Holding

The Court held that the Central Secretariat Service Rules, including the quota and rota mechanisms, were validly applied and there was no substantial violation warranting judicial interference, so the select and seniority lists stand.

Summary

The petitioners, Assistants under the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962, challenged the select lists for promotion to Section Officer (1978‑1980) and the common seniority list, alleging that the quota for direct recruitment had broken down, the rota system could not operate, and seniority should be based on length of continuous service. The Union of India contended that direct recruitment had occurred in all years except 1966 and 1970, and that the Rules provided a comprehensive scheme for seniority and promotion, rendering the petitioners' claims untenable. The Court examined the detailed provisions of Rules 13, 18 and the Fourth Schedule, including the provisos added to address vacancies when direct recruitment quotas were unmet. It found that the Rules had been substantially complied with, that any procedural irregularities were minor and did not constitute grave injustice, and that the scheme’s validity could not be struck down absent a serious failure. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, leaving the select and seniority lists intact.

Issues considered

The validity and applicability of the quota and rota provisions in the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 for determining seniority and promotion.
Whether the select lists and seniority list were framed in violation of the Rules and thus liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioners were entitled to have seniority determined solely on the basis of length of continuous service.

Subjects

Central Secretariat Service Rulessenioritypromotionquotarotaselect listArticle 32administrative lawpublic service

Judgment

~71
A

• B
KARAM PAL & ORS. ETC.
v•
• UNION OF lNDIA & ORS.

March 12, 1985 c
{P.N. BHAGWATi, AMARENDRA NATH SEN & RAN~ANAnl MISRA JJ.]
IAbour and Services :

Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962, Rules 13, 18 and Regitlatioii 3 r: ·D
of Fourth Schedule-Seniority and Promotion of direct recruits and pro~tees
. ;__Quota and rota ru/e,,-Whether select list can be challenged In the absence
of c~al/enge to the Rules and Regulations.· '

The peti~ioners 1 Assistants ar~ coVer~d by the Central secfetariat Service
Rules, 1962 (Rules, for short). They challenged under Art. 32 the correctness
of the Select List for the grade of Sectioll Officers for the years 1978, 1979 and - :E
_ 1980 and the common seniority list dated April 26, 1979 as a1so the provisional
supplementary list of Assistants on the . ground : (i) that the quota rule bad
broken down as direct recruitment b.id not been made in many years and·' on
account of such failun; fixation of seniority with reference to the rotational
method ·was not available to be followed ; and (ii) that Select List as contemp~
lated by the Rules hid not been framed for quite a long period and in the
absence of such a select list framed in time, select lists of 1978, 1979 and 1980 F
prepared without following· the criterion of length of serVice- pf·officers in the
grade of Assistants was not only unfair and arbitrary worked out prejudicially
to-the petitioners. The petitioners ·prayed that the select list and seniority
list be republished On the basis of(length ~ontinuous service in the grade of
Assistants and promotion to the grade of Section Officers be granted from the
dates when Assistants junior to them were promoted as Section Officers. On
the other hand, Respondent No. 1-Union of India argued that there had been·· -,G
regular direct recruitm€:Dt into the Service in all years except only two, -viz.,
1966 and 1970. Thus, the quoia rule has, therefore, really not broken down
as pleaded by the petitioners and the Rules, having contemplated a scheme of
direct recruitment and promotion, qt.iota and rota have to work · together· and 4
since the manner of fixation of seniority is covered by statutory rules, the
petitioners are, ·not entitled to claim determin:ltion of seniority on the basis of
length of service. :H
'·
it9SSl 3s.c.lt.
;·A Dismissing the Writ Petitions,

