Supreme Court of India
NARENDER CHADHA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 14
- Decided
- 11 February 1986
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
Promotees who have continuously held Grade IV posts for 15‑20 years, despite being appointed contrary to the quota rules, are to be treated as regular members of the service with seniority counted from the date they first assumed the post, and the rotation provision does not apply to them.
Summary
The case concerned the Indian Economic Service and Indian Statistical Service, where a large number of officers had been promoted to Grade IV posts on an ad‑hoc basis for 15‑20 years, contrary to the quota provisions of Rule 8 that required 75 % of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment and at most 25 % by departmental promotion. The petitioners sought confirmation of their appointments and seniority equal to the date they first assumed the posts, arguing that the long‑term de facto service could not be treated as temporary. The Court examined whether the quota rule could be relaxed, whether the rotation provision of Rule 9C applied, and whether contempt could be held against the Union for not complying with earlier directions. It held that the promotees must be treated as regular appointees with seniority counted from the date of continuous officiation, that the rotation rule does not apply to them, and that the Government’s power to relax the rules justified the appointments. Consequently, a seniority list was to be prepared on this basis, no contempt action was taken, and the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether promotees who have held Grade IV posts on an ad‑hoc basis for many years are to be considered regular appointees for seniority purposes.
- Whether the quota provisions of Rule 8 can be retrospectively relaxed under the Government’s power under Rule 16.
- Whether the rotation system under Rule 9C applies to such promotees.
- Whether contempt proceedings can be instituted against the Union of India for alleged non‑compliance with the Court’s earlier order.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
- Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961
- Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961
Subjects
seniorityquota rulepromotionArticles 14 and 16Indian Economic ServiceIndian Statistical ServiceRule 8Rule 9CRule 16ad‑hoc appointmentscontempt proceedings
Judgment
211
A
NARENlll!R CllAllllA & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
FEBRUARY 11, 1986.
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY & E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16.
Indian Economic/Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961.
Direct recruits and promotees - Promotees holding posts c
in Grade IV of Service in deliberate breach of quota rules
continuously for 15 to 20 years on temporary/ad hoc basis
Fixation of inter se seniority - Whether to be placed 10'4er in
seniority list to direct recruits entering service after such
promotees - Quota rule - Not maintained - Rules confer
relaxation power on Government - Whether relaxation of quota D
rule to be assumed.
The Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961 and the Indian
Statistical Service Rules, 1961 were notified on November 1,
1961. These Services were constituted with effect .from that
date by encadering numerous posts carrying economic and E
statistical functions in various ministries of the Government
of India. Both the Services have Grade I, Grade II, Grade III
and Grade IV posts and Officers of Grade I to Grade IV are
classified as Class-I Officers. The authorised permanent
strength of each of the Services is to be fixed by the
Controlling Authority, constituted under Rule 6, in accordance F
with the Rules. Under Rule 7, the Union Public Service
Commission was required to constitute a Selection Committee to
determine the suitability of departmental candidates for
appointment to the different grades and to prepare an order of
preference for each grade for the initial constitution of both
the Services. On receipt of the Committee's report, the G
Commission was required to forward its recommendati<ins to the
Government. The departmental candidates who were not absorbed
at the initial constitution of the Service were given the
opportunity to apply for future vacancies. Future maintenance
of the two Services is governed by Rule 8.
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 ·s.c.R.
A
After the initial constitution of the two Services was
completed it was found that a number of posts carrying
economic/statistical functions could not be considered for
inclusion in the officers' Grades. Further as the process of
formation of the two Services was prolonged for a number of
years and the need for appointing more officers in various
B Departments during that long period also arose gradually,
several posts carrying economic/statistical functions were
created. Although Rule 8 provided that not less than 75 per
cent of the vacancies in Grade IV should be filled up by \.-
direct recruitment through an open competitive examination to
be held by the Union Public Service Comnission in the manner
c prescribed in Schedule II to the Rules and it further provided
that not more than 25 per cent posts of the vacancies in that
Grade should be filled by selection from S100ng officers
serving in the offices under the Government in
Economic/Statistical posts recognised for that purpose by the
•
Controlling Authority, no direct recruitment was resorted to
D till about the year 1968. In the meanwhile, a large number of
persons in the feeder posts were appointed to the posts in
Grade IV from time to time from the year 1962 onwards although
the orders promoting them stated that they had been promoted
only temporarily. Undisputedly, all those promotees have been
holding those posts continuously till now without being
E reverted to the feeder posts from which they had been
promoted. Some have been retired from those posts.
Thus the prescribed quota of appointment from the two
different sources was not maintained right from the
commencement of the constitution of the Services. After
F completion of the initial constitution of the two services
under Rule 7, Rule 7A was added and subsequently amended. Rule
7A made special provision regarding certain departmental
candidates who were to be absorbed in the two Services.
Between the years 1964 to 1984 in all there were 435
G vacancies for direct recruitment in the Indian Economic
Service out of whic~ only 342 posts were filled up by direct
recruitment. Ollt of 93 remaining unfilled posts most of them
were held all along by persons promoted from the feeder posts.
In tha Indian Statistical Service as against a total of 303
vacancies meant for direct recruits between the years 1964 to t -
. <
H 1984 only 275 direct recruits were appointed. The remaining
,,
NAAENDER CHADHA v. u.o.I. 213
A
. -f unfilled posts were held by the departmental candidates. It
was alleged that many of the departmental candidates had been
- allowed to hold posts including Grade IV of the two Services
purely on ad hoc and ex gratis basis.
·Earlier certain persons holding posts in Grade IV of B
these two Services had filed Writ Petition under Article 32
seeking direction/order to the Union of India to confirm and
regularise the petitioners in the posts held by them as and
~. from the dates when they had become due for confirmation or
j
regularisation in accordance with the Indian Economic Services
Rules 1961 or the Indian Statistical Service Rules 1961 and to
consider them for all future promotions when due on the basis C
of such seniority. This Court on February 1, 1984 directed the
Union of India to fill up, within four weeks, the vacancies
available to the departmental candidates under Rule 8
(l)(a)(ii) with effect from the date from which the
petitioners became entitled to be promoted on regular basis,
that their seniority will be determined according to Rules and D
../._that rotation system will not apply under tlie ·existing_Rules.
On May 1, 1984, after expiry of the extended time, the
respondent - Union of India filed two sets of seniority lists
in respect of the two services, namely, (i) lists based on the
principle of rotation, and (ii) lists based on Rule 9C of the E
Rules. Since the lists were to the disadvantage of the depart-
mental promoteea, the Court while declining to endorse either
of the two seniority lists directed the respondent-Union to
implement the order dated February I, 1984 on or before 30th
·November, 1984. In the meanwhile the petitioners filed a
petition for initiating contempt proceedings against the F
·;respondent-union of India which was resisted by the respon-
dent. Certain direct recruits also intervened and wanted to be
heard before disposal of the contempt application. Opportunity
was given to all the parties to make their submissions.
