Holding

The classification of Directorate and subordinate office employees into separate cadres under the Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules, 1933 is valid and not arbitrary, so no common seniority is required.

Summary

The appellants, employees of the subordinate offices of the Directorates of Agriculture in Punjab and Haryana, sought a direction that they be treated on par with Directorate employees by maintaining a common seniority, arguing that their qualifications, pay scales and selection processes were identical. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined the Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules, 1933, which expressly distinguish between the Directorate and subordinate offices as separate cadres, with the subordinate cadre sometimes serving as a feeder for promotion. It held that the government may constitutionally create distinct cadres for administrative convenience and that such classification is not arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to common seniority, and the appeals were dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether employees of the Directorate of Agriculture and subordinate offices constitute a single cadre for the purpose of common seniority under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the classification of these employees into separate cadres under the Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules, 1933 is arbitrary or discriminatory.
Whether the appointing authority's discretion in appointments was exercised in violation of the rule of law.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules, 1933s. Rule 10, s. Rule 3, s. Rule 4, s. Rule 7, s. Rule 9

Subjects

Articles 14Articles 16senioritycadreservice rulesPunjab Subordinate Agricultural Serviceadministrative discretionrule of lawappointmentcommon senioritysubordinate officesDirectorate of Agriculture

Judgment

SOM RAJ AND ORS. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.

FEBRUARY 23, 1990

[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND B
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16 Service Law-
Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service-Directorates of Agriculture
-Subordinate Offices-Employees non-maintenance of common
seniority-Held not arbitrary.
c
Civil Services-Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules,
1933: Rules
- -
3, 4, 7,- 9, IO-Appendix-Sections 6 and 7-Directoratespf
Agriculture (Head Office)-Subordinate Offices--,Ministerial service-
Employees-Whether entitled for common seniority.
D
Administratiye Law-Executive authority-Discretion-Must be
guided by law.
-l Rule of Law-Absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate.

Service Law-Selection list-Employer has no power and discre- E
tion to pick and choose candidates-Appointment should be in order of
merit.

'Cadre'-Government can constitute different cadres in any
particular servce-Head_Office-Subordinate office-maintenance of
common cadre not necessary. F

The al'l"'llants/ belonging to the- ministerial
---
service in the subor-
-
dinate offices of the Directorates of Agriculture of the States of Punjab
and Haryana filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court
seeking_ a direction that subordinate offices and the Directorates should
be treated as one unit and common seniority of all the employees should G
be maintained. The High Court dismissed the petitions. Hence these
appeals by special leave.

In these appeals it was contended that the appellants are entitled.to
common seniority with their counterparts in the Directorates because
their service conditions, pay scales and qualificatio'ns were same. In H

535
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) I S.C.R.

A order to show similarity with their counterparts in the Directorates it
was also pointed out that though a common selection was made for
Directorates and subordinate offices yet the appointing authority
picked up some candidates out of the select list and appointed them in
the Directorates thereby deviating from the order of merit prepared by
the Selection Board.
B
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: J. The Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules
1933 themselves made a distinction between the persons appointed in
the Directorate and the Subordinate Offices as separate cadres and the
subordinate cadre in some cases is the feeder cadre for promotion to the
c post in the Head Office. In this view by no stretch of imagination, the
appellants can be considered to be equally placed for treating them at
par with the Directorate employees for being treated as being in a
common cadre. There is reasonable nexus to differentiate the two
cadres. Therefore, the classification can not be said to be arbitrary
D violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [543A-B)

I. I The fact that the office of the Directorate and the subordinate
offices have been compendiously shown in section 6 of the Appendix to
Rules does not by itself mean that office of the Directorate and Subor-
dinate Offices are treated under the rules as one unit or at par. [542A)
E
2. It is open to the Government to constitute different cadres in
any particular service as it may choose according to its administrative
convenience and expediency. [54lE)