HELD : l{i) It will be appropriate if a detailed reference to the Rules
is made in order to ascertain the Scheme. The Rules contemplate that there
shall be separate cadres in respect of Section Officers' grade and the Assistants'
Grade and these shall be consiituted for each Ministry or Office specified in
Column 2 of the first schedule. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 prescribes that 50%
B of the vacancies in the Assistants' grade in any cadre is to be filled by direct •
recruitment on the results "ofthe··competitive· examinations to be conducted
by the Commission from time to time and the remaining vacancies are to be
filled by substantive· appointment -of persons incIUded in the select list for the
Assistants' grade in that cadre. Such appointments are to be made in the
order of seniority in the select list ~xcept when for reasons to be recorded in
writing. a person is Dot considered fit· for appointment in his tum. . When
.c difficulties were experienced in working out the Rule, two provison were added
to sub-rule(6). The first proviso provided. th3.t substantive vacancies in any
cadre reserved for direct recruitment on the appointed day against which no
·direct recrUils h3.ve been appointed may be filled by subst~ntive appointments
made after the date of commencement of the Central Secretariat Service (Third
Amendment) Rules, 1970, of persons included in· the Select List for the Assis-
tants~ grade ~n t~at cadre. The· second proviso' was to the effect that if
/
'D sufficient. number of candidates are not available for.filling up the vacancies
in a cadre in any year by direct recruitment as aforesaid, the unfilled vacancies
in the direct recruitment quota in that cadre shall bei filled by the substantive
appointment of persons included in the Select List for the Assistants' Grade
in that cadre." Sub-rule (6).(a) provides that notwithstanding anything con·
tained in sub-rule (6), the substantive vacancies reserved for direct recruitment
as on 30th June 1979 on each cadre against which nO ·direct recruits have been
E appointed till that date plus 50% of the number ~f such subStantive vacancies
n the cadre may be filled by_ substantive appointments made after the date of
commencement of Central Secretariat Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 1979,
of persons included in the Select list for the Assistants' grade in that cadre.99
. ' [276D ; 278C-D ; H ; 279A]

.. . l(ii) . .Rule 18, sub-rute(3) nlakes proyisioii for' the rule in the matter
.F of fixation of inter se seniority for the Assistants• ··grade. Direct recruits are
se
to rank inter in the order of merit in which they are placed in the com-
. petitive exainination on the result of which recruitment is effecte~. · ·· Recruits
of an earlier examination are to rank senior to those of a later examination&
Persons appointed s~bstantively to the grade from the select lis~ for that grade
shall rank inter se according to the order in which they are so appointed
and the inter se seniority between difect recrui.ts and persons su! stantively
appointed to the grade for that grade shall be regulated in accordance with
the provision made in the Fourth Schedule. c;~ause 3 of Regulation 3 in the
.. Founh Schedule provides that direct recruits to a grade .and persons substant-
ively appointed to the Grade· from the Select List for the Grade shall be
assigned seniority inter se according to the quotas of substantive vacancies
in t11e Grade reserved for direct recruitment and the appointment Of persons
included in the Select List, respectively~ The proviso to Clause 3 of Regulation
3 provides- that persons appointed substantively in accordance wi.th the provi-
KARAM PAL v. tii-ir6i-i
sions of sub-rule (6) of rule 13 to the Grade from the Select Llst in any cadre A
in any year, against direct recruitment vacancies for which direct recruits_are
·not available shall be placed en bloc below the last direct recruit appointed
. in that year irres;:iectivc .of the quotas reserved for direct recruits and persons
included in the Select ·List. [279F·G ; 279H ; 280A]

2. (i) The Rules have held the field for 22 years now. During this
period direct recruitment had not been made only in two years being 1966 and B·
1970. Though in the writ petitions a general stand had been adopted that
direct recruitment had not been made in several years, after the counter affid-
davit was filled and it was emphatically asserted .that excepting i·n these two
years direct recruitment had been made in other years, there has been no
challenge to that assertion. There is no doubt that quota and rota. have got
to go hand in hand and if the quota -is not properly' adhered to, the rota
system must fail. In fact, the scheme is such that it can operate in an ·appro- c
priate way only when recruitment is effected through both the processes as
envisaged. , In the instant case, the difficulty· was experienced in working out
the process with the quota fixed by the Rules had not been adhered to for one
reason or the other and vacancies were being carried forward for being filled
up in future years. This situation necessitated insention of the first proviso
to sub-rule (6) or rule 13 in August 1970 and the other proviso in 1977 as
also sub-.rule (6) (a) in 1979. The grievance voiced in these writ petitions D
obviously relates to a period prior to the modification of the scheme.
[280H ; 281A·D]

, 2 (ii) Unless there is any serious failure in implementing the Rules and
grave injustice is done to some individuals or a group of officers, it wquld not
~· be proper to interfere with the \vorking of the scheme and dislocate the inter
se seniority of the officers in these grades. No ma/a jides' has been pleaded E
nor has any grave injustice been established in the writ petitions. At the most
a case of improper working of the scheme with reference to some of the officers
has been alleged. Had-splitting arguinents, if accepted, might indicate that
some of the petitioners have not been promot~d to the grade of Section Officers
as and when due. This Court is of the view that if there has been substa"ntial
con1pliailce in implementing the scheme under the Rules, jlidicial _interference
is not called for. [282B·CJ F