Disposing of the petition, G
HELD: 1. Having regard to the facts of the case _and the
events that have followed the order passed by this Court on
February I, 1984, no action for contempt against the Union
__,,. ._};overnment or any of its officers for not obeying the orders
---7 Aif this Court would be taken. [221 B-C] H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19,86] 1 s.c.R.
A
2. The Union Government is directed to treat all persons.",
who have been promoted to several posts in Grade (IV) in '"']
Indian Economic Service and Indian Statistical Service
contrary to the Rules till now as having been regularly
appointed to those posts in Grade (IV) under Rule 8(1) (a)
(ii) and assign them seniority in the cadre with effect from
B the dates from which they are continuously officiating in
those posts. Even those promotees who have been selected in
1970, 1982 and 1984, shall be assigned seniority with effect
from the date on which they co11111enced to officiate ·~ - -
continuously in the posts prior to their selection. For pur-
poses of seniority the dates of their selection shall be
c ignored. The direct recruits shall be given seniority .with
effect from the date on which their names were reco11111ended by
the Commission for appointment to such grade or posts as
provided in clause (a) of Rule 9-C. A seniority list of all
promotees and direct recruits shall be prepared on the above
basis treating the promotees as full members of the Service
D with effect from the dates from which they are continuously_.
officiating in the posts. This direction shall be applicable 4-
only to officers who have been promoted till now, which means
that rotation system will not be applicable under the Rules,
as they exist now. All appointments shall be made hereafter in
accordance with the Rules, and the seniority of all the
E officers to be appointed hereafter shall be governed by Rule
9-C. [237 D-H; 238 A]
3. If as a result of the preparation of the seniority
list as aforesaid any officer is likely to be reverted, such
officer shall not be reverted. lie shall be continued in the
F higher post which he is now holding by creating a\.
supernumerary post to accommodate him. Furthe• promotion shall,
be given to him when it becomes due as per the new seniority
list to be prepared. There shall be a review of all the
promotions made so far from Grade (IV) to higher posts in the
light of the new seniority list. (238 B-D]
G
P.S. Mahal &. Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984] 3
s.c.R. 847 followed.
4. When an officer has worked for a long period for
nearly 15 to 20 years in a post and had never been revert~ •
H it cannot be held that the officer's continuous officiation< F -
NARENDER CHADHA v. U. 0. I. 215
A
-I· was\ a mere temporary or local or stop gap arrangement even
· though the order of appointment may state so •. In such circum-
stances the entire period of officiation has to be counted for
seniority. Any other view would be arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16(1) because the temporary service in the
post in question is not for a short period intended to meet B
some emergent or unforseen circumstances. [236 C-E]
In the circumstances of the instant case, clause (b) of
• ; Rule 9-<: of the Rules which deals with the question of
seniority of promotees becomes irrelevant as regards promotees
who have been holding the posts from a long time. [236 El
c
5, It is permissibl" for the Government to recruit
persons from different sources to constitute a service. It is
also open to it to prescribe a quota for each source. Rules of
recruitment framed on the above lines are perfectly legitimate
and quite consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the
:..Constitution. When the Rules
~ .
of recruitment prescribe D
recruitment from different sources in accordance with the
specified quota the Government is bound to appoint persons to
the Service concerned j_n accordance with the Rules. The
seniority of persons recruited from different sources will
have to be regulated accordingly. [230 C-E]
E
In the instant case, the Government had m.!de violent
departure from the Rules of recruitment by deliberately
allowing those who were appointed contrary to Rules to hold
the posts cont-inuously over a period of long time. [230 E-F]
..., 6. The petitioners were not promoted by following the F
'actual procedure prescribed under rule 8(l)(a)(ii) but the
fact remains that they have been working in posts included in
Grade IV from the date on which they were appointed to these
posts. The appointments are made in the name of the President
by the competent authority. They are being paid all along the
salary and all<>Wances payable to incumbents of such posts. G
They have not been asked to go back t~ the posts from which
they were proDllted at any time since the dates of their
appointment. The orders of promotion issued in some cases show
that they are proOllted in the direct line of their promotion •
.:;... 'J.t was expressly admitted that the petitioners have been
allowed to hold posts included in Grade IV of the said H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
Services, though on an ad hoc basis. Therefore, it carumt be <,~
said that the petitioners are not holding the posts in Grade ·
IV of the two Services. Neither the Govermoent has issued
orders of reversion to their former posts nor has anybody so
far questioned the right of the petitioners to continue in the
B
posts which they are now holding. It would be unjust
to hold at this distance of time that the petitioners are not
holding the posts in Grade IV. However, it is not the case
that whenever a person is appointed in a post without follow-
ing the Hules prescribed for appointment to that post, he \ _,.._
should be treated as a person regularly appointed to that
post. Such a person may be reverted from that post. (231 B-i!;
c 232 A]
In the instant case, where persons have been allowed to
function in higher posts for 15 to 20 years with due
deliberation it would be certainly unjust to hold that they
have no sort of claim to such posts and could be reverted
D
unceremoniously or treated as persons not belonging to the 1,.
Service at all, particularly where the Government is endowed ·
with the power to relax the Hules to avoid unjust results. The
Government has also not expressed its unwillingness to
continue them in the said posts. The other contesting
respondents have also not urged that the petitioners should be
E
sent out of the said posts. There is no impediment even under
the Hules to treat the petitioners and others who are
similarly situated as persons duly appointed to the posts in
Grade iv because of the enabling provision contained in Bule
16. (232 B-E]
F 7. lf there is enormous departure from the Hules of >.
recruitment in making appointments over several years, it •
should be presumed that the excess appointment by promotion
had been made in relaxation of the Hules when power to relax
the Hules is available. (233 C-ll]
G A. Janardluma v. Union of India & Ors. (1983] 2 s.c.R.
936; O.P. Singl.a & Anr. y. Union of India & Ors. (1985] 1
s.c.R. 351; G.s. Lamb& & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (1985]
3 s.c.R. 431; D.R. 11:1m, I.P.s. v. Union of India (1967] 2
H
s.c.R. 323 followed.
S.B. Patwardhan & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Kaharaahtn
..
'"''I-.._·
& On. (1977] 3 s.c.R. 755; Rajendra llarain Singh & Ors .....
NARENDER CHADHA v. u.o.r. 217
A
State of Bihar & Ors. [1980] 3 s.c.R. 450; Baleshnr Das &
Ors. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 449;
P.S. Mahal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1984] 3 s.c.R.
847; Pran Krislma Goswami & Ors. v. State of West Bengal &
Ors. [1985] Supp. s.c.c. 221; D.K. Mitra & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. [1985] Supp. s.c.c. 243 referred to. Karam Pal & B
Ors. etc. v. Union of Indis & Ors. [1985] 3 s.c.R. 271
distinguished.
