Holding

The Court held that the Director‑General’s circulars restricting promotion of Audit‑Office UDCs were unconstitutional and quashed them, while upholding the service‑length distinction in the Recruitment Rules as reasonable.

Summary

The petitioners, Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) transferred from the Posts & Telegraphs Audit Offices to the Savings Bank Control‑Internal Check Organisation (SBCO‑ICO), challenged the Director‑General’s circulars that limited promotion of UDCs from the Audit Offices to 10 % of Selection‑Grade posts and 20 % of Head‑Clerk posts. They argued that the classification based on source of recruitment was discriminatory, violated Article 16 of the Constitution and amounted to an unauthorized amendment of the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309. The Court examined whether the circulars were constitutionally valid, whether they exceeded the Director‑General’s authority, and whether the distinction in the Rules requiring ten years’ service for Audit‑Office UDCs (versus five years for others) was unreasonable. It held that the circulars were unconstitutional, quashed them, and ordered that all UDCs be eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness, while upholding the service‑length distinction in the Rules as reasonable. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed and the respondents were directed to promote the petitioners accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the Director‑General’s directions limiting promotion of UDCs drawn from Audit Offices to a fixed percentage constitute discrimination violating Article 16 of the Constitution.
Whether such directions amount to an amendment of the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 and thus exceed the Director‑General’s authority.
Whether the provision in Column 10 of Item 3 of the Schedule (ten years’ service for Audit‑Office UDCs versus five years for others) is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to promotion based on seniority‑cum‑fitness irrespective of source of recruitment.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 16, s. Article 309, s. Article 32
Indian Posts & Telegraphs (Clerks in Savings Bank Control and Internal Check Organisation) Recruitment Rules, 1969s. Column 10 of Item 3 of Schedule, s. Rule 4

Subjects

discriminationequalityArticle 16public service promotionrecruitment rulesadministrative lawconstitutional lawservice lawseniority‑cum‑fitness

Judgment

971

S. L. SACHDEV & ANR. A

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
October 28, 1980 B
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A. C. GUPTA, J.]

Constitution of India, Articles 16, 309 and 32 & The l11dia11 Post.v &
Telegraphs (Clerks in Savi11gs Bank Control and /llfernal Check Organisation)
Recruirment Rules 1969, Rule 4 and Item 3, Column 10 of Schedule-Provision
that UDCs drawn from Audit Offices being eligible for promotion to se/ectio11
Grade on basis of 15% of Posts Head Clerks on basis of 20 ~~ of post.~ held c
by them in SBCO-JCO-Validity o.f.
Dinctor-General in exercise of powers--Rules made by the President u11der
Article 309-Whether cna issue direction which is inconsistent wi:h the
recruitment rules.
The Government of India created the Savin~s Bank Control Organisation
and Savings Bank Check Organisation (SBCO-ICO). Amongst those who were D
invited to opt for service in the said organisation were UDCs in the Audit
Offices, LDCs who had qualified for promotion to the UDC cadre in the
Audit Office·s. employees under the Post Master General and those from
amongst the Time Scale Clerks in the P & T Accounts Organisation.
By a letter dated May 15, 1964 the P & T Board informed all the Heads
of the Circles that the 'anction of the President of India was obtained to the E
conversion of 10% posts in the cadre of UDC11 in the SBCO-ICO into Selection
Grade UDCs. But, by his Jetter dated May 29, 1965 addressed to all Heads
of P & T Cirlces, the Director.-General, Po't & lfel~graphs modified the policy
of reservation of 10% of the post ·in the cadre of UDCs in the Selection Grade
by directing, that the total number of Selection Grade Posts available for the
UDCs who came from the Audit Offices should be 10 of the total number
Audit Office UDCs working in any particular circle of the Organisation. F
On January 22, 1968, the Indian Poits & Telegraphs (Clerks in Savings
Bank Control and Internal Check Organisation) Recruitment Rules, 1969 were
framed regulating the recruitment to the cadre of UDCs and other posts in
the SBCO-ICO. Col. 10 of Item 3 of the Schedule to the Rules provides that
the appointment to the Selection Grade will be made from amongst UDCs
with JO years of serfice in that grade in case of Audit Office 5taff, or with
five years' service in that grade in case of other UDCs. Later, the Supervisory G
Cadre in the SBCO-ICO was recognised. Creating a cadre of Head Clerks in
place of the Selection Grade posts and fixing the number of posts in the said
cadre at 20 % of the posts of UDCi. By letter dated May 16, 1965, the
Director General howeTer, clarified the po,ition by saying that "u.1der the
new scheme the audit office UDCs will get the post of Head Clerks to the
extent of 20 % of their strength instead of 10% as at present. The remaining
posts of Head Clerks will go to the non-audit UDCs".
H
..,
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.i