Dr. G. Marulasiddaiah v. Dr. T.G. Siddapparadhya & Ors. [1971] 1
S.C.C. 568, N.K. Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [1977] I S.C.R.
1037, Balefhwar Dass & Ors., etc. v. State af U.P. & Ors. [1981] I S.C.R.
449 & V.T. Khanzode & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. [1982] 3 S.C.R.
\ 411 referred to. t
G
S.}3. Parwardhan & Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1977] 3
S.C.R. 775. & A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors. [1983] 2 S.C.R. 936
held inapplicable.

3. Neither in the writ petitions nor in arguments any challenge was
advanced against the vires of the Rules. In the absence of challenge to the H
Rules and the Regulations, resultant situations flowing from compliance of the
n9ssU s.e.lt
A same are not open to attack. Occasion for similar grievance would not arise
in-future as the proviso in the relevant regulat;on and clauses (4) and {5) of
the Regulation 3 will now meet the situation. [280F-G]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 9328,9333/82 &

4830/83
B '
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

R.K. Garg, V.J. Francis, for the petitioners.

Shanti Bhushan1 Miss A. Subhashini, A. Subba Rao for the Res-
c pondents.

S.N. Andley, S.S. Jouhar, R.N. Poddar, K.M. Sharma, Randhir
Jain, J.D. Jain and Mrs. K. Kocher for the Intervene rs.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D •
RAWGANA TH M.sRA. J. These 12 applications under Article
32 of the (;onstitution are by Assistants covered by the Central
Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 ('Rules' for short), and challenge is
to the select list for the grade of Section Officers for the years
1978, 1979 and 1980, and the common seniority list dated April 26,
E 1979, as also the provisional supplementary list of Assistants dated
August 21,1980. They have further prayed that the select list and
seniorty list be re-published on the basis of length of continuous
service in the grade of Assistants and promotion to the grade of
Section Officers be granted from the dates when Assistants junior
to them were promoted as Section Officers.
F
The Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution came into force from October 1,1962. Under the
Rules, the Central Secretaria(Service was constituted and as per rule
3 there are four grad<s in the Service classified as follows:

G (i) Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary to the Government
. of India or equivalent) ;
(ii) Grade !(Under Secretary to the Government of India or
equivalent) ;
(iii) Section Officers ;
(iv) Assistants.
i
I . . ,
.KARAM PAL •. tiN!o1'1 (Rangiznath Misra,}.) Hs -
-· -r' •
The fiist two grades are classified ai Central Civil' Servic~;'
•• , , - •

Grade 'A, while , the other two are known as ''the ·Central
• - • ' • • - • • ~ 'j -· '.
,{

Civil ~ S~rvici:; Grade 'B' Ministerial. Posts in the ·first ·three'
·-. ,' - • - - - 't • ' ' ,, 1 -

grades. are gazetted while posts in the Assistants' Grade are'ricin~
gazetted. The' Rules contemplate that' there ' shall be" separtate'
cadic8 in respect of Section Officers" grade and the 'Assistants' grad~:
f
and iheie shall be censtituted for each Ministry or office, specified :iii;
col. 2 of the First Schedule. Under rule 4, a single point" gradaticiii'
list mrespect of officers of the Selection Grade and Grade ·I. for 1 all'
the Ministries or' offices specified in col. 2 and for the offices 1 specP
lied against such Ministries or offices in col. 3 of'. the' Schedule'
' is to be maintained. : The Rules contemplate direct recruitment as
also promotion in respect of certain grades.
!. • f •• ;,;, ,_, '': J