8. By sticking to the quota rule as found in rule
8(l)(a), enormous prejudice would be caused to the petitioners
and others who are similarly situated, even though their
appointments have been made by deliberate deviation from the c
rules. The just solution to it would be to treat the peti-
tioners as persons duly appointed to the Services with effect
from the date on which they were promoted to the Grade IV
posts. [235 G-1!; 236 BJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. D
2604 of 1985.
IN
Writ Petition No. 1595 of 1979.
E
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Petitioner No. 1 in person.
P.P. Rao, Uma Dutta and Miss C.K. Suchitra for Peti-
tioner Nos. 2 to 25. F
Govinda Mukhoty and P.K. Gupta for the Intervener.
R.K. Garg, R.K. Jain and Gaurav Jain for the
Respondents.
G
F.S. Nariman, A.K. Ganguli, R.D. Agarwala and C.V. Subba
Rao for the Respondents. (Union of India)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S.C.R,
A
Vl!llKATARAMIAI, J. The perennial dispute regarding
seniority betweel\ direct recruits and promtees which exists
in almost all the departments of Government has not spared the
Indian Economic Service and the Indian Statistical Service
with which we are concerned in this case. This is the second
phase of the battle which is being waged in this Court.
B Earlier certain persons who had been holding posts in .Grade IV
of these two Services had filed Writ Petition No. 1595 of 1979
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for ·a
writ, direction or order in the nature of mandam.is directing
the Union of India to confirm or regularise the petitioners in
the posts held by them as and from the dates when they became
c due for confirmation or regularisation in accordance with the
Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961 or the Indian Statistical
Service Rules, 1961 and to consider them for SirTuture pro-
motions when due on the basis of such seniority. The said
petition was filed in a representative capacity with the leave
of the Court under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. A few officers who
D had been recruited as direct recruits to the posts in Grade IV
in the said departments were impleaded as respondents and they
were Sued in a representative capacity as representing all
other direct recruits who were likely to be affected by the
decision. After the above case was heard, the Court passed a
short order on February 1, 1984 which reads thus :
E
0
We are not able to understand why the vacancies
available to the departmental candidates under Rule
8(ii) of the Indian Economic arui Indian Statistical
Services Rules, 1961, have not been filled up on
regular basis, We find that some of the depart-
F mental candidates (petitioners) have been holding ,_
the promtional posts on ad hoc basis for several
years. There appears to be no justification for
keeping them 'ad hoc' so long. We, therefore, issue
a Writ of Manda111.1s directing the Union of India to
fill up, within four weeks from today, the vacanci-
G es available to the departmental candidates under
Rule 8(ii) with effect from the date from which the
petitioners became entitled to be promoted on
regular basis. Their seniority will be determined
according to Rules. We wish to make it clear that
there is no question of any rotation system being "'(
H applied under the Rules, as they exist now. The i-.
,
NARENDER CHADll\. v. u.o.I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J. J il9
A
writ petition is disposed of in these tertll9. Tnere
will be no order as to costs."
(Rule 8(ii) has to be read as Rule 8(l)(a)(ii))
The Union of India, as can be seen from the order set out B
aboV'e, was directed to comply with the directions contained
therein within four weeks from the date of the order. On the
expiry of four weeks, stipulated by this Court, the Union of
lt1dia filed an application for extension of time to comply
with the directions contained therein fully. Time was extended
by the Court till April 30, 1984. On May 1, 1984 the Union of
India filed before the Court two sets of seniority lists in c
respect of the above two Ser.tees, namely, lists based on the
principle of rotation and lists based on Rule 9-< of the
Indian Economic Service/Indian Statistical Service Rules.
Since on a perusal of the said lists it was found that the
position of some of the departmental promotees who had already
put in nearly 15 years of service in Grade IV was worse than . I)
the position in which they were before the writ petition was
filed and were facing imminent threat of reversion to the
feeder posts from which they had been promoted several years
ago, the Court directed the petition tQ come up for hearing
before the Court on its re-Opening after summer vacation and
directed that ~ quo should be maintained in the mean- E
while. Then on July 24, 1984 the Court while declining to
endorse either of the two seniority lists directed the Union
of India to implement the order dated February 1, 1984 on or
before 30th November, 1984. In the meanwhile the petitioners
filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2604 of 1985 complain-
·-< ing that the Union of India had failed to comply with the F
' order made by thie Court and that action should be taken for
contempt against it. While opposing the application for
contempt, on behalf of the Union of India it was stated in the
course of the aH idavit sworn by Shri P. L. Sakarwal, Deputy
Secretary, l>P.partment of Economic Affairs, New Delhi thus
G
"23. In view of the submissions made above this
Respondent would urge that the directions of the
Hon'ble Court dated 1.2.84 in the matter of (i)
filling the vacancies under Rule 8(ii) and (ii) to
fix the seniority according to Rules without the
application of rotation system, have been complied H
with bona fide and in a good faith. Rule 8(ii) of
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
the IES Rules/lSS Rules provides for the quota for --\-
the departmental promotees and also the manner in
which the Select List for promotion by a duly
constituted DPC presides over by a Member of UPSC
has to be drawn. All the vacancies available to the
departmental candidates under Rule B(ii) up to the
B end of 1983 have already been given to them by
issuance of Select Lists drawn from time to time.
Action is in process to prepare further Select List
in respect of the vacancies available to the ,
officers till the end of the year 1984. As regards
seniority, the Hon'ble Court had ordered to fix the
c senfority according to the Rules and without the
application of the rotation system. The revised
seniority l:i.sts prepared by this Respondent and
finalised after inviting objections etc. from the
concerned officers have been framed according to
the Rules i.e. in terll8 of the provisions of Rule
D 9-C of the IES Rules/lSS Rules and without appli- ~
cation of the rotation system. This Respondent, -
would, therefore, urge with respect ad all humility
that he has ·Complied with the directions of the
Hon:'ble Court bona fide and in good faith. However,
if there is any slip on the part of this Respondent
E in carrying out the directions of this Hon'ble
Court of if the Hon 'ble Court considers that the
orders should have been executed in any other
msnner, this llespOndent would tender unconditional
apology and will be duty bound to obey and iq>le-
ment, such orders directions as this Hon'ble Court
F may deem fit or pleased to issue in the circumstan- :>-
ces of the case."
In the meanwhile certain direct recruits also intervened
in the course of the said petition and requested that they
should be heard before any order was passed by the Court on
G the contempt application. While the order passed by the Court
on February 1, 1984 did not require any clarification at all,
since the parties tried to place different interpretation on
it, prayer was made by the Union Government as stated aboVe
seeking further clarifications in the light of certain recent
decisions rendered by this Court, we gave opportunity to all ,_
...