A The two petitioners who belonged to the P & T Audit O'fices and had
qualified 'the departmental examination for promotion as UDCs, joined the
SBCO-ICO as UDCs. They challenged the classification vf UDCs for the
purposes of promotion to the Selection Grade/Head Clerks cadre on the basis
of the sources from which they were drawn and the limiting of the promo-
tiopal posts available to them to 10 % in the case of Selection Grade post and
20% in the case of Head Clerk posts thereby resulting in promotion of their
B Juniors who had joined the organisation from the P & T Offices, as
discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable. According to them the only
criterion for promotion from amongst the UDCs in the SBCO-lCO could be
the length of service in the cadre of UDCs, ~ubject to fitness: The provision
in Column 10 of Item 3 of the Schedule to the Recruitment R ules of 1969 'Iii
was also challenged. 1
C The respondents argued that persons drawn from different sources were
not integrated into a common service and therefore different rules of promotion
could be applied to the two classes and that the directive of the Director-
General was aimed at further and better implementation of the Recruitment
Rules.
Partly allowing the petition.
HELD I. The D irections issued by Respondent 2 by his letters dated May
D
16, 1975 and May 29, 1965 that UDCs drawn from the Audit Offices will be
eligible for promotion to the Selection Grade on the basis of 10% of the
posts or to the Head Clerks cadre on the basis of 20% of the post~. held
by them in SBCO-ICO are quashed. [979 E-FJ
The petitioners and the other UDCs will be entitled equaily to promotional
opportunities. They and othr!rs similarly situated as them shall be promoted
E to the Selection Grade/ Hr!ad Clerks C adre. with effect from the dates on which
they were due for promotion by applying the test of seniority-cum-fitness.
(979 F-G]
2. The policy adopted by respondent 2 is discriminatory and unreasonable.
Apart from the injustice in specific cases where UDCs drawn from the Audit
Offices are attached to comparatively smaller circles, the classification made for
the purpose of determining the promotional opportunities seems unreasonable
F and arbitrary. Since: under the impugned directions, the number of Selection
Grade/ Head Clerks has to be 10% of the number of UDCs drawn from the
Audit Offices, no promotional opportunities at all would be available to them
in certain circles in which less than 10 UDCs drawn from the Audit Offices
are working. These persons, for a purely fortuitous reason, will be denied
for ever all promotional opportunities. That seems wholly indefensible.
[976G, 977B-FJ .
3. The duties, functions and responsibilitie.s of all the UDCs being identica l,
there is no reason why different tes.ts should be prescribed for determining
their respective promotional opportunities and that too solely in reference to
the source from which they are drawn. The test of educational qualifications
can conceivably be an intelligible difEerentia bearing nexus with the object of
ensuring greater efficiency in public -services. But once a cadre is formed by
H recruiting persons drawn from different departments of the Government, there
would normally be no justification for discriminating between them by subjec-
ting one class to more onerous tenns in the matter of promotional chances.
The impugned directives are therefore unconstitutional. [977G-H, 978A-B]
s. L. SACHDEV & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA (Chandrachud J.) 973

Balakrishnan v. Compt.roller & Auditor General of India, 1976 Kera/a Law A
Times 401 & C. K . Krishnamurthy v. Director General P & T 1978 Karnataka
Law Journal 355, affirmed. ·

>- V. Subramanyam v. The Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, New
Delhi wP 3935/75 decided on 18th November 1978 & V. S. Rajagopalan v.
Post Master General WP 3796/75 decided on 24th November 1976, reversed.