According to' the petitioners the qu~ta 'rule '.had broken dow'n 1
as direct recruitment had not been made .in many years and on
account of such failure, fixation 'of seniority with reference to the
ro~tion~fm.eihod ~as not ~v~ilable to be follo,_:ed. 1 The. petitioners
also contended. that select hsts as contemplated by the Rules had'
notbeeii framed for.'qulte a long' period.and in' the' absence of silch'
a·sefoct'list framed' in tim.e,' .select lists of' 197s'; 1979 and' 1980
prepared' witliout following' the: criterion' of length 'of ser\;ic'e 'of
---·~-~· - '"· . . 'j •. ' . • }' , - l. ' . _, ._, •• - - ,, • • -' ·-
officers m the grade of Assistants was not only ·unfair and 'arbitrary
bufwoi:ked out
prejudicially to the petitioners. The m~in grievarii:i! of
thepeiitloiiers' iri short
~ -.....~.-,.,«,,
that the I
sheme
!<" ·J -·
is'
for fixatioi:i'of seniority----.1
"•"·'"---·-···'.
and' ·' '
consequently the.provisions relating to promotion having not worked'
ollt as'ci:intemplated,' the manner' of determination of seniority' should'
tie~usua1" rule'' of total length' of service arid action taken' otherwise'
should be sfruck down and seniority 'should, be directed to' be' re-'.
on
dc:ieiillin'ed the basis of iength of ser\.ice only,' ' ' ' ,,
, . ,,r
Fl

·," R~ip~nden'ti:<o. 'U:nion of India; has 'cballeng6d'. these. 1:
allegatfolls by colitending that ·the· miinner of fixation' of, seniority'
iS'cove'red'by staiuiory'ru!es and the petitioners' are,' therefore; 'not'
entitled 'to' claim determination of seniofriy 'on the basis of ieiigtli''
ofservi~·;.the piea of the petiiio~ers that there had been rio dfreci'
rccrllitmerit'for'several years is' denied" and ' it' has • be~n' pleaded:
"",; ., -. ·'' .. ·- -
that direct recrmts have come mto : the service· m all years except'
'. . '.. . -.. - "''" -,_ f'
only two, 'viz,; 1966 and 1970. The q~oia rule ·bas, 'therefoteji
really noibroken dow~' as pleaded by the·. petitioners' and l thi'' 'rules I '
•
having co~templated"i' scheme of direct 'recruitment and" promotion," H' I
qtlota aiid.roia' have: to work together.,.' Therefore; fixing seniOrltY'
StJPRiir.iE COURT REPORTS t198si 3s.c.it.
A with reference. to the rotatiopal method was not open to challenge.
The Rules have been in force for well over two decades. Great
care has been taken in making provision in the Rules to safeguard
the interests of the different groups and greater care has also been
taken by the Department of Personnel in the Ministry of Home
Affairs to give effect to the Ruies. Since the officers are drawn
B from different Ministries for promotion and working out ihe scheme
involves a.somewhat complicated process, as long as the policy under
the Rules has been given effect to, the working should not be allowed
to be attacked.merely on account of a casual failure to work· up to
mathematical precision. · · ·
I
c Before we start examining the correctness of the rival conten-
tions advanced on either side, it is appropriate that a detailed
reference to the Rules is made in order to ascertain the scheme.

'Cadre' has been difined in rule 2, sub-rule (2) to mean the
D
group of posts in the grades of Section Officer and Assistant in any
of the Ministries or offi<0es specified in col. 2 of the First Schedule
and any of the offices specified against such ll'inistry or office in
col. 3 of that Schedule. 'Cadre Officer' in rule 2(g) iii relation to
the Section Officers' grade or the Assistants' grade means a member
E of the service of the Section Officers' grade or Assistants' grade, +
as the case may be, and includes a tern porary officer approved for
long term appointment to that grade. 'Long term appointment'
means under rule 2(1) appointment for an indefinite period as
different from a purely temporary or ad hoc appointment. Common
Seniority List' has been defined in rule 2(hh) in relation to any
F grade to mean the seniority list of officers in that grade serving in aU
the cadres specified in the First Schedule as on the appointed day any
.revised from time to time in accordance with the regulations to he
framed in that behalf by the Central Government. 'Probationer'
has been defined in clause (o) of rule 2 to mean a direct recrut
apr.ointed to a grade on probation in or against a substantive
G vacancy, and 'select list' under rule 2(q) is defined to mean the select
list prepared in accordance with the regulations made under rule
12(4) or under the regulations contained in the Fourth Schedule.
Rule 8 contemplates the initial constitution of each cadre and provides
that the permanent and temporary officers of the Section Officers'
H grade and the Assistants' grade in each cadre on the appointed day
~ball be determined by the Central Government in the Department of
· kAkAM !>Ai. v:uN1bN (.kangaharh"Misra, J.) 277
'Personnel & Administrative Reforms in the Minsitri of Home A
Affairs.

