the basis of their
selection for parmanent promotion as Divisional Medical Officers.
8
It is stated that seniority was also fixed on that basis. The respon-
dents rely on a practice, followed by the Railway Administration
for several years, under which three Select Lists were prepared, List
A set out the names of officers selected for substantive promotion
against permanent vacancies. List B included the names of officers
selected for officiating promotion against temporary vacancies. c
These officers were also considered subsequently by Departmental
Promotion Committees for permanent promotion along with other
eligible officers in the field. The petitioners were placed in list B.
The third list C, bore the names of officers included in List B by
earlier Departmental Promotion Committees but not considered as D
"suitable yet" for substantive promotion by subsequent Departmental
Promotion Committees. It is stated that in the Railway Administra-
tion, Class JI officers were considered for substantive appointment
to permanent vacancies in Class I posts for officiating appointment
against temporary vacancies in Class I posts. In each case, there
was a separate selection by a Departmental Promotion Commitee, E
and the selection was made zone-wise. The Departmental Promotion
Committees, after considering the officers at five to six times the
number of vacancies, made a selection on an assessment of their
Confidential Records. It is stated that officers selected for officiating
appointment, and subsequently coming within the field of considera-
F
tion for permanent appointment against permanent vacancies, were
also considered for selection by snbsequent Departmental Promotion
Committees. In this manner, it is said, all eligible Class II officers
were considered for permanent appointment against permanent
vacancies, and the most meritorious were selected. It is pointed
ont that this practice was terminated in the Medical Department of G
the Railways after 1972, because with effect from January 1, 1973,
the Class II posts of Assistant Medical Officer were upgraded as
Class I posts of Assistant Divisional Medical Officers.

H
According to the respondents, at no time during the period
ending with the year 1972, whenever Departmental Promotion
Committees met for selecting officers against permanent vacancies,
830 SUPB.EMB COUB.T REPOB.TS [1985] SUPPL. s.c.11..

did any of the petitioners fall within the field of consideration for
A permanent appointment in view of their place of seniority in the class
II posts. It is also submitted that the promotion of the petitioners,
then Assistant Medical Officers, to the post of Divisional Medical
Officers in an officiating capacity againts temporary vacancies cannot
he traced to the Rules of 1965 or the Rules of 1973 because those
B rules dealt with promotion to permanent vacancies only. Nor could
the petitioners, when they became Assistant Divisional Medical
Officers with effect from January l, 1973, claim the benefit of tue
said Rules because those rules provided for selection of class II
officers to class I posts. The respondents urge that the principle
which truly governs the petitioners in the matter of promotion from
c the posts of Assistant Divisional Medical Officers is the principle of
seniority-cum-suitability in the former grade embodied in the Rules
of 1978. It is denied that this construction would amount to giving
retrospective operation to the Rules of 1978. It is explained that when
the question of preparing the seniority list arose, the Rules of 1978
were in operation, and they provided for permanent promotion on
D
the basis of seniority-cum-suitability, and the rule of selection on
merit operating under the earlier Rules no longer prevailed, and, in
any event, could not apply when an Assistant Divisional Medical
Officer, which was a Class I post, wai considered for promotion to
the Class I post of Divisional Medical Officer Apparently, the
E promotee respondents were senior to the petitioners as Assistant
Medical Officers or Assistant Divisional Medical Officers, and that
seniority was made the basis of permanent promotion to the gcade
of Divisional Medical Officers. The respondents dispute the
proposition that promotion to the grade of Divisional Medical
Officers must be made on the basis of the total lenght of service
F rendered as Assistant Medical Officers and Assistant Divisional
Medical Officers considered on an all India basis as, they assert,
promotion to vacancies has to be considered zone-wise.

A perusal of the Rules of 1965 shows that there were IOI posts
G in the grade of Divisional Medical Officers. The Rules of 1973
mention 109 posts. The posts are not divided between permanent
posts and temporary posts, and we must assume that the Rules refer
to permanent posts only. It appears that proceedings were taken by
the Railway Administration from time to time for the promotion of
H Assistant Medical Officers, to the Class I posts of Divisional Medical
Officers. The Rail way Ministry indicated the number of existing vacan-
cies for the purpose of permanent promotion and the number of
D.K. MITRA '· UNION (Pathak, J.) 831

anticipated vacancies for the purpose of officiating appointment,
the number under each category being specified zone-wise. A
The selection for both categories was made on the basis of
merit. It may be noted that both under the Rules of l 965 and the
Rules of 1973, the posts of Divisional Medical Officers were regarded
as selection posts. A Class I Departmental promotion Committee