4. No one can issue. a direction which , in substance and effect, amounts B
to an amendment of the Rules made by the President under Article 309. The
Recruitment Rules of 1969 do not provide for the kind of classification which
is made by the Director General by his . letters to the Heads of respective
~...:Circles of the new organisation. They only provide for classification on the
· basis of length of service in the new organisation. Any directive which goes
beyond it and superimposes a new criterion on the rules will be bad as Jacking
in jurisdiction. [978B-E] .C

5. The distinction made between the two clas~es of UDCs, in the context
of the length of their service for the purposes of promotion is not arbitrary
-0r unreasonable. The staff of the Audit Offices which was engaged in the .
Savings Bank's work might well have faced retrenchment. ·Instead of subjecting
them to that hardship, they were given the option of joining the new
-0rganisation. Experience-wise also, there would appear to be fair justification D
for requiring them to put in longer service in the new organisation before
the·Y are eligible for promotion to the higher grade. The provision in· Col. 10 .
of Item 3 of Schedule to the Recruitment Rules 1969 is therefore upheld.
{~79C-E]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 267 of 1979
E
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)

E. X. Joseph and N . S. Das Bahl for the Petitioners.
L. N. Sinha, Att. Genl. of India and Hardayal Hardy for RR
1 to 4.
S. L. Aneja for RR 5-10 and 13 . F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, c. J.-This is a Writ Petition under Article 32
Qf the Constitution by which the petitioners ask flor an appropriate
writ quashing the orders dated May 29, 1965 and May 16, 1975
issued by '.Respondent 2, the Director General of Posts and Tele- G
graphs, New Delhi, and for striking down tqe provisions in Col. 10
-0f the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 1969.
Petitioner 1 joined the Posts and Telegraphs Audit Office of the
Government of India at Delhi on July 31, 1956 as a Lower Division.
Clerk. In 1961 he qualified in the departmental examination for H
promotion as an Upper Division Clerk. On May 4, 1962 he joined
the Savings Bank Control Organisation and Savings Bank Internal
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1981J 1 s.c§
A Check Organisation (SBCO-ICO), as an Upper Division Clerk.
Petitioner 2 joined the P and T Audit Office at Madras on June 3,
1950 as a Lower Division Clerk. On passing the departmental exa-
mination he was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk on September
10, 1.958. He joined SBCO-ICO on April 1, 1963 in the sam~
capacity. He is due to retire on October 31, 1980.
B
Respondent 1 to the Writ Petition is the Union of India,
Respondent 2 is the Director General of P & T and Respondents 3
and 4 are the Post Master Generals of the Delhi Circle and the
Tamil Nadu Circle respectively. Respondents 5 to 13,.though junior
to Petitioner 1 in the Delhi Circle, have been promoted as Selection
c Grade Clerks/ Head Clerks in supersession of him. Respondents 14
to 47, though junior to Petitioner 2 ~n the Tamil Nadu Circle, have
been promoted as Selection Grade Clerks/Head Clerks in superse:5-
sion of him. The petitioners, in effect challenge their supersession
to the post of Selection Grade Clerks/Head Clerks.

D Until the year 1961, the Savings Bank w.ork of the post office
was under the supervision and control of the Indian Audit and Accounts
Department of which the ~omptroller and Auditor General of India
is the Head. The branches of the Indian Audit and Accounts
Department doing the Savings Bank. work and the work of auditing
P & T accounts wern called P & T Audit Offices.
E The Government of India having decided that the Savings Bank
work iihould be taken over by the P & T Department, the audit offices
were relieved of that responsibility by stages during the years 1961
to 1964 and a new Organisation called the Saving:! Bank Control
Organisation and Savings Bank Internal Check Organisation (SBCO-
ICO) was created on May 4, 1962. With the setting up of that
F organisation, volunteers were given the option of joining it. Amongst
those who were thus invited to opt for service in the new Organi-
sation were Upper Division Clerks in the Audit Offices, Lower Divi-
iion Clerks who had qualified for promotion to the Upper Division
Clerks' cadre in the audit offices, employees under the Post Master
G
General and lastly those from amongst the time-scale clerks in t:· e
P & T Accounts Organisation. Employees belonging to the aforesaid
department~ who opted for service in the new Organisation were-
transferred thereto in the interest of public serv1ct;.
In the audit department, 10% of the sanctioned strength of the
posts of Upper Division Clerks were in the Selection Grade and
H promotion to those posts was made on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness. By a letter dated May 15, 1964 the P & T Board informed
aU the Heads of Circles that the sanction of the Presidtnt. was obtained
;. L. SACHDEV & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA (Chandrachud J.) 975