•
Ruic 12 makes provision for recruitment to selection grade and
grade I. We are not concerned with this rule in the present c~se
as the dispute is raised by Assistants and the promotional rank to
which claim has been laid is that of Section Officer. For them rule ;B
13 is the relevant rule. Sub-rules (!) to (5) relate to Section
Officers while the remaining sub-rules (6) to (IO) relate to Assistants.
At the time when the Service was constituted sub-rule (I) read
thus :

"Subject to the prov1s1ons of sub-rule (3), for a period c
of five years from the appointed day, 1/4 of the substanti,_e
vacancies in the Section Officers' grade in any cadre and
thereafter, 1/3 of the substantive vacancies in that grade,·
shall be filled by direct recruitment on the results of the ..
competitive examinations held by the Commission for this
D
purpose from time to time ..... -':

Sub-rule (I) of rule 13 as it now stands reads thus:

"1/6 of the substantive vacancies in the Section Officers'
grade in any cadre shall be fiJled up by direct recr.uitment
on the results of the competitive examin~tions held by the :E
Commission for this purpose from time to time. The remain-
ing vacancies shall be filled by the substantive appointment
of persons included in the select list for the Section ·Officers'
grade in that cadre. Such appointments shall be rpade
in the order of seniority in the select list except when for F
reasons lo be recorded in writing, a person is not considered
fit for such appointment in his turn."

It is thus clear that the proportion of direct recruits has
been reduced from the initial I/4th or.I/3rd tci the . present
I/6th. G
Sub-rule (2) of rule 13 prescribes: "Temporary vacancies in
· the Section Officers' grade in any cadre shall be filled · by the
. appointment of persons included or approved for inclusion in the
select list for the Section Officers' grade in that cadre. Any vacan~
cies remaining thereafter shall be filled in equal proportion from H
.among the (a) officers of the Assistants' grade who have rendered
sul>R~Ma cOURT Rfu>oRfS

A not Jess than 8 years' approved service in the grade and are within
the range of seniority on the basis of seniority subject to the ·rejec-
tion of the unfit ...... and (b) officers of lhe Assistants' grade in that
cadre with the longest period of continuous service in that grade on
the basis of.length of service subject to the rejection of the unfit.~'

B
Sub-rule (5) prescribes the preparation or a select list of Assistants
for promotion to the Section Officers' grade and the manner of
_,.._
'
preparing and revising the select list has been set out in the Fourth
Schedule.

Sub rule (6) prescribes that 50% of the vacancies in the
Assistants' grade in any cadre is to be filled by direct recruitment
c on the results of the competitive examinations to be conducted by
the Commission from time to time and the remaining vacancies are
to be filled by substantive appointment of i;ersons included in the
-select list for the Assistants' grade in that cadre. Such appoint-
ments are to be made in the order of seniority in the select list
except when for reasons to be recorded in writing, a person is not
D
considered fit for appointment in his turn. When difficulties were
experienced in working · out the rule, two provisos were added to
sub-rule (6), one with effect from December 15, 1979. These were
to the following effect :

"Provided further that substantive vacancies in any cadre
+
E
reserved for direct recruitment on the appointed day against
which no direct recruits have been appointed may be
filled by substantive appointments made after the date of
commencement of the Central Secretariat Service (Third
Amendment) Rules, 1970, of persons included in the Select
F List for the Assistants' grade in that Cadre.

Provided also that if sufficient number of candidates are
not available for filling up the vacancies in a cadre in any
year by direct recruitment as aforesaid, the unfilled vacancies
in the direct recruitment quota in that cadre shall be filled
G by the substantive appointment of persons included in the
Select List for the Assistants' Grade in that cadre."
Sub-rule (6) (a) which was inserted along with the latter proviso
authorised : "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (6), 'f-
the substantive vacancies reserved for direct recruitment as on
H 30th June 1979 on each cadre against which no direct recruits have'
been appointed till that date plus 50% of the number of such
. KARAM PAL v. UNION (Ranganath Misra J.) 279
substantive vacandes in the cadre may be filled by substantive A
appointments made after the date of commencement of Central
Secretariat Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 1979, of persons
i~Cl~ded.in the select list for the Assistants' grade in that cadre."
U~der r;,I~ 15 every dire~! recruit to the ·grade of Assistant is
Initially to be appointed. on probation for the period of two years
from•the date of appointment and every person other tban.a,direct B
recruit when he is appointed would be on trial for a,period of two
years also. Rule 16 makes· provision for confirmation of pro]Jatio-
ners subject to passing of prescribed tests .and satisfactpry <:omple-
tion of probation.