- met on February 20, 1970 and considered the case of candidates who
had completed five years and above of service as Assistant Medical
Officers for such recruitment. Both for substantive promotion and
B

for officiating promotion the field of choice was extended to six times
the number of vacancies. Another Class I Departmental Promotion
Committee met on October 22, 1971 and January 3, 1972. A third
Class I Departmental Promotion Committee held its meetings on c
September 29 and 30, 1972, and October 3, 1972. The Minutes of
the several meetings indicate that the petitioners Nos. I to 8 were
selected for officiating a ppointments, some of them being classified
as "very goods" and others as "goods". They were accordingly
appointed to officiate as Divisional Medical Officers on different dates
D
in I 971 and 1972 and the petitioner No. 7, the last to be promoted,
was appointed in 1974. The record shows that these were all
regarded as officiating appointments to vacancies in the Class I posts
of Divisional Medical Officers. There is nothing before us to indicate
why the Railway Ministry sought to fill some of the vacancies in the
permanent posts on a substantive basis and the others on an E
officiating basis. The respondents say that substantive appointments
were made to permanent v2cancies and officiating appointments were

- made to temporary vacancies. We have carefully perused the copies
of the official documents placed on the record before us. They do
not speak of temporary vacancies at all. Nor is there any material
suggesting the need for treating some of the vacancies as temporary. F
There is nothing to show that the vacancies would have ceased to
exist within the forseeable furture or upon the happening of some
anticipated contingency. On the contrary, the petitioners have
continued to fill the vacancies for several years. In the circumstances
we are of opinion that the vacancies to which the petitioners were G
appointed should be regarded as permanents vacancies.

As regards the need for making officiating appointments, it was
explained during oral argument that officiating appointments were
made when some of the candidates considered for substantive H
appointment were found to be of inferior calibre for such appoint·
ment, and, therefore, ~ome of the vaca11cies were left to be lllled on
832 SUPRl!Mll COURT REPORTS (1985f SUPPL. S.C.R.

an officiating basis. We are not imperessed by the submission. The
A communic'ation of the Railway Ministry to the Departmental promo·
tion Committee specifying the number and nature of the appoint•
ments to be made was issued long before the cases of individual
officers were examined for promotion. It was only after the Depart·
mental Promotion Committee had been informed of the Railway
Ministry's requirement that it commeneced its task of selecting candi·
B dates for substantive appointment and for offciating appoiniment.
The field of choice for each category, substantive appointment or
officiating 'appointment, was demarcated by the rule that the officers
to be con~idered would be six times the number of vacancies.
According to the material placed before us by the respondent~, the
c. petitfoners did not at any time fall within the field of choice for
making substantive appointments. That was because their seniority
in the grade of Assistant Medical Officers did not at the relevant
time bring them within the field of choice for substan•ive appointment.
They were considered for officiating appointment only, and not for
substantive appointment. It was the mere statistical fact of their
D seniority as Assistant Medical Officers, and not there merit that
precluded their consideration for substantive appointmedt as
Divistonal Medical Officers at the relevant time.

Now the petitioners had been selected for promotion by the
E same or similar Class I Departmental Promotion Committees as
those selecting the substantively appointed Divisional Medical
Officers, and in no sense were their functions and responsibilities any
different from those of the substantively appointed Divisional
Medical Officers. It seems to us that if from the outset the temporary
vacancies had been regarded as permanent vacancies, and substantive
F appointments had been made instead of officiating appointments, the
petitioner~ \vould have been appointed substantively to those perma·
nent vacancies. In the entire field of choice in which they fall, they
were found to be the most meritorious. Ever since their respective
appointments in 1971, 1972 and 1974 the petitioners have continued
to serve without interruption as Divisional Medical Officers and were
G
doing so when this writ petition was filed in 1981. They have
continued to serve in the po~ts for a significant number of years,
and there is no indication that their appointments will come to an
end merely because the vacancies have been described as temporary.
H There is no material to show that their confidential Records
contained any adverse entries or that otherwise they were not fit on
there merit for substantive appointment to permanent vacancies.
Indeed, we are told that tile petitioners have now been appointed
D.K. MITRA P, UNION (Pathak, J.) 833

Divisional Medical Officers on a substantive basis. It appears that
the only reason why they were not originally appointed substantively A
to permanent vacancies as Divisional Medical Officers is that only
a limited number of substantive appointments was desired by the
Railway Ministry and the petitioners were not considered for
th,)se substantive appointments because they did not fall within
the field of choice, having regard to their place of seniority B
in the lower grade of Assistant Medical Officers. While there is no
doubt that technically, according to the terms of appointment, the
petitioners were appointed on an officiating basis, we are reminded
of the observations of this Court in Baleshwar Prasad v. State of
U. P. :(1)
c
"We must emphasis that while temporary and
permanent posts have great relevancy in regard to the
career of government servants, keeping posts temporary
for long, sometimes by annual renewals for several years,
and denying the claims of the incumbents on the D
score that their posts are temporary makes no
sense and strikes us as arbitrary, especially when
both temporary and permanent appointments are
functionally identified. If in the normal course, a post is
temporary in the real sense and the appointee knows that
his tenure cannot exceed the post in longevity, there E
cannot be anything unfair of capricious in clothing him
with no rights. Not so, if the post is, for certain depart·
mental or like purposes, declared temporary, but it is
within the ken of both government, and the appointee
that the temporary posts are virtually long-lived. It is F
irrational to reject the claim of the temporary appointee
on the nominal score of the terminology of the post. We
must also express emphatically tbat the principle which
has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncements
is that officiating service in a post is for all practical
purposes of seniority as good as service on a regular G
basis."