H the parties to mske their submissions once again. Availil!i
NARENDER CllADHA v. U. 0. I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J. ] 221
A
themselves of the opportunity given by the Court learned
counsel for the pronX>tees and the direct recruits have
virtually reargued the matter. It should be stated here that
no specific stand was taken on this occasion by the Union
Government except bringing to the notice of the Court the
relevant provisions of law. On its behalf it was submitted B
very fairly by Shri F.S. Nariman, that there was no intention
on the part of the Government or any of its officers to flout
the order of the Court passed earlier and that if the Court
found that there has been any mistake in the preparati= of
the lists of seniority, those lists would be prepared afresh
in the light of any direction that may be given by the Court
in the course of these proceedings. Having regard to the facts C
of the case and the events that have followed the order passed
by this Court on February 1, 1984; we do not feel called upon
to take any action for contempts against the Union Government
or any of its officers for not obeying the 'orders of this
Court. We have, however, found it necessary to consider the
matter again in the, light of the submissions made by the D
parties and issue fresh directions in this case. We' feel that
a detailed order is also called for in the circumstances of
the case.
The Indian Economic Service Rules, 1961 and the Indian
Statistical Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred t,o as E
'the Rules' ) which are nX>re or less identical with regard to
the questions involved in this case were notified on November
1, 1961 and these Services were constituted with effect from
that date by ,encadering numerous posts carrying economic and
statistical functions in the various ministries of the Govern-
ment of India. These Services were meant to comprise a pool of F
,
~'
officers having appropriate qualifications for performing the
aforesaid technical functions involved in various posts. The
strength of the various grades of the Indian Economic Service
at the initial constitution of the Service, i.e., on November
1, 1961 was Grade 1 - 15, Grade II - 15, Grade Ill - 95 and
Grade IV - 199 a Total 324 posts. The strength of the vsrious G
grades of the Indian Statistical Service at the initial
constitution of the Service, i.e., on November 1, 1961 was
Grade I - 8, Grade II- 7, Grade Ill - 54 and Grade IV - 116 Q
Total 185 posts.
The officers of Grade I to Grade IV are classified as H
Class-I Officers. The authorised permanent strength of each of
222 SUPREME CO~T REPORTS [19861 i s.c.R.
A
the Services is to be fixed by the Controlling Authority with ._,_..
·the guidance of the Ministry of Finance in,accordance with the
provisions of the Rules. It is required to be based on the
following principles:
1) it shall be assumed that 8(J per cent of the
B total number of semi-permanent posts are likely to
be continued indefiniteiy in one form or lllll)ther,
and shall be provided for in the permanent
strength; and
2) all the purely temporary posts and 20 per cent
c of the semi-permanent posts shall be excluded for
purposes of determining the permanent strength.
The Ministry of Home Affiars (Departtm!nt of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms) advised by a Board known as the Indian
Economic Statistical Service Board is designated as the
D Controlling Authority under rule 6 of the Rules. Initial
constitution of both the Services was required to be done in
accordance with rule 7. Under that Rule the Union Public
Service Comm1ssion was required to constitute a Selection
Colllllittee with a Chairman or a Member of the colllllission as
President, not more than two representatives of the partici-
E pating Ministries and the Chief Economic Adviser in the
Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) to deter-
mine the suitability of departmental candidates for .appoint:
tm!nt to the different grades and to prepare an order of
preference for each grade for the initial constitution of the
Service. On receipt of the Committee's report the Commission
F was required to forward its recomtm!ndations to the Government
and such recommendations might include a recomtm!ndation that a
person considere<I suitable for appointtm!nt to a grade might,
if a sufficient number of vacancies were not available in that
grade, be appointed to a lower grade. The departmental candi-
dates who were not absorbed at the initial constitution of
G the Service were to continue to work as on the date of the
initial constitution and were given the opportunity to apply
(and getting selected if they were found suitable) for future
vacancies. We are infor...d that the notifications regarding
the initial constitution of these two Services were issued by
the middle of February 1, 1964 with effect from February 15,
H 1964. Future maintenance of these two Services is governed by
NARENDER CHADHA 'v. u.o.I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 223
A
rule 8 of the ,Rules. Initially rule 8, which is relevant for
the purposes of this case read as follows :
"8. (I) Future maintenance of the Service - after
the initial constitution of the Service has been
completed by appointment of departmental candidates B
or otherwise, vacancies shall be filled as herein-
after provided.
(a) Grade IV - Assistant Director.
(i) Not less than 75 per cent of the vacancies in
this grade shall be filled by direct recruitment c
through an open competitive examination to be held
by the Commission in the manner prescribed in
Schedule U. Provided that 25 per cent of the said
quota for direct recruitment may be set apart for a
maximum peiod of 5 years for absorption of officers
considered suitable for appointment at the initial D
constitution of the Service but who could not be so
appointed in the absence of vacancies.
(ii) Not more than 25 per cent of the vacancies in
this grade shall be filled by selection from among
officers serving in offices under the Government in E
Economic posts recognised for this purpose by the
Controlling Authority who shall perpare a list of
such posts in consultation with the commiss1on. The
Controlling Authority may, in conaultation with the
Commission, add to or 111Qdify. ,the list from time to
'-\ time. The selection will be made from amongst those F
• who have completed at least 4 years of service in
those posts on the basis of merit with due regard
to seniority by the Controlling Authority on the
advice of the Commission •••••••••• "
Rule 8(l)(a) now reads thus :- G
"8.(1) Future maintenance of the service; after the
initial constitution of the service had been
completed by appointment of departmental candidates
or otherwise and after promotions in accordance
with sub-rule (2A) of Rule 7 have taken place, H
vacancies shall be filled as hereinafter provicjed.
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l S.C.R,
A
(a) Grade IV - Assistant Director.
(i) Not less than 75 per cent of the vacancies in
this grade shall be filled by direct recruitment
through an open competitive examination to be held
by the Commission in the manner prescribed in
B Schedule H. Provided that 25 per cent of the said
quota for direct recruitme.nt may be set apart for a
maxirum period of 5 years for absorption of
officers considered suitable for appointment at the
initial constitution of the service but who could
not be so appointed in the absence of vacancies.
c
(ii) Not more than 25 per cent of the vacancies in
this grade shall be filled by selection from among
officers serving in offices under the Govern11Ent in
Economic posts recognised for this purpose by the
Controlling Authority who shall prepare a list of
D such posts in consultation with the Commission. The
Controlling Authority may, in consultation with the
Commission, add .to or modify the list from time to
time. The selection will be made from amongst those
who have completed at least 4 years of service on a
regular basis in these posts on the basis of merit
E with due regard to seniority by the Controlling
Authority on the advice of the Commission.