·Rule JS.prescribes seniority in the different grades ,as ..on the
c
appointed day. Sub-rule (]) indicates that relative seniority shall
be as already determined on that day and if there had been no such
determination the same has to be determined by.the Department of
Personnel· & Administrative Reforms. Sub-rule (2) provides .that
all ·permanent officers included in the initial constitution- . of
a grade.shall rank senior to all persons substantively appointed·. to
that· grade. after the appointed day and all tempor•ry officers
included in. the ·initial constitutfon of a grade under ruie ·8 shall
rank seriior to all temporary officers a npointed to that grade after
the ·appointed day. Rule 18. sub-rule (3) makes provision for the
rule 'ht 'the mailer of fixation of inter se seniority for the Assistants' E
grade. Direct recruits are to rank inter se in the order of merit ·in
whkh they are· placed in the competitive examination.on· the result
which recruitment is ·effected. Recruits of an earlier·examination
are to rank senior to those of a later examinatfon. ' Persons appoi-\
nted substantively to the grade from the select list for that grade
II
shall' rank inier se according to the order in which they are so
appointed and ·the inter se seniority between direct rec~its and
persons substantively appointed to the grade for that grade shall be
regulated In accordance ·with the provisio~ made in»'the Fourth
Sche~ule. · ·
G
..Regulation 3 in the Fourth Schedule deals with seniority .
.Clause 3 of this regulation provides :

"Direct recruits to a Grade and persons substantively appoi-
0 i:tted to the Grade from the. Select List' for the Grade shall
. be;, 11ssigne.d seniority i~ter se according to the quotas ·of H
~ubstantive vacancies in the Grade reserve\! for direct
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.
recruitment and the appointment of persons included iii the
Select List, respectively,"

B
From December 1977, contemporaneously with the insertion .
.of the.second proviso to rule 13(6) of the Rules, the following was
added as a proviso to claMse 3 of Regulation 3 :
•
l
!

. "Provided that persons appointed substantively in accord·
ance. with the provisio.ns of sub-rule (6) of rule 13, to the
Grnde from the Select List in any cadre in any year,
against direct recruitment vacancies for which direct
recruits are not available shall be placed en bloc beiow the
last direct recruit appointed in that year irrespective of the
'q~otas reservel! .for direct recruits and persons included in
the Select List."

In Course of the hearing counsel for the petitioners referred to
instances where a direct recruit coming into the cadre several years
J) after' others coming in.to the cadre from the Select List had been
assigned seniority over such promotees. This was explained by
counsel for the respondents to have been the outcome of giving
effeCt 'to· clause 3 of Regulation 3 as it stood prior to December;
1917 without the proviso. The instances relied upon were found to
E
be events prior to the introduction of the proviso. In the absence
Of chnllen·ge to the Rules and the Regulations, resultant situations
flowing from compliance of the. same are not open to attack.
Occasion· for . sirriilar grievance would not arise in future as the
provisc:hin the relevant regulation and clauses (4) and (5) of the
Regulation 3 will now meet the situation.
F
Neither in the ·writ petitions nor in arguments before us any
cha Henge was advanced against the vires of the Rules. One of the
known. patterns of constituting public service, particularly in the
executive.side,· is· to draw officers both by promotion as also by
direct recruitment. The proportion is fixed depending upon the
nature of the service, the availability of suitable manpower and
otb.er relev~nt. considerations. The petitioners have, therefore, rightly
tioi chailenged before us the scheme under which a moiety of the
substantive vacancies in the Assistants' grade is to be filled by direct
recruitment and the other by promotion through select lists.
., ' ,. .
~, - ' ..

H · Tbe Rules ·have held the field for 22 years now. During this
.'.
peri~?.'dir~c.l 're_cruitme~t had not been made only in two years
KARAM PAL v. UNION (Ranganath Misra, J.) 281

being 1966 and 1970. Though in the writ petitions of general stand A
had been adopted that direct recruitment bad not been made in
several years, after the counter affidavit w"as filed and it was1
empbaticallyasserted that excepting in these two years direct recruit-'
men.t bad been made in other years, there bas been no challenge to
that assertion. We agree with the contention that quota and rota
ha';e got to·go hand in hand and if the quota is not properly adhered.
B
to, tbe:rota system must fail. Jn fact, the scheme is such that it
can operate in an appropriate way only when recruitment is effected
through both the processes as envisaged.