These are apposite observations bearing directly on the point before
us. We may point out that they were found relevant by this Court H

(lJ (1981) I S.C.R. 449, 462.
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I
(198~ SUPPL. S.C.R.

in deciding 0. P. Sing/a v. Union of India. (1) To our mind the
A petitioners are entitled to say that they should be considered at par
for the purpose of fixing seniority, with those appointed to permanent
posts in a substantive capacity. Nothing has been placed before us
to indicate why they should not be entitled to the benefits which the
substantive holders of permanent posts enjoy. It seems to ua that
B for the purpose of determining seniority among promotees the
petitioners should be treated as having been appointed to permanent
vacancies from the respective date of their original appointment
and the entire period or officiating service performed by them should
be taken into account as if that service was of the same character as
that performed by the substantive holders of permanent posta.
c
As regards the practice on which the respondents have relied,
of maintaining the three lists A, B and C and that the petitioners
were shown in List B as being fit only for officiating promotion
against a temporary vacancy, it seems to us that the circumstance
D makes no difference to the view taken by us. We are of opinion that
on the facts of this case, when the petitioners are continuing to hold
the posts of Divisional Medical Officers for several years, the
continued inclusion of their names in tist B is wholly meaningless.

E If it is true that the length of continuous service reckoned
from the date of promotion furnishes the criterion for determining
seniority between the petitioners and the substantively appointed
Divisional Medical Officers, that principle should apply with equal
vigour as between the petitionera and those promotee respondents
who also began to serve. like the petitioners, in officiating appoint·
F ments as Divisional Medical Officers. There is no reason why such
promotee respondents, although appointed subsequently to the
petitioners, should be treated as senior to them.

But it is said, the date of confirmation is the meterial date for '-
G determining relative seniority, and the promotee respondents were
confirmed before the petitioners. It appears that the Railway
administration in according confirmation has been influenced by two
principal factors. One is that confirmation bas been considered on
zone-wise. Confirmation has been made as vacancies have arisen
H within a particular zone. The vacaqcie~ cliffer from zone to zone.

(I) [198212 S.C.C. 45Q,
D.K. MITRA '· UNION (Pathak, J.) 835

They do not arise equally in different zones, but turn on factors
peculiar to each zone, such as the strength of the cadre within the A
zone, and the differing number of vacancies arising in different zones
at different times. In other words, confirmation based on the
placement of an officer within a particular zone must necessarily be
determined by factors confined to that zone and unrelated to an all
India standard. It is apparent that confirmations limited by such a B
local perspective cannot serve as a legitimate base for drawing up a
seniority list intended for effecting promotions to the all India cadre
of Medical Superintendents. To adopt the date of confirmation as
the governing point in such circumstances is to inject an element
of inequality into the very foundation of the promotion process. I
is conceivable that !he Railway Administration has adopted the rule c
of according confirmations zone-wise for certain practical considera·
tions and, therefore, we do not propose to adjudicate on the validity
of that practice. But we do lay down that such confirmations
cannot legitimately constitute the basic norm for drawing up a
seniority list of Divisional Medical Officers for the purpose of D
promotion to the grade of Medical Superintendents. In the circum-
stances, the true principle, in our opinion, must be that seniority
should be related to the length of continuous service as Divisional
Medical Officers reckoned from the date of promotion to the post.
This is subject of course to the exception that such service should
not include any period served in a fortuitous, stop-gap or ad hoc
E
appointment.

- Having said this, we may advart now to the other factor which
appears to have influenced the Railway administration in assigning
seniority. The impugned seniority list was prepared in 1979. It
F
was drawn up when the Rules of 1978 had come into force. It was
drawn up at a time when the new rule of "non-selection" embodied
in the Rules of 1978. or "seniority-cum-suitability" as the respon-
dents understand it, had begun to govern promotion to the grade of
Divi;ioaal Medical OJiceu. Tne Railway administration, following G
those rules, ignored the fact that the petitioners bad been selected on
their merit to those posts long before, and bad occupied them all the
years since. Tho C'1nsequence of applying the rule of seniority-cum-
suitability in the lower grade was to wipe out all the advantage
claimed by the petitioners by virtue of the several years of continuous H
service, and to give an ascendancy to those Assistant Medical Officers
who althousb promoted subfequently were confirmed earlier only by
836 SUPllEMB COURT REPORTS (1985) SUPPL. S.C.ll

