Holding

The scheme is a valid classification with a reasonable nexus to its purpose and does not contravene Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.

Summary

The Comptroller and Auditor General framed a 1966 scheme allowing Upper Division Clerks who had served at least 20 years, exhausted all chances to pass the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination, or were over 45, to be appointed as temporary Accountants without needing to pass the exam. The appellants, who were still eligible to sit for the examination, challenged the scheme as invidious discrimination violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Calcutta High Court initially quashed the scheme, but a Division Bench set aside that order and upheld the scheme. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the scheme created a reasonable classification with a clear nexus to its objective of providing a promotion avenue for clerks who could no longer advance through the regular exam route, and therefore did not violate constitutional equality provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the validity of the scheme.

Issues considered

Whether the 1966 scheme for promoting Upper Division Clerks without the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the scheme violates Article 16 of the Constitution by discriminating between clerks eligible and ineligible to appear for the examination.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

discriminationadministrative lawpromotionpublic serviceconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 16classificationUpper Division Clerks

Judgment

45
A
r

DEBRAJAN RAY & ORS.

v.
:B
COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL
OF IN.PIA AND ORS.

November 13, 1984

(R. S. PATIIAK AND V. BALAKRISHNA flRADI, JJ.]
c
Administrative La~Schemeframed by office of Accountant General, JVest
Bengal by Office Order No. T'ft.f 96 dated June 8, 1966 for promoting Upper Divi·
sion Clerks who had not passed Subordinate Accounts Service Exiimination-
Whether violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of ·the Constitution-Held-N<>-Scheme up-
held.
'D
At one time all holders of supcrvisC'ry posts in the office of the Accoun-
tant General, West Bengal were required to pass 1he Subordinate Accounts
Service Examination before crossing the age of 45 years. Jn 1966. for improving
the working of the office of the Civil Accountants General. a scheme was framed
by an Office Order, No. T?vl 96 dated June 8. 1966. ,The scheme provided that
passing the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination would not be a neceSsary
qualification for holding: supervisory posts where the work inv0Ived was entirJy
of an accounting..cum-administrative nature and the knowledge of rules and E
accounts of a very high standafd was ·not required. To be eligible for promotions
the Upper Division Clerks and Se'ection Grade Clerks should have put in not
Jess than 20 years of service in the Upper Division Clerical Cadre and should
have exhrr.usted all chances of appearing in the Subordinate Accounts Service
Examination or by reason of being over 45 years of age were no longer eligiblo
to appear at the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination. The appointments
\\'ere temporary and the appointees were not eligible for further piomotion. A F
number of appointment'i were made under the scheme. The appellants challen-
ged the appointments on the ground that in confining .J.he zone of eligibility to
Upper Division Clerks who had not passed the Subordio'ate Accounts Service
Examination the scheme brought about an invidious discrimination which was
violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A single Judge of the lUgh
Court quashed the scheme. An appeal filed by the Comptroller and Auditor -,
General of India was allowed by a Division . Bench of the High Court. Hence
thh appeal by special leave. G

Dismissing the appeal 7

JIELD : The scheme was intended to provide a separate avenue of pro·
motion for those Upper Division Clerks who had put in 20 years of service or
wore in their 1;adre and ·who bad exhausted all their chances of appearing at the H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 S.C.R

Su'Jordinate Accounts Service Examination for promotion to supervisory p. »t2,
or who having crossed the age of 45 years, were no ]anger eligibJi: to arpea• ~·t
the Examination. These indicia distinguished that category of Upper Divb1.;..
Clerks from others. If the scheme had been thrown open to Upper Division
Clerks who still enjoyed the possibility of recruitment to the Subordinate
Accounts Service, the intent underlying the scheme would have been d~feated.
Tb.: appellants, although senior in length of sertice to the respondents promoted
B under the scheme, were still eligible to appear in the Subordinate Account Ser-
vice E~amination and the opportunity of advancement in their regular promo-
tional channel was ~till available to them. ·Those promoted under the scheme
were not entitled to further promotion to anY higher post. The impugned scheme
follow! a clearly defined classification ha ..·iag a reasonable nexus to the object of
- the classification. Those who fall oiitside the scheme cannot complain of discri-
/ c mination, for intel1igible differentia exist between those included within the
sch:me and those outside it. The framing and implementation of such a scheme
falh within the scope of administrative policy, and having regard to the object
underlying the scheme as well as its careful definition there is no basi5 for com·
plaint by the appellants. (48 H; 49 A·Fl ·· '