to the conversion of 10% posts in the cadre of UDCs in the SBCO- A
ICO into Selection Grade UDCs. But, by the impugned letter No.
56/ 4/65-SPB-I dated May 29, 1965 addressed to all Heads of
P & T Circles, the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs modified
the policy of reservation of 10% of the posts in the cadre of UDCs
in the Selection Grade by directing, that the total number of Selection
Grade posts available for the UDCs who came from the Audi~ Offices B
should be 10% of the total number of Audit Office UDCs working in
any particular Circle of the Organisation. Thus, whereas, under the
original intendment, it the total number of posts in the cadre .of
UDCs in the· new Organisation was i 00, 10 posts were available in
the Selection Grade for all the UDCs, under the new policy if, out
of the total strength of 100, 40 posts were occupied by UDCs who c
had come from the Audit Offices, they would, as amongst themselves,
be entitled to four posts only in the Selection Grade. Under the
new dispensation, the test is how many UDCs from Audit Offices
are working in the Circle, not what is the total strength of the UDC
cadre in the Circle. D
On January 22, 1968, the President of India, acting in exercise
of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, framed rules
regulating .the recruitment to the cadre of UDCs and other posts in the
SBCO-ICO. The rules are called "The Indian Posts & Telegraphs
(Clerks in Savings Bank Control and Internal Check Organisation)
Recruitment Rules, 1969". Brevity is obviously indicated and, for E
its sake, we will refer t'o these rules as the Recruitment Rules, 1969.
Rule 4 provides that the method of recruitment to t~e various posts,
the age limit,. qualifications e~c . shall be as specified in Column5 4
to 12 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Column 4 of the Sche-
dule provides that the post of Selection Grade UDC is a non-Selection
post. Column 9 provides that recruitment of Selection Grade UDC~
F
will be exclusively by promotion. Column 10 provides that the
appointment to the Selection Grade will be made from amongst Upper
Division Clerks with 10 years of service in !hat grade in cast: of
Audit Office Staff, or with five years service in that grade in case of
other Upper Division Clerks. This is one of the provisions of the
G
Rules which is challenged as being discriminatory.
On the ba~is of the recommendations made by the Third Pay
Commission, the Supervisory Cadre in the SBCO-ICO was reorgani5-
ed with a view to providing better promotional avenues to the mem-
bers of the staff. Accordingly, the Director General issued instruc-
tions by his Iette1; dated April 10, 1975 that the existing provision H
relating to the Selection Grade Posts w~ll be replaced by ihe creation
of a cadre of Head Clerks and that the number of posts in the said
97,6 SllPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 s.c
'
A cadre of Head Clerks will be fix ed at 20 per cent of the posts
of UDCs. By another letter dated May 16, 1975 the Director General
clarified this position by saying :

"Under the new scheme the audit office UDCs witl get the
posts of Head .Clerks to the extent of 20% of their strength
B instead of 10% as at present. The remaining posts of Head
Clerks will go to the non-audit UDCs."

·This is the other of the two impugned letters.

The petitioners contend that the classification of the Upper
c Division Clerks for the purpose of promotion to the Selection Grade/
Head Clerks Cadre, on the basis of the sources from which they
are drawn and the limiting of the promotional posts available to
them to 10% in the case of Selection Grade Posts and 20% in the
case of the posts of the Head Clerks has resulted in stagnation of
the UDCs., who joined the new organisation from the Audit Offices.
D The petitioners' grievance is that UDCs. who joined that organi-
sation from the P & T offices and who were junior to them in terms
of the length of service in the U.D.C. cadre have been already pro-
moted to the Selection Grade/ Head Clerks cadre. This classification
of the U.D.Cs. of the SBCO-ICO into two groups for the purpose
of promotion on the basis of the sources from which they are drawn
E is challenged by the petitioners as discriminatory, arbitrary and un-
reasonable. According to them, since the promotional post is a non-
selection post, the only criterion for promotion from amongst the
U.D.Cs. in the SBCO-ICO can be the length of service in the cadre
of U .D.Cs., subject to fitness.
F Shri E. X. Joseph, who appears on behalf of the petitioners has
made a very neat argument, focu ssing with the help of telling illustra-
tions the injustice which has been done to the petitioners a'nd . to
those similarly situated. The learned Attorney Gen.eral who appears
for the Union of India and Shri Aneja who appears for the U.D.Cs.
drawn from ~he other departments, have attempted to meet Shri
G Joseph's argument but we are left in no doubt that the policy adopt-
ed by the Union of India is discriminatory and unreasonable.
Though it appears pr irna facie that U .D.Cs. in SBCO-ICO were drawn
from four different sources, the sources are really two and not four.
U .D.Cs. in that organisation were appointed from amongst those who
were previously serving in the Audit Offices and secondly from
H amongst the other employees of the P & T Department.
The recruitment rules of 1969 make a classification amongst the
U.D.Cs. by providing that in so far as the U.D.Cs. drawn from the
,. s. L. SACHDEV & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA (Chandrachud /.) 977