reason of their seniority in the lower grade. The question is whether
A the rule of seniority-cum-suitability can prevail. The point would
have been capable of easy resolution but for the complexity
introduced in implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission. The Third Pay Commission recommended an upward
revision of the scale of pay attached to different grades of posts in
B the Railways. In the course of implementing the recommendation in
relation to the Medical Department of the Railways, the Railway
Ministry issned a letter No. PC lll/74,'PS-l/2 dated December 31,
1974 publishing a schedule showini: the revised scales of pay. The
schedule contained a special provision in regard to the posts of
Assistant Medical Officer. The entry read:
c
Designation Autorised Existing rates Revised Revised rates
of post Scale of of non-practising Scale of of non-practi-
Pay allowance Pay sing allowance
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
D
Assistant 350-25-500- 33-1/3% of pay 700-40-900· 1-5 stages
Medical 30-590-EB- subject to a l'!B-40-1100- Rs. 150,'·p.m.
Officer 30-800-EB· minimum of 50-1250-EB- 6-10 stages:
35-900 Rs. 150/-per 50· 1600 Rs. 200/·p.m.
(Class II) month. (Class I) 11-15 stages:
E Rs. 250/-p. m.
16th stage
onwards:

F
Rs. 300/·p.m.
650-30-740- 1·8 stages:
35·810-EB- Rs. 150/·p.m.
35-880-40·
-
IOOO·EB-40 9-13 stages:
1200 Rs. 200/-p.m.
14·16 stages :
G Rs. 250/p.m,

Remarks: AMOs in the existing Class JI scale of Rs. 350-900 will
be screened to determine their fitness for the revised Class
I scale of Rs. 700-1600 and only those found fit will be
H entitled to this revised Class I scale. Those not found fit
will be entitled only to revised standard Class II scale of
Rs. 650· 1200 until they are found fit for Class I by the
Screenin~ Cominittee, Posts operated in \he revised Class
b.t. MITRA v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 837

I scale will be designated as "Assistant Div!. Medical
Officer". Separate orders will be issued regarding the A
number of posts to be placed in each of the two scales
from time to time.

It is apparent that the post of Assistant Medical Officer original· B
ly carried the Class II scale of Rs. 350-900. That scale of pay was
now substituted by two distinct scales of pay, a higher scale of
Rs. 700·1~00 (Class I) and a revised lower scale of Rs. 650-1200
(Class II). Both scales of pay were shown against the posts of
Assistant Medical Officer. The Class I scale of Rs. 700·1600 was c
intended for Assistant Medical Officer who were found fit by a
Screening Committee for that scale, and posts operating in that scale
were designated as "Assistant Divisional Medical Officer". The
Assistant Medical Officers not found fit by the Screening Committee
were entitled only to the lower Class II scale of Rs. 650-1200 until
they were subsequently found fit for the Class I scale by the D
Screening Committee. It is clear from the entry in the schedule that
both groups of officers, those drawing the Class I higher scale as
well as those drawing the Class II lower scale, were included under
the single category "Assistant Medical Officer". All Assistant Medical
Officers were screened in order to determine who among them were E
superior to the others for the purpose of meriting the higher of the
two revised scales of pay. It was merely as a matter of convenience
that Assistant Medical Officers who were allotted the higher revised
scale were said to hold the posts designated as "Assi<tant Divisional
Medical Officer Assistant", In short, all the officers comprising the
two groups were Assistant Medical Officers, and an Assistant Divi- F
sional Medical Officer was nothing but an Assistant Medical Officer
who drew the higher revised scale of pay. That being so, the
conclusion is inescapable that Assistant Divisional Medical Officers
were, for the purpose of promotion as Divisional Medical Officers,
governed by the Rules of 1965 and the Rules of 1973. Those Rules
G
mention Assistant Medical Officers as a source of recruitment,
without referring to any limiting qualification that they should
be officers drawing a Class II scale of pay. The expression
"Assistant Medical Officer" in those Rules is comprehensive
enough to include all Assistant Medical Officers, whether drawing H
the Class II revised scale of pay or entitled to the Class I revised
scale of pay. And all such officers were, under those Rules, governed
by the pri11ciple of selection on merit for promotion as Divisional
338 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPPL. S.C.R.