Stcfte ·of Jammu and Ka1hmir v." 'Trllokl Nath Khosa and Ors., [197411
S.C.R~ 771, not relevant.
n·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeal No. 1033 of 1979.

, ·. Appeal by Specialleave from,theJudgment and Order dated the
6th' July, 1978 of the CaJCutta High Court' i~ Appeal from Original
Order No. 497 of 1970.
E
RX. Garg, V. J. Francis and N.M. Popli for the Appellant.

Harbans Lal, R.N. Poddar and C. V.S. Rao for the Respondent.

F Th.e Judgment of the Court was delivered _by

PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave rais,es an interesting
question respecting"the recruitment oJ
Upper Division Clerks for
appointment as Accountants in the office of the Accountant General,
West Bengal.
G
It appears that at one time all holders of supervisory posts in
the office of the Accountant General, West Bengal were required to
pass the Subordinate Accounts Service Examnation. The examina-
tion consisted of two parts. Every eligible employee was entitled to
five chances to pass the Part I examination, and having passed that
he had to pass the Part II examination before he crossed the age of
45 years. In. 1966 the Comptroller and. Auditor Gener11l of India
D. RAY v. AUDITOR GENERAL .(Pathak, J.) 47
.
, .• ins'deced it necessary to take measures for improving the working A
ol tI,o o:Tices of the Civil Accountants General because it had been
reported by the Directors of Inspect!on that the accounting-cum-
administrative work was suffering considerably and the quality of
local inspection ·was poor. It was nlso felt that some accounting-cum-
administrative supervisory posts could be filled by clerks who had
not been able to pass the Subordinate Accounts Service but who had B
long years of experience and a good record of service and possessed
sufficient admtnstriitive ability. It was expected that while this
measure would afford an avenue of promotion to Upper Division
Clerks who had no hope of entering the regular channel of promotion
through the Subordinate Accounts Service examination, it would c·
release more Subordinate Accounts Service accountants for inspection
work and other important assignments requiring greater technical
knowledge and application. Accordingly, a scheme was framed by
an Office Order No. TM 96 dated June 8, 1966 for filling up some of
the posts of a purely accounting~cum-administrative nature by
Upper Division Clerks (induding Selection Grade Clerks) who were
not members of the Subordinate Accounts Service. They were to be · D
known as Accountants. This was to be effected without reducing the
total number of existing posts for which the Subordinate Accounts
Service·men were eligible. The scheme provided that in· view of the ·
acute shortage of Subordinate ·Accounts. Service personnel for
intensive local audit of a large number of schemes and programmes
then in operation the offices would be reotganised in such a way
that passing the Subordinate Accounts· Service Examination would
not be a necessary qualification for holding supervisory posts .where <..
the work involved was entirely of an accounting-cum-administrative
nature and the knowledge of rules and accounts of a very high
standard was not required. H was stipulated that Uppef Division
Clerks and Selection Grade Clerks "who had not passed the F
Subordinate Accounts Service Examination should be taken on the
basis of their experience, administrative ability and a good record.
There was no reservation of posts for those Clerks .. The scheme only
made them eligible for holding those posts. To be eligible the Upper
Division Clerks and Selection Grade Clerks should have put in not
G
less than 20 years of.service in the Upper Division Clerical Cadre and .
should have exhausted all chances of appearing in the Subordinate
Accounts Service Examination or by reason of being over 45 years
of age were no longer eligible to appear at the Subordinate Accounts
Service Examination. The appointments were temporary and thei'
continuance would depend upon the satifactory performance of their
duties assessed on' the basis of six monthly reports. It ~as made
I
.\

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 s.c.R.