Audit Offices are concerned they will be eligible for promotion to the A
Selection Grade/ Head Clerks Cadre after they put in a service of IO
years in the new organisation. In regard to the U.D.Cs. drawn from
the P and T Department, the rules provide that tqey will be eligible
for such promotion on completing five years' service only. Bearing
in mind that the posts in the Selection Grade/Head Clerks Cadre are
non-selection posts to which appointments are made by the test of B
seniority-cum-fitness, that is the farthest limit to which classification
of the U.D.Cs. for the purpose of promotion could be carried.

It is difficult to appreciate rthe logic or the principle behind
the direction that ~lie Selection Grade Posts or the posts
of Head Clerks which will be available to the U.D.Cs. drawn c
from the Audit Offices win be determined on the basis of the existing
strength, at any given time, of such Clerks in the particular circle.
Since, unqer the impugned directions, the number of Selection Grade
Posts/ Head Clerks has to be 10% of the number of U.D.Cs. drawn
from the Audit Offices, no promotional opportunities at all will be
D
available to them in ceqain circles in which less than 10 U.D.Cs.
drawn ·from the Audit Offices are working. It is indisputable that,
according to the impugned directive, there have to be at least t~
persons draw n from the Audit Officers in a Circle, in order that at least
one promotional post may become available to them. We are inform-
ed, which again is no~ disputed, that in some small Circles, less than
10 U.D.Cs. drawn from the Audit Offices are \l{orking in the new
organisation. These persons, for a purely fortuitous reason, will bo
denied for ever all promotional opportunities. Tha! seems to us wholly
indefensible.

Apart from the injustice in specific cases where U.D.Cs. drawn F
from the Audit Offices are attached to comparatively smaller Circles,
the classification made for the purpose of determining the promotional
opportunities seems to us unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contend-
ed by the learned· Attorney General that persons drawn from different
sources were not integrated into a common service in the instant
case and therefore different rules of promotion can be applied to G
the two classes. We are unable to accept this contention. Tho
duties, functions and responsibilities ot alt the U.D.Cs. in the new
organisation are identical. They are all in the same cadre and they
draw the same pay in the same grade. There is no reason then why
different tests should be prescribed for determining their respectivo
promotional opportunities, and that too solely in reference to thit H
source from which they are drawn. The test of educational qualifi.-
cations can conceivable be an intelligible difierentia bearing nexus
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . . f1981J 1 s.cl
-~