Medical Officers. It must be remembered that Assistant Medical
A Officers were designated as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with
effect from January I, 1973, when the Rules of 1965 were still in
force. The Rules of 1973 came into force in August, 1973. It is
true that when Assistant Medical Officers were designated as
Assistant Divisional Medical Officers in the revised Class I scale of
8 Rs. 700-1600 by a notification such as Notification No. E (GP)
74/1/153 dated July 24, 1976, the notification spoke of the "appoint-
ment" of Class II Assistant Medical Officers as Assistant Divisional
Medical Officers, but having regard to the terms of the schedule to
the Railway University's letter dated December 31, 1974 referred to
earlier, such notification must be understood to mean that the
c Assistant Medical Officers had been assigned the Class I scale of
Rs. 700·1600 and merely described as Assistant Divisional Medical
Officers. As explained earlier, they continued to belong to the broad
category "Assistant Medical Officers". In this connection, it is
significant that upon Assistant Medical Officers being designated as
Assistant Divisional Medical Officers under the new scheme, there
D
was no corresponding amendment in the Rules of 1965 or the Rules
of 1973. It is for the first time, nuder the Rules of 1978, that we
find that the post of Divisional Medical Officer is described as a
"non-selection" post to be filled by promotion from the ranks of
Assistant Divisional Medical Officers and by direct recruitment. In
E other words, the only Assistant Medical Officers now entitled to
promotion as Divisional Medical Officers were those drawing the
Class I scale of Rs. 700-1600 and designated as "Assistant Divisional
Medical Officers". What is important to remember is that the new
sub-division of Assistant Medical Officers described as Assistant
Divisional· Medical Officers was deemed to have taken birth on
F January I, 1973, five and a half years before the Rules of 1978 were
brought into force. It could never have been intended that this
class of officers should exist in a vacuum where no rules operated.
There was no vacuum because they were comprehended within the
eX'lression "Assistant Medical Officer" in the Rules of 1965 and the
G R~les of 1973, and therefore no amendment was considered neces-
sary in those Rules to take cognisance of this class or sub-division.

We hold that the principle of selection by merit, enunciated in
the Rules of 1965 and the Rules of 1973 governed the promotion of
H Assistant Medical Officers (including Assistant Divisional Medilllll
Officers) to the posts of Divisional Medical Officer before the Rnlcs
of 1978 came into force. Both before and after January I, 1973,
D.l!l. MIARA P. UNION (Pathak, J.) 83~

during the period before the Rules of 1978 came into force, the
principle of "non-selection", that is seniority-cum-suitability in the
lower grade, which was provided in the Rules of 1978 did not apply
to the promotion of Assistant Medical Officers (including Assistant
Divisional Medical Officers) to the posts of Divisional Medical
Officers.
B
It is also beyond dispute that having regard to the provmons
of the Rules of 1978, those Rules can apply only to promotions and
appointments to the posts of Divisional Medical Officers made under
them, that is from and after August 12, 1978. They cannot affect
promotions and appointments already made before that date. And
as the act of confirmation does not amount to a fresh appointment c
but merely to setting the seal of approval on an appointment already
made, it must follow that the Rules of 1978 cannot be applied for
the purpose of confirming promotions and appointments made under
the earlier Rules.
D
Consequently, upon all the considerations set forth earlier, the
confirmation of the petitioners and all other officers appointed to the
posts of Divilional Medical Officer before the Rules of 1978 came
into force must be governed by the Rules of 1965 and the Rules of
1973. It may be noted that promotions and appointments
made under the Rules of 1965, on the repeal of those rules by E
the Rules of 1973, fall to be governed by the Rules of 1973,
for while repealing the Rules of 1965 Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973
provides:
- "Provided that anything done or any action under F
the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been done
or taken under the corresponding provisions of these
rules."

'
Significantly, such a saving provision is absent in the Rules of 1978. G
this is as clear an indication as any that the scheme under the Rules
of 1978 marked a complete departure from that embodied in the
earlier Rules. We hold that the confirmation of the petitioners and
other officers appointed as Divisional Medical Officers fall to be
considered under the Rules of 1965 or the Rnles of 1973 and not B
under the Rules of 1978. Accordingly, the rule of seniority-cum-
suitability cannot be applied to the petitioners and the promotee
840 SUPIUiMil coiJRT REPORTS [1985) SUPPL. s.c.R..

respondents, and all promotee respondents who were promoted to
A
the posts of Divisional Medical Officer subsequent to the petitioners
must be regarded as junior to them, notwithstanding that they may
have ranked senior to the petitioners in the grade of Assistant
Medical Officers (including Assistant Divisional Medical Officers).
This principle will rule even where confirmation is made zonewise,
B for in the absence of anything adverse in the officer's conduct,
quality of work or other relevant factor, confirmation should
follow the order in which the original appointments have been
made.

(] The respondents point out that the impugned Seniority List
was prepared in 1979, when the Rules of 1978 were in force, and
therefore the principle of seniority-cum-merit was made the basis of
the Seniority List. It is immaterial, in our opinion, that the
Seniority List was prepared in 1979. The inter se seniority between
the members of a service will ordinarily depend on the date of entry
D into the grade. That is an event governed by the rates of recruit-
ment, whether it be direct recruitment or promotion on the basis of
selection on merit or on the basis of seniority in the lower grade or
some other factor. Where seniority is fixed in a grade according to
the length of service in that grade, that implies a reference back to
E the date of entry. It is wholly immaterial when the Seniority List
is prepared.