Provided that if any junior person in an office
under the Government is eligible and is considered
for selection for appointment against these vacan-
F cies, all persons senior to him in that off ice
shall also be so considered notwithstanding that
they may not have rendered 4 years of service on a
regular basis in their posts. 0
After the initial constitution of the two Services was
G completed it was found that a number of posts carrying
Economic/Statistical functions could not be considered for
inclusion in the officers' Grades due either to misunderstand-
ing or to inadvertence. Further as the process of formation of
the Indian Economic Service and the Indian Statistical Service
was prolonged for number of years and the need for appointing
H more officers in the said Departments during that long period
NARENDER CHADHA v. u.o.I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 225
A
also arose gradually several posts carrying economic/statisti-
·-f cal functions were created. Although rule 8 provided that not
less than 75 per cent of the vacancies in Grade IV should be
filled up by direct recruitment through an open competitive
examination to be held by the Union Public Service Commission
in the manner prescribed in Schedule II to tne Rules and B
further provided that not more than 25 per cent posts of the
vacancies in that grade should be filled by selection from
among officers serving in the offices under the Government in
Economic/Statistical posts recognised for that purpose by the
Controlling Authority, no direct recruitment -waF. resorted to
till about the year 1968. In the meanwhile a large number of
persons in the feeder posts were appointed to the posts in c
Grade IV from time to .time from the year 1962 onwards although
the orders promoting them stated that they had been promoted
only temporarily. It is not disputed that all those promotees
have been holding those posts continuously till now without
being reverted to the feeder posts from which they had been
promoted. Some have retired from those posts on attaining the D
age of superannuation.
We shall reproduce below one of the notifications issued
in connection with the prorootion to the posts in Grade IV of
such officers, some of whom are the petitioners in this
petition. It reads thus : E
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Yojana Bhawan, Parliament Street
New Delhi-!, the 20th/23rd November '65 F
NOTIFICATION
No.F.8(10)/65-ADM.I: The President is pleased to appoint
the following Economic Investigators Grade I, Planning Commis-
sion, as Research Officers in the Commission in a temporary G
capacity with effect from the 6th November 1965 (forenoon),
and until further orders :-
Shri K.V. Vishwanathan
Shri S.N. Padro
Shri C.L. Kapur H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS _[1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
Smt. K. Passi
Shri Narendra Chaddha +
Shri R.N. Mokhey
Shri N. Srinivasan
Shri K. Suryanarayana
Shri P .N. Radhakrishnan
B Shri B.R. Kharbanda
Shri Kamla Prasad
Shri M.M. Gupta
Shri S.P. Kumar
Sd/-
c (N.S. Gidwani)
(Deputy Secretary to the Government of India)
...................................................
All these officers excepting Shri P.N. Radha-
D krishnan are either permanent or quasi-permanent in
the grade of Economic Investigators. Shri Radha- ~'
krishnan is quasi Permanent in the grade of Senior
Computor. The promotion of all is in the direct
line.
.................................................."
E
In another order of promotion i.ssued while promoting
another officer by name Jagdish Chandra on November 21, 1966
it was mentioned that his promotion to the post of Research
Officer was in direct line of Economic Investigator Grade
I/ll. It should be stated here that although rule 8 (1) (a)
F provided that not less than 75 per cent of the vacancies in '..
Grade IV of the two Services should be filled up by direct •
recruitment through an open competitive examination to be held
by the Commission in the manner prescribed in Schedule II to
the Rules and that not more than 25 per cent of the vacancies
in the Grade could be filled up by a selection from among
G officers serving in offices under the Government in
Economic/Statistical posts recognised for this purpose by the
Controlling Authority, the prescribed quota of appointment
fi:om the two different sources, referred to above, was not
maintained right from the commencement of the Constitution of
the Services. The initial constitution of the two Services was'\-
H completed under rule 7 of the Rules with effect from February "' •
15, 1964 as mentioned earlier. Thereafter rule 7A was added.
NARENDER CllADHA v. u.o.I. [VENi<ATARAMIAH, J.] 227
A
That rule was added by a notification dated December 24, 1966
and it has been amended subsequently by a notification dated
February 12, 1972. Rule 7A made special provision regarding
certain departmental candidates who were to.be absorbed in the
two Services. It provided that notwithstanding anything con-
tained in rule 8 of the Rules, the Controlling Authority on B
the advice of the Board should constitute a Selection
Committee for the purpose of appointing officers who were
departmental candidates to the Services in question. A depart-
mental candidate who was not selected for appointment for any·
I
grade in the Services could continue to hold the post which he
was holding then and might be considered by the Controlling
Authority on the advice of tne Board for appointment to the c
service at the subsequent stage .or stages in consultation with
the Commission. It further provided that any departmental
candidate, referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 7A who did not
on a selection to any Grade in the Service desire to be
absorbed in the service might continue to hold the post held
by him immediately before. the selection as if he had not been D
selected. The validity of rule 7A was questioned by some of
the direct recruits, who were appointed in the year 1968 in
the High Court of Delhi by a Writ Petition. We understand that
the said writ petition has been transferred to the file of the
Central Administrative Tribunal and the said writ petition is
still pending. We are not concerned here with ·the merits of E
the contentions urged by the contesting parties in those
proceedings. We are concerned in this case only with the
question of seniroity as betWen direct recruits and promotees.
From the statements annexed to the counter-affidavit
filed by Shri V. Subramanian, Director in the Department of F
Economic Affairs, it is seen that in the Indian Economic
Service there were. 3 vacancies for direct recruits in the year
1964, 18 in the year 1965, 80 in the year 1966 and 12 in the
year 1967,·Nobody was recruited directly to those posts during
those years. In the year 1968 there were 11 vacancies for
direct recruits but 32 were recruited directly during that G
year. In 1969 there were 6 vacancies for direct recruits and
31 were recruited, in 1970 there were 33 vacancies for direct
recruits, in 1971 there were 12 vacancies for direct recruits,
in 1973 there were 25 vacancies for direct recruits, in 1974
~ there were 20 vacancies for direct recruits and in 1975 there
/i were 11 vac.ancies for direct recruits. By the year 1984 in all H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986 J 1 s.c.R.