A with the object of ensuring greater efficiency in public services. But
once a cadre is formed by recruiting persoru drawn from different
departments of the Government, there would normally be no justifi-
cation for discriminating between them by subjecting one class to
more onerous terms in the matter of promotional chances. The
impugned directives are therefore unconstitutional.
B
Apart from this consideration, we are unable to understand how
the Director General could issue any directive which is inconsistent
with the Recruitment Rules of 1969 framed by the President in'
the exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Those rules do not p·rovide for the kind of classitication which is made
C by the Director General by his letters to the Heads of respective
Circles of the new organisation. It may be recalled t.hat the Recruit-
ment Rules only provide for a classification on the basis of the
length of service in the new organisation. Any directive which goes
beyond it and superimposes a new criterion on the Rules will be
bad as lacking in jurisdiction. No .one can issue a direction which, .
D in substance and effect, amounts to an amendment of the Rules made ·
by the President under Article 309. That is elementary. We are:
unable to accept the learned Attorney General's submis5ibn that the •
directive of the Direct.or General is aimed at further and better
implementation of the Recruitment Rules. Clearly, it introduees an
amendment to the R'Ules by prescribing one more test for determining
E whether U.D.Cs. drawn from the Audit Offices are eli2ible for pro-
motion to the Selection grade/Head Clerks Cadre.
The High Court of Kerala in· Balakrishnan v. Comptroller &
Auditor General of lndia( 1 ) and the High Court of Karnataka in
Krishnamurthy C. K. v. Director General, P & T(~) have strnck
F down the impugned directions issued by the Director . General P & T
on the ground that they are discriminatory and therefore unconstitu-
tional. These decisions of the Kerala and the Karnataka High Courts
are correct. In fact, it is significant that the Union of India did not·
file any appeal against ~hose decisions ·and has acquiesced in them ..
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in V. Subranum.yam v. The
G Director General of Posts and Telegraph.$, New Delhi(') and the
High Court of Madras in V. S. Rajagopalan v. Post Master
General(4.) seem to have rejected the writ petitions filed before them
by persons similarly situated as the petitioners, by holding that no
(1) 1976 Keraia Law Times 401.
H (2) 1978 (!) Karnataka Law Journal 355.
(3) WP 3935/75 4ccided oo 18-11-76.
(4) WP 3796/75 decided on 24-11-76.
, s. L. SAC!IDEV & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA (Chandrachud J.) 979

discrimination was involved in fixing separate quotas for the purpose A
of promotion betwe_en the U.D.Cs. drawn from the Audit Offices
and the· other U.D.Cs. With respect, we consider the decisions of
the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madras as incorrect.

-The petitioners have also challenged the provision in Column 10
of item 3 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules of 1969 which n
provides that U.D.Cs. drawn from Audit Offices must put in 10 years
of service for acquiring eligibility for promotion whereas other
U.D.Cs. are eligible for promotion after putting in 5 years' service.
We are not inclined to entertain that challenge since the impugned
provision has been in force since 1969 and it was not until the filing
·of this petition in 1979 that any objection was taken to its legality. c
Besides, we are of the opinion that considering the history leading
to the formation of the new organisation, SBCO-ICO, the distinction
made between the two classes of U.D.Cs. in the context of the length
of their service for the purposes of promotion is not arbitrary or
unreasonable. The staff of the Audit Offices which was engaged in D
the Savings Bank's work might well have faoed retrenchment. Instead ---._
of subje_cting them to that hardship, they were given the option-
of joining the new organisation.. Experience-wise also, there would
appear to be fair justification for requiring them to put in longer
service in the riew organisation before they are eligible-- for promotion
to the higher grade. That challenge has therefore to be repelled. E
In the result, we allow the writ petition partly and quash the
directions issued by respondent 2 by his letters of May 16, 1975 and
May 29, 1965 to the effect that U.D.Cs. drawn from the Audit Offices
will be eligible for promotion to the Selection Grade on the _basis of
10 per cent of the posts held by them or to the Head Clerks' Cadr;: F
on the basis of 20 per cent of the posts held by them in SBCO-ICO.
They and the. other U.D.Cs. will accordingly be entitled equally to
promotional opportunities. We direct that the petitioners, and others
similarly situated as them, shall be promoted to the Selection Grade/
Head Clerks Cadre with effect from the dates on which they were
due for promotion, by applying the test of seniority-cum-fitness. Since · G
we have upheld the provision in Column 10 of item 3 of the Schedule
to the Recruitment Rules, 1969, the petitioners will have become
. eligible for promotion after completing IO years' service in SBCO-
ICO. Since the demotion of the respondents or any of them is likely ~I

to lead to undue hardship to them and to some administrative confu-
sion, \he Gove=ent may create supernumerary posts to_ which the H
• petitioners and others similarly situated as them, may be promoted .
We are informed that consequent upon the judgments of !he High
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 s.c.R1

A Cour!s of Kerala and Karnataka, the Government has adopted a•
similar course in the Kerala and Karnataka Circles. ,
The Writ Petition thus succeeds partly. The petitioners will be
entitled to their costs from the first respondent, the Union of India.
NKA Petition partly allowed.
B