We approach the second part of this case now. The petitioners
challenge the seniority assigned to the direct recruit respondents in
F the impugned Seniority List. They contend that the quota prescrib-
ed for direct recruitment and for promotion under the Rules has
been wrongly applied at the stage of confirmation when it should
have been applied at the stage of appointment. They also contend
that there is no provision for applying the principle of rotation of
G vacancies between direct recruits and promotees for the purpose of
determining relative seniority between them. And even if it can be
said that the directive issued in 1976 constitutes a valid rule of
rotation, it is open to prospective operation only and cannot be
applied retrospectively. Finally, the petitioners urge that the pro-
H motees should be held entitled to a weightage of five years on the
basis of their service in the Class II posts of Assistant Medical
Officers when considering their seniority in relation to direct
recruits.
D.Ji. MITRA V. UNION (Pathak, J.) 84i

The case of the respondents that the inter se seniority between
A
the direct recruit and the promotee Divisional Medical Officers has
been carefully fixed with reference to the direct recruitment and
promotional quotas in force from time to time, without affecting the
date of confirmation of the Divisional Medical Officers. It is
explained that where the promotees have been promoted in excess of
their quota in a particular year, they have to be pushed down to a B
later year for absorption when due within their quota, and seniority
has been fixed accordingly. It is pointed out that for some years
dircet recruitment could not be resorted to on the required scale as
the restructuring of the Medical Department was under consideration
with a view to improving the avenues of promotion. In consequence
direct recruits appointed in later years were brought up higher in the
c
Seniority List in order to provide them their due position according
to the quota of vacancies laid down for direct recruitment. The
respondents also point out that Divisional Medical Officers were
allowed to count seniority only from the date of permanent
absorption if such absorption was within their quota. It is stated D
that from 1973 onwards representations were made by and on behalf
of promotees Divisional Medical Officers to give them weghtage in
respect of their officiating service for the purpose of seniority in the
cadre of Divisional Medical Officers vis-a-vis the direct recruits, and
after giving due consideration to those repersentations and taking
into regard the judgment of this Court in A. K. Subraman & Ors. etc.
E
v. Union of India & Ors., ( 1) it was decided that inter se seniority
between direct recruit Divisional Medical Officers and promotee
Divisional Medical Officers promoted permanently should be fixed
on a rotational basis with reference to the direct recruitment and
promotional quotas in force from time to time. It is maintained F
that the impugned Seniority List was prepared on the basis of those
principles. The petitioners, it is urged, cannot claim inclusion in
that list as none of them had been promoted as Divisional Medical
Officers on a permanent basis against the quota of seats reserved for
such promotions under the relevant Rules. The claim of the G
petitioners to a weightage of five years of substantive service rendered
in the lower grade is disputed by the respondents on the ground that
the principle providing such weightage for seniority has not been
applied to the Medical Department of the Railways in view of the
structural pattern of the Department. H

(I) (197512 S,C.R. 979,
842 SUPRBME COURT llEPORfS [198S] SUPPL. s.c.i.

The objection of the Respondents that the petitioners were not
A appointed to the posts of Divisional Medical Officers on a permanent
basis and therefore they were not entitled to inclusion in the
Seniority List can be disposed of shortly. We have already held
while examining the case of the petitioners vis-a-vis the promotee
respondents that tbe petitioners were entitled to be treated at par
B with substantively appointed Divisional Medical Officers for the
purpose of fixing seniority, and the circumstance that they were
appointed in an officiating capacity was of no significance in this
regard. We have pointed out that for determining seniority among
-
promotees the petitioners should be treated "shaving been appointed
to permanent vacancies from the respective dates of their original
c appointments and the entire period of their officiating service should
be taken into account as if that service was of the same character
as that performed by the substantive holders of permanent posts.
We have held further that the promotee respondents appointed
subsequently to the petitioners must be regarded as junior to them
D even though senior in the lower grade. We have detailed the reasons
for taking this view. Applying the same criteria for determining
the seniority between the petitioners and the direct recruits, we are
of opinion that the petitioners must be held senior to the direct
recruits appointed subsequently to them. In this connection, it
would be permissible to quote from the judgment of this Court in
E O. P. Sing/a ISupra), where the question was of fixing seniority
between temporary promotees and direct recruits :

"Promotees, who were appointed under Rule 16 have
F been officiating continuously, without a break, as Addi-
tional District and Sessions Judges for a long number of
years. It is both unrealistic and unjust to treat them as
aliens to the Service merely because the authorities did
not wake up to the necessity of converting the temporary
posts into permanent ones. even after some of the
G
promotees had worked in those posts from five to twelve
years.... .. The fact that temporary posts created in
the Service under Rule 16(1) had to be continued for years
on end shows that the work assigned to the holders of
those posts was, at least at some later stage, no longer of
H
a temporary nature. And yet instead of converting the
temporary posts into permanent ones, the authorities
slurred over the matter and imperilled, though unwittingly
D.E!. MITRA v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 843