A
there were 435 vacancies for direct recruits out of which only
342 posts were filled up by direct recruitment. In all 93
posts intended for direct recruits remained unfilled and JOOst
of them were held all along by persons who had been proJOOted
from the feeder posts. The position in the Indian Statistical
Service was JOOre or less the same. As against a total of 303
B vacancies meant for direct recruits between the years 1964
and 1984 only 275 direct recruits were appointed. In this
department also the posts which remained unfilled had been
held by the persons who were departmental candidates. It is
alleged in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Union
of India of which the deponent is Shri P.G. Lele, Deputy
c Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms that many of the departmental candidates had been
allowed to hold posts including in Grade IV of the aforesaid
Services purely on ad hoc and ex gratia basis. The relevant
part of the counter-affidavit is to be found in paragraphs 21
to 24 thereof. It is unfortunate that even though the
D proJOOtees have been dischargin_g their duties to the best of
their ability and receiving salary and allowances from the
Government for the services rendered by them, it is alleged in
the course of the said counter-affidavit that what was being
paid to them was by way of grace. This statement adds insult
to injury. If the Government felt that they were not competent
E to discharge their duties and they had not been appointed
permanently to the posts held \>Y them, it was open to it to
revert them to their posts from which they had been proJOOted
leaving it open to them to question the orders of reversion in
Court. The Government was in need of their services and the
petitioners have been holding these posts for nearly 15 to 20
F years. It is not fair to say at this distance of time that the
Government W88 only keeping them in their posts as a matter of
grace. Be that 88 it may, it is seen that the Departmental
ProJOOtion Committee met only thrice between 1965 and 1984,
i.e. 1970, 1972 and 1984 although under te rules and instruc-
tions issued by the Central Government on the advice of the
G Union Public Service Commission, the Departmental ProJOOtion
Committee had -to meet annually. When the Departmental
ProJOOtion Collll!ittee met in the year 1970, it prepared a select
list consisting of 33 names to fill 33 vacandes only in
Grade IV from S100ngst those who had already been proJOOted to
H
Grade IV temporarily and at that time only officers who had \-
completed four, years of regular service in the feeder posts 88 "
•
..... NARENDER CllADllA v. U.O.I, [VENKATARAHlAH, J.] 229
'
A
on December 31, 1966 were considered although the Departmental
.- I Pro11Dtion Committee was meeting in the year 1970. If it had
taken into consideration the service put in by the depart-
mental candidates till the date on which it took up their
cases for consideration for promotion many others who had been
pr011Dted on a temporary basis to Grade IV would have become
B
eligible for consideration. By omitting to take the cases of
those persons into consideration on the gr0und thst· they had
not completed four years of regular service in the feeder
posts as on December 31, 1966 the Departmental Promotion
, 1 Coumittee violated Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution
of India. It is further seen thst the Departmental Proml>tion
Committee made its recommendations on the basis of the records
of service and seniority of each of the departmental
c
candidate. It ls not known whether any o1 them were found to
be unfit on the basis of their record of service only. It is,
however. seen that the select list contained only 33 names
because the Departmental Pr011Dtion CoJinnittee felt thst they
were the only vacancies for which it could make recommends-
r
~ tions under rule 8(1 )(a)(U) of the Rules. If it had made
D
recommendations to the Government in respect of all the
vacancies which were available then, perhaps, the names of
some others who were left out would have been included 1n the
select list. Then after an interval of 12 years the Depart-
mental Pro11Dtion Committee met in the year 1982. There again
E
the same procedure was folloi.ed and the next meeting of the
Departmental Pro100tion Committee, as already stated, was in
1984. For no fault of the petitioners and the officers simi-
larly situated their cases for pr011Dtion were not considered
every year and even those who hsve been found fit by the
. Departmental Pro100tion Committee for pr011Dtlon hsd to wait for
F
~· nearly 15 years to get into the 'regular' service through a
select list prepared by the Departmental Pr011Dtion Coumittee.
In. compliance with our direction the Government hss
produced before the Court two lists showing the names of
officers who were appointed to Grade IV posts of the Indian
G
Economic/Statistical Service either regularly or on ad hoc
basis arranged according ·to the dates from which they hsve
been officiating in these posts continuously.
-{. . A large number of decisions were cited at the Bar by the
.learned counsel for the parties. Some of them are s.B.
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A
Patwardban & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. -<
1
[1977) 3 S.C.R, 775, llajendra Narain Singh & Ors. v. State of
Bihar & Ors. [1980) 3 s.c.R. 450, Bsleshli'ar Dass & Ors. et:c.
v. St:at:e of U.P. & Ors. etc. [1981) 1 s.c.R. 449, A. Janar-
dhans v. Union of India & Ors. [1983) 2 s.c.R. 936, P.S. llahsl
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1984) 3 s.C.R. 847, O.P.
B Sf.ngls & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1985] 1 s.c.R. 351,
Iarsm Pal & Ors. et:c. v. Union of India & Ors. [1985) 3 s.c.R.
271, G.s.· Lamlla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1985) 3
s.c.R. 431, Pran Xrislma Gosw811i & Ors. v. State of West \.
Bengal & Ors. [1985) Supp. s.c.c. 221 and D.K. Mitre &Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. [1985) Supp. S.C.C. 243. We have
c carefully considered all the decisionScited before us.
It is now well-settled that it is permissible for the
Government to recruit persons from different sources to cons-
titute a service. It is also open to it to prescribe a quota
for each source. Rules of' recruitment framed on the above
D
lines are perfectly legitimate and quite consistent with ~
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is also true that • ~
when the Rules of recruitment prescribe recruitment from
different Services in accordance with the specified quota the
Government is bound to appoint persons to the Service concern-
ed in accordance with the said Rules. The seniority of persons
E recruited from different sources will have to be regulated
accordingly, So far there can be no controversy, llut we are
faced in this case with the problem of resolving conflicts
which have arisen on account of a violent departure made by
the Government from the Rules of recruitment by allowing those
who were appointed contrary to the Rules to hold the posts
F continuously over a long period of time. The question is)...
whether after' such a long period it is open to the Government,
to place them in seniority at a place lower than the place
held by persons who were directly recruited after they had
been prrnooted, and whether it would not violate Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution if the Government is allowed to do
G so. Promotions of officers have been made in this case
deliberately and in vacancies which have lasted for a long
time. A letter dated August 11, 1978 written by Shri S.D.
Patil, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Personnel Depart-
ment to Shri Ganga Bhakt Singh, Member of Parliament substan-
tiates the conclusion. The relevant part of the letter reads 1;' •
H
"Government resorted to making ad-hoc appointments
as it was separately considering proposals to re-
NARENDER CHADHA v. U,O,I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J,] 231
A
organise Grade IV of the two Services. Pending such
reorganisation Govt. has taken a deliberate
decision to restrict direct recruitment for the
present. It is, therefore not correct to say that
ad-hoc appointments have been made due to non-
availability of direct recruits. I may add that ·but
B
for his deliberate decision, most of the officers
holding ad-hoc posts in Grade IV would have conti-
nued to stagnate in the lower posts of
Investigators."