As we have already pointed out, difficulty was experienced in ,
working out the process when the quota fixed by the Rules had~
c
not been adhered to for one reason or the other and vacancies were
being carried forward for being filled up in future years. This
situation necessitated i~sertion or" the first proviso to sub·rule (6) of
rule 13 in August 1970 and the other proviso in 1977 as also sub-
rule (6) (a) in 1979.. The grievance voiced in these writ petitions D
obviously relates to a period prior to the modification of the
scheme .

.The petitioners had. inter aria, prayed for the relief of striking
down the select lists and for direction that the select Fsts be refra-
med on the basis nf the length of continuous service· in the grade'l E
of Assistants. Tn view of what we have said rej!arding the Claim of
seniority on the basis of length of continuous service. it is not at
all necessary to· exam;ne the validity of that contention and give·
any direction regardin~ the select lists. particularly because the
claim relA.ting to recon"ideration of se-Ject lists wfls ~rounded upon·
length of continuous service. Nnthing was also shown in courc::e F
of arguments ns to why the select lists were hed. Tn fact. unless the
Rules and Re~nlations are successfully assailed. the select lists are
not at all disputable.

The field which these Rules cover is indeed very wide one.
Assistants in all the Ministries or offices specified in the First Sche-
G
dule are covered by the Rules. With a view .to maintaining the
. effic.iency of the service and at the same time to meet the require-
ments afid exigencies of the service. senarate cadres have been formed
in respect of Assistants and Section Officers in the different Ministries
and offices attached to such Ministries. Notwithstanding the fact H
that these cadres are different, the scheme make~, :provision for pro-
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS £19851 3 s.c.Jt.
Al.. motional avenue taking all of them into consideration. Obviously,
working it out keeping in view the interests of so many employees
in the different cadres is indeed a very onerous and difficult task.
This has. therefore, been assigned to the Department of 'Personnel.
Unless there is any serious fhilure in implementing the Rules and
grave injustice is done to some individuals or a group of 6fficers, we
do not think it would be proper to interfere with the working of, the
scheme anµ dislocate the inter Se seniority of the officers'in these
grades. No ma/afides has been pleaded nor has any grave injustice
been established in the writ petitions. At the most a case of improper
working of the scheme with reference to some of the officers has ·-till
been aJleged. Hairsplitting arguments, if accepted, might indicate ~
that some of the. petitioners have not been promoted to the grade of
Section Officers as and when due. We are of the view that if there
bas been substantial compliance in implementing the scheme un'der
the Rules, judicial interference is not called for. In a vast country
such as ours, a strong and independent bureaucratic set up is indis-
•I
D' pensable. At the same time it is equally necessary that the service
from top to bottom must be alive to the fact that it is its obligation·
to maintain proper attitudes, discipline acd duty-oriented working.
While it is the. right of every person in the Service set-up to expect
just and fair treatment in regard to bis employment, frequent litiga-
tion between him and the State involving countless other co-emplo-
E yees in the Service in the battle is a deviation from the right
direction. It is true that very often instances come to light where
the, grievance is genuine and the treatment meted is unwarranted and
uncalled for. Government in a democratic polity runs on impersonal
basis but on the cardinal code that every one shall perform bis duty.
We may recall what this Court observed in Dr. G. Marulasiddaiah v.
F Dr., T.G. Siddapparadhya & Ors. ; -)

.. "The canker of litigiousness bas spread even to a sphere o.f
life 'where discipline should check ambition concerning
personal preferment. A teacher is justified in takil!g li;gal
G action when he feels that a stigma or punishment is undeser-
ved but be is expected to bear with fortitude and reconcile
himself to his lot suppressing disappointment when be;finds
.a"co-worker raised,to a position which be himself aspired
after."
H --------------
(1) (1971) I S,C,R, 568.
KARAM PAL v. UNION (Ranganath Misra, J.) 283

There has been a phenomenal rise in service disputes i.n the
lastthree decades. It is time that serious attention is devoted to
discover the reason for it and take effective steps to ensure curtail-
ment thereof. Whether such litigations come before courls or
tribunals is of no consequence here. Frequent litigations between the
State and itnmployees uliimately affect the efficiency of the service
and bring about indiscipline, lack of loyalty and an attitude of B
indifference.