- the reasonable expectations of the promotees. , ... ·- ... .
It is not fair to tell the promotees that they will rank as
juniors to direct recruits who were appointed five to ten
years after they have officiated continuously in the posts
A

created in the Service and held by them, though such
posts may be temporary."
B
And further :

"The best solution to the situation which confronts us is
to apply the rule which was adopted in S.B, Patwardhan
v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCR 775. It was held by c
this Court in that case that all other factors being equal,
continuous officiation in a non-fortuitous vacancy ought
to receive due recognition in fixing seniority between
persons who are recruited from different sources, so long
as they belong to the same cadre, discharge similar func-
tions and bear the same responsibilities. Since the rule D
of 'quota and rota' ceases to apply when appointments
are made under Rule 16 and 17, the seniority of
direct recruits and promotees appointed under those
Rules must be determined according to the dates on which
direct recuit. were appointed to their respective posts and E
the dates from which the promotees have been officiating
continuously either in temporary posts created in the
Service or in substantive vacancies to which they were
appointed in a temporary capacity."

F
Considerable emphasis has been laid by the respondents on
the fact that in the present case the pertinent Rules laid down the
respective direct recruitment and promotional quotas from time to
time, and it was necessary to adjust the seniority between the direct
recruit Divisional Medical Officers and the promotee Divisional G
Medical Officers in such a way that the quotas were maintained from
year to year, This implied, it is urged, the rotation of vacancies
between the two classes. reserving them for one or the other in an
order which would ensure compliance with the quotas. The Rules
them,elves do not lay down any principle of rotation. They specify H
the quotas only. It was for the first time on May 26}27, 1976 that the
Railway Ministry by its letter No.E(O)l-74/SR-6}10 directed that
"the seniority of Class II officers of the Medical Department,
844 SUPREME COURT RBPORTS (1985) SVPPL. s.c.11..

promoted to Class I Senior Scale against the quota earmarked for a
A particular year vis·a·vis the officers recruited against the direct
reruitment quota for that year will be fixed on a rotational basis with
refe1ence to the direct recruitment and promotional quotas in force
from time to time." This directive, however, can be of no assistance
to the respondents. It may be open to an administration to work
B the quota rule through a principle of rotation, but that implies
that a quota rule is being actively operated and effect is
being given to it. In the present case, it must be borne in mind
that tbe quotas laid down by the Rules were not observed at all by
-
the Railway administration, and no direct recruitment was made
during the years 1973 to 1976. Indeed, the process of direct
c recruitment was employed on a substantial basis only from 1978
onwards. Only one officer appears to have inducted by direct
recruitment into the grade in i 977 and apparently none before. The
grade of Divisional Medical Officer> w is manned by promotees
selected on their merit under the Rules of 1965 and the
D Rules of 1973. There was power under Rule 7 of the Rules
of 1973 to relax the provision> of those Rules, which would
include the provision requiring the observance of specified quotas
for recruitment from promotional and from direct recruitment source.
It seems to us th1t tile pcesent case falls within the dicta of this
Court in A.. Janadhana v. Union of India and Others(') where the
E Court said :

"We do propose to examine and expose an extremely
underisable, unjust and inequitable situation emerging in
service jurisprudence from the precedents namely, that a
F person already rendering service as a promotee has to go
down be low a person who comes into service decades
after the promotee enters the service and who may be a
schoolian, if not in embryo, when the promotee on being

-
promoted on account of the exigencies of service 'as requir-
ed by the Government started rendering service."
G
and concluded with the observations :

"Even where the recruitment to a service is from
H more than one source and a quota is fixed for each service

(I) (198313 S.C.C. 601
D.11!. MITRA v. UNION (Pathak, J,) 845

yet more often the appointing authority to meet its
exigencies of service exceeds the quota from the easily A
available source of promotees because the procedure
for making recruitment from the market by direct
recruitment is long. prolix and time consuming. The
Government for exigencies of service, for needs of
public services and for efficient administration, promote B

- persons easily available because in hierarchical service
one hopes to move upward. After the promotee is
promoted, continuously renders service and is neither
found wanting nor Inefficient and is discharging his duty
to the satisfaction of all, a fresh recruit from the
market years after promotee was inducted in the service c
comes and challenges all the past recruitments made
before he was borne in service and some decisions
especially the ratio in Jaisinghan/ case as interpreted in two
B.S. Gupta cases gives him an advantage to the extent of
the promotee being preceded in seniority by direct recruit D
who enters service long after the promotee was promoted.
When the promotee was promoted and was rendering
service, the direct recruit may be a schoolian or college·
going boy. He emerges from the educational institution,
appears at a competitive examination and starts
challenging everything that had happened during the E
period when he has had nothing to do with service . • If
this has not a demoralising effect on srevice we fail to see
what other inequitous approach would be more damaging.
It is, therefore, time to clearly initiate a proposition
that a direct recurit who comes into service after the
F
promotee was already unconditionally and without
reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown
to be invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory

- or non-statutory rules should not be permitted by any
principle of seniority to secure a march over a promotee
because that itself being arbitrary whould be violative
of Articles 14 and 16."
G

In the present case, there was no direct recruitment upto 1977 H
for certain administrative reasons, and no observance of the quota
system embodied in the prevailing Rules. The Assistant Medical
Qflicers were pressed into service, promoted as Divisional Medical
846 SUPREME COUR r REPOI!. TS (!985] SUPPL. S.C.B..