At one stage it was argqed before us on behalf of some of
the respondents that the petitioners who have not been appoin-
ted in accordance with rule 8(l)(a)(H) could not be treated
c
as members of the Indian Economic .Service or of the Indian
Statistical Service at all and hence there was no question of
determining .the question to seniority as between the
petitioners and the direct recruits. This argument has got to
~T be rejected. It is true that the petitioners were not promoted
D
by following the actual procedure prescribed under rule 8(1)-
(a)(H) but the fact remains that they have been working in
posts included in Grade IV from the date of which they were
appointed to these posts. The appointments are made in the
name of the President by the competent authority, They have
been continuously holding these posts. They are being paid
E
all along the salary and allowances payable to incumbents of
such posts. They have not been asked to go back to the posts
from which they were promoted at any time since the dates of
their appointment. The orders of promotion issued in some
cases show that they are promoted in the direct line of their
-' promotion. It is expressly admitted that the petitioners have
• been allowed to hold posts included in Grade IV of the afore-
F
said services, though on an ad hoc basis. (See Para 21 of the
counter-affidavit filed by Shri P.G. Lele, Deputy Secretary.,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms). It is,
therefore, idle to contend that the petitioners are not hold-
ing the posts in Grade IV of the two Services in question. It
G
is significant that neither the Government has issued orders
of reversion to their former posts nor haa anybody so far
questioned the right of the petiUoners to continue in the
posts which they are now holding. It would be unjust to hold
... iat this distance of time that on the facts and in the circum-
stances of this case the petitioners are not holding the posts
H
232
.I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R. \
in Grade IV. The above contention is therefore without sub- 1 ~. ··
stance. But we, however, make it cle1<r that it ls not our view
that whenever a person is appointed in a post without follow-
ing the Rules prescribed for appointment to that post, he
should be treated as a person .r.egularly appointed tn that
post. Such a person may be reverted from that post. But in a
B case of the kind before us where persons have been allowed to
function in higher posts for 15 to 20 years with due delibera-
tion it would be certainly unjust to hold that they have no
sort of cl1.1im to such posts and could be reverted uncere- ... '
moniously or treated as persons not belonging to the Service
at all, particularly where the Government is endowed with the
c power to relax the Rules to avoid unjust results. In the
instant case the Government has also not expressed its un-
. willingness to continue them in the said posts. The other
contesting respondents have also not urged that the
petitioners should be sent out of the said posts. The only
question agitated before us relates to the seniority as
D between the .·petitioners and the direct recruits and such a 'f •
question can arise only where there is no dispute regarding
regarding the entry of the officers concerned into the same
Grade. In the instant case there is no impediment even under
the Rules to treat these petitioners and others who are
similarly situated as persons duly appointed to the poets in
E Grade IV because of the enabling provision contained in the
rule 16 thereQf. Rule 16 as it stood at the relevant time read
as follows :
"16, The Government may relex the provisions of
thes.e rules to such extent as may be necessary to
ensure satisfactory working or remove in-equitable )..
F results."
Now rule 16 reads thus :
"16. Powers to relex: The Government may in
consultation with the Commission and for reasons to
be recorded ln writing relex any of the provisions
of these rules with respect to any class or
G category of persons or posts and no such relexation
shall be given so as to have retrospective effect."
G.S. Laaba"s case (supra) may be carefully considered at
this stage. In that case this Court was concerned with the
Indian Foreign Service which was governed by the Indian,..
Foreign Service, Branch 'B' (Recruitment, Cadres, SenioritY' ';
H and Promotion) Rules, 1964. The said rules provided for· '
recruitment to the said Service from three different Services,
NARENDER. CllADllA v. U.O.I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 233
A
.~1 (i) direct recruitment by competitive examination, (ii) sub-
stantive appointllll!nt of persons included in the select list
promoted on the basis of a limited competitive examination and
(iii) promotion on the basis of seniority. One of the Rules
provided thst the. recruitment should be msde from the above
sources on the following basis: (i) l/6th of the substantive
B
vacancies to be filled in by direct recruitment, (ii) 33, 1/3%
of the remaining 5/6 of the vacancies to be filled on the
basis of results of limited competitive examinations and (iii)
the remaining vacancies to be filled in by promotion on the
basis of seniority. The Court found thst the direct recruit-
ment had ~ot been msde for years' limited competitive examina-
tion had also not been held for years and promotions from the
select list had been msde in excess of the quota. It found
c
that there was enormus departure from the rules of recruit-·
ment in making appointments over several years. The Court was
of the vi.ew thst the situation in this case was similar to. the
situation in two other earlier cases of this Court in A.
Janardhana'a case (supra) and O.P. Singla & Anr. (supra). The
D
Court felt that in the circumstances it should be presumed
that the excess appointment by promotion had been made in
relaxation of the Rules since there was power to relax the
Rules similar to the power under rule 16 in the Rules with
which we are concerned here. J\Jstifying the above view the
court observed at pages 458-459 thus :
E
"It was however contended that it is not permissi-
ble to infer that promotions in excess of quota
were given by relaxing the quota rule because the
posts in Integrated Grade 11 and Ill were within
the purview of the Union Public Service Co..d.ssion
F
and the proviso to Rule 29(a) mandates that power
to relax ls hedged in with a condition that it can
be done after consultation with the Commission, and
there is nothing to show that the Commission was
ever .consulted. Undoubtedly, the proviso to Rtu.e
29(a) requires that. the controlling authority can-
G
not relax. any of the provisions of the rules in
respect of posts which are within the purview of
the Union Public Service Commission unless after
consultation with the Commission. It was submitted
that nothing is placed on the record by the
petitioners to show 'that power to relax the quota
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 i s.c.R.
A
rule was exercised after consultation with the
Union Public Service Commission. Assuming that
there was no consultation, would the exercise of
power to relax be vitiated and the appointments
made in relaxation of the mandatory quota rule
would be ab initio invalid. Commencing from the
B decision of the Privy Council in Montreal Street
Railway Co.paoy v. NolllaDdin AIR 1917 P.c. 142 it
is well-settled that 'when the provisions of a
statute relate to the performance of a public duty
and the case is such that to hold null and void
acts done in neglect of this duty would work
c general inconve.nience or injustice to persons who
have not control over those entrusted with the duty
and that at the same time would not promote the
main object of the Legislature, it has been th_e
practice to hold such provisions to be directory
only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not
D affecting the validity o the acts done'. The view
was expressed in the context of the failure to
revise list of Jurors by the Shariff according to
the revised statues of Quebec and conviction was
challenged on the ground of mistrial held by
selecting Jurors from unrevised lists. The challen-
E ge failed. Coming home in State of U.P. v.
Manbodan Lal Srivastava, [1958] S.C.R. 533 a
Constitution Bench of this Court specifically held
that where consultation with the Public Service
Commission is provided as required by Art. 320(3)
(c) of the Constitution such provisions is not
r mandatory and they do not confer any rights on
public servants so that the absence of consultation
or irregularity in consultation does not afford him
a cause of action in a court of law. There are
number of subsequent decisions to which our
attention was called reiterating the same princi-
G ple. Therefore assuming there was failure to
consult the Union Public Service Commission before
exercising the power to relax the mandatory quota
rule and further assuming that the posts in Inte-
grated Grade II and III were within the purview of
the Union Public Service Commission and accepting
H for the time being that the Commission was not
NARENDER CHADHA v. u.o.I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 235
A
consulted before the power to relax the rule Was
exercised yet the action taken would not be vitiat-
ed nor would it furnish any help to Union of India
which itself cannot take any advantage of its
failure to consult the Commission. Therefore it can
be safely stated that the enomous departure from B
the quota rule year to year permits an inference
that the departure was in exercise of the power of
relaxing the quota rule conferred on the control -
ling authority. Once there is power to · relax the
mandatory quota rule, the appointments made in
excess of the quota from any given source would not
be illegal or invalid but would be valid and legal c
as held by this Court in N~K. Qiauhan and Ors. v.