clear that they would not be eligible for promotion as Aesista1•T
Accounts Officers. It seems that a fair number cif such appointmentsJ
were made with effect from June 15, 1966 by the Accountant
General, West Bengal by his letter No. ADMN/37 dated June 9,
1966.
B
The appellants who had originally been appointed as Upper
Division Clerks in the office of the Accountant General, West Bengal
and at the relevant time were permanent Selection Grade Clerks on
their reversion from temporary appointments as Clerks-in-charge in
.different sectious of the office of tbe Accountant General, West
c Bengal, filed a writ petition challenging the appointments under the
scheme alleging that they were entitled to be considered for appoint-
ment to those posts. They contended that in confining the zone of
eligibility to Upper Division Clerks who had not passed the Subor-
dinate Accounts Service Examination the scheme brought about an
invidious discrimination which was violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
..
D
'~ - 'J . . ' !

By his judgment and order dated June 2, 1970 a learned Single
-

Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition and
quashed the scheme. An appeal by ihe Comptroller and Auditor
General of India was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court
. by its .. judgment and order dated July 6, 1978. It set aside the
E judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
' '• . '

. . Before us, learned counsel for the appellant raises substantially
·the same point which was pressed before the High Court in the writ
petition. The principle contention is that the scheme violates Arts.14
and 16 of the Constitution because in defining the 'conditions of
F
eligibility there is no reasonable basis for discriminating between
!hose who can no longer appear at the Subordinate Accounts Service
Examination and those who can still do so. '

It is evident that the scheme was intended to provide a separate
avenue of promotion for those Upper Division Clerks who had put in
20 years of service or more in their cadre and who bar.I exhausted all
their chances of appearing at' the Subordinate Accounts Service
Examination for promotion to supervisory posts, or who ha•ing
crossed the age of 45 years, were no longer eligible to appear at that
Examination. These indicia distinguished that category of Upper ·
Division Clerks from others. The entire purpose of the scheme wa!
to provide an avenue of promotion for those Upper Division Clerks
D. RAY v. AUDITOR GENERAL (Pathak, J.) 49

who becaus they were no longer eligible to appear at the Subordinate A
Accounts Service Examination would be compelled , otherwise to
stagnate in their existing cadre. An incentive was thus provided to
them. There was the hope that efficiency and industry in their
present posts would be rewarded promotion. If the scheme had been
thrown open to Upper Division Clerks who still enjo}ed the possi·
bility of recruitment to the Subordinate Accounts Service, the intent B
underlying the scheme would have been defeated. The appellants,
although senior in length ~f service to the respondents promoted
under the scheme, were still eligible to appear in the Subordinate
Accounts Service Examination and the opportunity of advancement
I in their regular promotional channel was still available to them. It
may be observed that promotion under the scheme was purely
temporary and further continuance on the promotional post depend
c
upon the satisfactory performance of duties monitoned every six
months. They were barred from promotion as Assistant Accounts
Officers, and therefore after promotion to the supervisory posts of
Accountants under the scheme they were not entitled to further
advancement or promotion to any higher post. On the other hand D
the appellants, in the event of their success at the Subordinate'
Accounts Service Examination, were entitled to substantive appoint·
ment by promotion to supervisory posts, and thereafter eligible
for further promotion to still higher posts. We are satisfied that
in providing a separate channel of promotion governed by its own
conditions of eligibility the impugned scheme follows a clearly defined E
classification having a reasonable nexus to the object of the classifica-
tion. Those who fall outside the scheme cannot complain of
discrimination, for intelligible differentia exist between those included
within the scheme and those outside it. The framing and implementa·
tion such a scheme falls within the scope of administrative policy,
and having regard to the object underlring the scheme as well as F
careful definition we see no basis for complaint by the appellants.

• Our attention was invited by learned counsel for the appellants
to State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. 111 but
learned counsel has been unable to show how that case is relevant on
the facts of the instant case.
G
.
The appeal fails and is dismissed but, in the circumstances, there
is no order as to costs.
H.S.K. Appeal dismissed.
(1) (1974) I S.!j.R. 771 ff