Officers and were alone responsible for assuming the burden and
A discharging the functions and duties of those posts during all the
years until direct recruitment was made. It would be grossly unjust
and discriminatory in the circumstances to require them to be junior
to direct recruits brought in some years later.

B The respondents rely on A.K. Subraman (supra). In that case,
however, the facts which the Court took into consideration and upon
which it proceeded to render judgment were different. The point
-
raised in the present case falls more appropriately within the scope of
the observations in A. Janardhana (supra), to which elaborate refe-
rence has been made earlier. Indeed, when A.K. Subraman (supra)
c was considered subsequently by this Court in P.S. Mahal v. Union
of India(') the Court expressly referred to the exception implied in
Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India(') as the effect of a serious
deviation from the quota rule, and it recorded its agreement with
A Janardhana (supra). It said :
D
"But this rotational rule of seniority can work only
if the quota rule is strictly implemented from year to
year. Some slight deviations from the quota rule may
not be material but as pointed out by Palekar, J. in the
B Bishan Sarup Gupta case, "if there is enormous deviation,
other considerations may arise''. If the rotational rule of
seniority is to be applied for determining seniority
amongst officers promoted from different sources, the
quota rule must be observed. The application of the
rotational rule of seniority when there is large devhtion
F from the quota rule in making promotions is hound to
create hardship and injustice and result in impetmissihle
discrimination. That is why this Court pointed out in

-
A.K. Subraman case that

' ... when recruitment is from two or sewral sources it
G
should be observed that there is no inherent invalidity in
introduction of quota system and to work it out by a rule
of rotation. The existence of a quota and rotational rule,
by itself, will not violate Article 14 or Article 16 of the
H
(I) [1984] 4 S.C.C. 545.
(2) [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 491,
D.K. MITRA v. UNION (Pathak, J.) 847

Constitution .. It is the unreasonable implementation of
the same which may, in a given case, attra_ct the frown of A
the equality clause.' (SCC para 28, p.333 : SCC (L&S)
p.50)

The rotational rule of seniority is inextricably linked
up with the quota rule and if the quota rule is not strictly B
implemented and there is large deviation from it regularty
from year to year, it would be grossly discriminatory and
unjust to give effect to the rotational rule of seniority.
We agree wholly with the observation of D.A. Desai, J. in
A Janardhana v. Union of India that
c
'. .. where the quota rule is linked with the seniority
rule if the first breaks down or is illegally not adhered to
giving effect to the second would be unjust, inequitous
and improper.' (SCC para 29, p.62 i : SCC (L&S) p. 487)
D
This was precisely the reason why the Court in the
first Bishan Sarup Gupta case held that with the collapse
of the quota rule, the rule of seniority set out in Rule 1
(f) (iii) also went."

In our opinion, the directly recruited Divisional Medical E
Officers are entitled to seniority only from the date of their entry
into service and not from any anterior date, and therefore cannot
enjoy a seniority above the petitioners. The date of appointment
to a permrnent vacancy, whether of a promotee or a direct recruit,
will be the date for determining the seniority of the officer. We may F
also observe that there is no ground for detaining the confirmation
of the petitioners merely because the quota reserved for direct
recruitment has not been filled.

As regards the claim to weightage made by the petitioners on G
the basis of their service in the lower grade of Assistant Medical
Officers, we find no substance in the claim because the administrative
instructions issued under the Railway Board's letter No. E.54/SR·6/
1/2 dated March IO, 1955, on which the petitioners rely, did not
apply to the Medical Department of the Railways. H
Jn the result, the writ petition is allowed, the Seniority List
published by the Railway Ministry's Jetter No. 752-E/530 (EJA)
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPPL. s.c.R.

dated November 22, 1979 as well as the appointments made to the
A posts of Medical Superintendents by the Railway Ministry's letter
No. E(O)III-81 PM6/l99 dated August 31, 1981 are quashed. The
Railway administration is directed to draw up a fresh Seniority List
of Divisional Medical Officers in accordance with the principles laid
down in the judgment and to make fresh appointments from among
B the Divisional Medical Officers to the posts of Medical Superinten-
dents. The petitioners are entitled to their costs against respondents
Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

A.P.J. Petition allowed.