State of Gujarat, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 1037. Therefore
the promotion of the promotees was regular and
legal both on account of the fact it was made to
meet the exigencies of service in relaxation of the
mandatory quota rule and to substantive vaoancies D
in service."
The Court ultimately quashed the seniority list and
directed the preparation of seniority list on the basis of
length of continuous. officiation in the cadre. The facts in
this case being almost identical there is no reason why the E
view express in G.S. Lamba's case (supra) should not be
adopted here also.
The continuance of these petitioners may be justified on
the basis of the above quoted rule 16 onthe assumption that
~. the Government had relaxed the Rules and appointed them to the F
posts in question to meet the administrative requirements.
The enormity of the prejudice that is likely to be caused
·to the petitioners and others who were similarly situated can
be demonstrated by setting out the effect of sticking to the
quota rule as found in· rule 8(l)(a) even though there has been G
a deliberate deviation from it. The result of applying the
quota rule would be as follows: Petitioner No .1 who was
promoted to Grade 17 on November 6, 1965 would be junior to a
direct recruit of 1974 batch. Petitioner No.3 who was promoted
~
;I to Grade IV on March 22, 1966 would become junior to a direct
recruit of 1979 batch. Petitioner No.6 who was promoted to H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l S.C,R.
A
Grade IV post in July l, 1966 would become junior to direct 1 -4
recruits of 1982 batch. P<!titioner No. 10 who was proiooted to
Grade IV on May 18, 1968 would become junior to direct
recruits of 1982 batch. Petitioners Nos. 16 to 18 and 21 to 25
would continue to be treated as ad hoc appointees and will be
junior to every body appointed till now into the service as
they cannot be fitted any where even though they have put in
B
9 to 15 years of service in Grade IV. These startling results
ought to shock anybody's conscience. The only just solution to
this problem is to treat the petitioners as persons duly \.
appointed to the Service with effect from the day on which
they were promoted to the· Grade IV posts.
c As observed in D.R. Nill, I.P.S. v. Union of India [1967]
2 S.C.R. 325 when an officer has worked for a long period as
in this case for nearly fifteen to twenty years in a post and
had never been reverted it cannot be held that the officer's
continuous officiation was a mere temporary or local or stop
gap arrangement even though the order of appointment· may state 1 ..
D
so. In such circumstance'' the entire period of officiation has
to be counted for seniority. Any other view would be arbi-
trary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Consti-
tution because the temporary service in the post in question
is not for a short per:lod intended to meet some emergent or
unforeseen circumstances. Clause (b) of rule 9C of the Rules
E
which deals with the question of seniority of pr0100tees
becomes irrelevant in the circumstances of this case as
regards the promotees who have been holding the posts from a
long time as stated above.
The decision in A. Jansrdhllna's case (supra) and the :>-
F decision in O.P. Singla's case (supra) strongly support the •
above view. It is necessary to refer to them in great detail
since in G.S. Lamba's case (supra) the effect of the said
decisions is set out very clearly.
The decision in Karam Pal's case (supra) is not of 1111ch
G
assistance to the direct recruits. In that decision there was
a specific finding that except for a period o~ two years i.e.
in 1966 and 1970, direct recruitment had been made in accor-
dance with the Scheme governing recruitment to the Central
Secretariat Service and that there was substantial compliance \: ~
with the rules of recruitment governing that Seririce. The
H
NARENDER CHADllA v. U.O.I. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 237
A
! .- ·I Court observed that in the absence of serious failure in
implementing the relevant rul-s there was no ground to inter-
fere with the inter se seniority of the officers in the Grades
concerned. Hence that decision is distinguishable on facts
from the present case.
B
We are aware that the view we are taking may upset the
inter se seniority between those prollkltees who were included
in theSelect List of 1970, 1982 and 198'4 snd those who were
included later on or who have not been included at all till
now. The existence of this posibility should not deter us from
adopting a uniform rule in the case of all prolli:ltees snd
direct recruits to adjust the equities allklngst them as regards c
their relative seniority in the light of the violent departure
made by the Government both as regards direct recruitments and
promotions which it had to make every year under the Rules.
The prejudice which the promotees included in the Select Lists
might suffer is marginal and has to be ignored.
D
Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions
made on behalf of the parties and the peculiar facts present
in this case we feel that the appropriate order that should be
passed in this case is to direct the Union Government to treat
all persons who are stated to have been prOllklted in this case
to several posts in Grade IV in ea~h of. the two· Services E
contrary to the Rules till now as having · been regularly
appointed to the said posts in Grade IV under rule 8(l)(a)(ii)
and assign them seniority in. the cadre with effect from the
dates from which they are continuously officiating in the said
posts. Even those prollkltees who have been selected in 1970,
1982 and 1984 shall be assigned seniority with effect from the F
date on which they commenced to officiate continuously in the
posts prior to their selection. For purposes of seniority the
dates of their selection shall be ignored. The direct recruits
shall be given seniority with effect from the date on which
their names were recommended by the Commission for appointment
to such grade or post as provided in clause (a) of Rule 9-<; of G
the Rules. A seniority list of all the prollkltees snd the
dir_ect recruits shall be. prepared on the above basis treating
the prOllkltees as full members of the Service with effect from
the dates from which they are continuously officiating in the
I j posts. This direction· shall be applicable only to officers who
have been promoted till . now. 1his is the meaning of the H
direction given by the Court on February 1, 1984 which stated,
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S.C.R.
A
'we wish to make it clear that there is no question of any l ''·
rotation system being applied under the Rules, as they exist
now.' All appointments shall be made hereafter in accordance
with the Rules and the seniority of all officers to be
appointed hereafter shall be governed by rule 9-C of the
Rules.
B
We are informed that some of the promotees and direct
recruits who are governed by this decision have been pronvted
to higher grades. If as a result of the preparation of the
seniority list in accordance with the decision and the review
of the promotions made to higher grades any of them is likely
c to be reverted such officer shall not be reverted. He shall be
continued in the higher post which he is now holding by
creating a supernumerary post, if necessary to acconnoodate
him. His further promotion shall however be.given. to him when
it becomes due as per the new seniority list to be prepared
pursuant to this decision. There shall, however, be a review
D of all pronvtions made so far from Grade IV to higher posts in
the light of the new seniority list. If any officer is found
entitled to be so pronvted to a higher grade he shall be given
such promotion when he would have been promoted in accordance
with the new seniority list and he shall be given all conse-
quential financial benefits flowing therefrom. Such review
E of promotions shall be completed within three nvnths and the
consequential financial benefits shall be paid within three
nvnths thereafter. In giving these directions we have followed
more or less the directions given in P.S. llaha1 & Ore. v.
Union of India & Ors. (supra).
F We direct that the above directions shall be complied
with within the period indicated above.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
A.P.J.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "seniority"Sign in to search