In the course of "arguments reference was made to certain deci-
sions of this Court.' I~ N.K. Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat &
Ors.,(I) this Court held that the quota system does not necessitate c
the adoption of the rotational rule in practical application and many
ways of wo1 king out quota prescribed can be devised of which rota
is certainly one. It .was further held that while laying down a quota
when filling up vacancies in a cadre from more than one source, it
is open io Government •. subject to tests under Article 16, to choose
'a year' or other period or vacancy by vacancy basis, to work out D
(he quota among the sources. But once the Court is satisfied,
examining the constitutionality of the method proposed, that there
isno invalidity, administrative technology may have free· play in
choosing one or the other of the familiar processes of implementing
the quota rule. This Court did indicate that as Judges we cannot E
strike down a ·particular scheme because it is unpalatable to forensic
taste. This Court further pointed out that ordinarily seniority is
measured by length of continuous officiating service. This, however;
does not preclude a different prescription, constitutionality ·tests

l being satisfied. When the Court found that promotees had been
appointed in . excess of their quota, the following direction ·was
given:

"i>ro'motees who have been fitted into vacancies beyond
'their quota during the period B - the year being regarded
as the unit - must suffer survival as invalid ippointees ·G
acquiring new life when vacancies in their.quota ran· to.,be
filled up. To that extent they will step down, rather be
pushed down as against direct recruits who were later .but
regularly appointed within their quota."

(I.) [19771 I S.C.R. 1037.
)

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A The rationale of this decision is indeed very much against the
contentions of the petitioners .

•Reference was also made to the case of S.B Patwardhan & Ors.
etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1), The dispute that fell for
adjudication in that case was one of seniority in the cadre of Deputy
B Engineers and grievance had . been laid that notwithstanding the
length of continuons service. later appointees had been shown as
senior. Attention in the decision was mainly confined to the terms
of the provisions of the Rules applicable to the State Engineering
Service. In the view we have taken of the matter this decision indeed
does not help the petitioners.

Next is the case of Ba/eshwar Dass & Ors., etc. v. State of U.P.
& Ors., ( 2) etc. This Court pointed out that for the purposes of
seniority appointment ~o the service in a substantive capacity was
necessary. But that again was said with reference to Rule 23 of the
U.P. Service of Engineers (Junior and Senior Scales - Irrigation
Branch) Rules.
This Court in V.T. Khanzode & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India &
Anr., (S)took not of the fact that " no scheme governing service mat-
ter can be fool-proof and some section or the other of employees is
E bound to feel aggrieved on the score of its expectation being falsified
or remaining to be fulfilled. Arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity
ind·inala ffides will of course render any scheme unconstitutional
but the fact that the scheme does not satisfy the expectations of
eve;y employee is not evidence of these.''

Next· is the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors.(<)
That was a case relating to dispute of inter se seniority of direct
recruits and promotees in the Military Engineering Service. Seniority
lists drawn up earlier on the basis of length of service including con-
tinuous officiation were subsequently altered to lists based on quota
betw~en direct recruits and promotees _leading to rota for confir-
mation and this led to the dispute. The Court found that some of
the officers had been promoted prior to the enforcement of the Rules
--------------
(ll r19s11 1 s.c.R. 449.
Pl [1977] 3 S.C.R. 775 •
. 'H (3) [1982] 3 S.C.R. 411.
(4) [1983] 2 S.C.R. 936.
KARAM PAL v. UNION (Ranganath Misra, J.) 28S A
in 1969. The Rules bad no retrospective effect and, therefore, t.
I ' ~
seniority lists drawn up prior to the enforcement of the Rules were
not open to be revised and re-drawn up after the Rules became
operative . The Court further found that the quota rule had not
been worked out and ,if, •rotational '.confirmation was to be done, B
many of the employees considered hitherto senior would be very
badly affected. Here again we must point out that this decision has
no app1ication to the facts before us since on the finding reached by
us the'qtiota rule was substantially'cornplied with. .

The writ petitions must accordingly fail. We make no order c
for costs .
. ' )

.,
M.L'.A. Petitions dismissed
(

"'r; •

/'

·. c.-··

' ..
? '. ~ ,·'}" :. .. '

-..• ? .•. ·•. ~ .• 0 -' .r
.. ,
._ ...
. ~ '~ ' -. «::
'.· ,;-, .,, . . '1

J' •