2.1 The office of the Director is the apex office obviously to con- 'y
F trol and oversee the functioning of the subordinate offices and the other
allied departments under his control monitoring the implementation of
the Government's agricultural programmes. It may not be necessary to
maintain a common cadre of the employees of the Directorate and the
Subordinate offices. Each cadre is a separate service or a part of the
service sanctioned for administrative expediency. Therefore, each may
G be a separate unit and the posts allocated to the cadre may be per-
manent or temporary. [541F-G] 't-·
2.2 Accordingly the appellants are not entitled to be treated at
par with the employees working in the respective Directorates for giving
direction to the respondents to maintain common seniority between the
H employees of the Directorate and Subordinate Offices. [543D I
SOM RAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 537

3. Normally the order of appointment would be in the order of
merit of candidates from the list and must be in accordance with rules.
A
The exercise of power should not be arbitrary. The absence of arbitrary
power is the first postulate of rule of law upon which our whole con-
stitutional edifice is based. In a system governed by Rule of Law, discre-
tion when conferred upon. an executive authority must be confined
within clearly defined limits. The rules provide the guidance for exer- B
cise of the discretion in making appointment from out of selection lists
which was prepared on the basis of the performance and position
obtained at the selection. The appointing authority is to make appoint-
., ment in the order of gradation, subject, to any other relevant rules like,
rotation or reservation, if any, or any other valid and binding rules or
instructions having force of law. If the discretion is exercised without
any principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the anti- c
thesis of Rule of Law. [542D-E, Fl

3.1 Discretion means sound discretion guided by law or governed
by known principles of rules, not by whim or fancy or caprice of the
authority. [542G I D

'f.l CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
--~ 3221/82 and 3524 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.1980 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 677/79 and 97/79. E

P.P. Rao and C.M. Nayar for the Appellants in both the appeals.

N.S. Das Behl for the Respondent in C.A. No. 3524 of 1983.

Awadh Behari Rohtagi, Mahabir Singh, A.G. Prasad and Prem F
Malhotra for the state of Haryana.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. I. Since common questions of facts and
law arise for decision in these two appeals, they are disposed of by a G
-'""\ common judgment. Civil Appeal No. 3221/82 and Civil Appeal
No. 3524/83 arise out of the common judgment in Civil Writ Petition
Nos. 677/79 and 97/79 and a few other petitions dated May 2, 1980, on
the file of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The writ
petitions were dismissed and the appellants had leave of this court
under Article 136 of the Constitution. The facts lie on a short compass H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A and reference to the facts on record in Civil Writ No. 97 of 1979 are y
sufficient for disposal of these appeals. Writ Petition No. 97 of 1979
relates to Punjab service while Civil Writ Petition No. 677/79 relates to
Haryana.

2. The appellants were direct recruits to the ministerial services
B in the subordinate offices of the Directorates of Agriculture of the
respective states. Admittedly all are governed by Punjab Subordinate
Agricultural Service Rules 1933, for short 'rules'. The respective state
Governments upgraded on February 8, 1979 offices of the Directorates
as 'A' Class and the Subordinate Offices situated elsewhere remained
as 'B' Class. The appellants and other filed writ petitions on February
26, 1976 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to
C upgrade the Subordinate Offices of the Department of Agriculture as
'A' Class; to treat the appellants on par with the similar employees
working in the office of the Directorates of Agriculture; treat the
Directorate of Agriculture and Subordinate Offices as one department
for maintaining common seniority of all of them; to upgrade their
O scales of pay on the basis of the said seniority and to quash the order
dated February 8, 1979 declaring the Directorate as 'A' Class as wholly
arbitrary and discriminatory. Pending appeals, the respective Govern-
ments by proceedings dated March 2, 1982 classified the Directorate
and Subordinate Offices as 'A' Class. The Government have also
accorded equal pay to the employees similarly situated. Therefore, the
l)l only question that survives to be resolved is whether the Subordinate
Offices and the Directorate would be treated as one unit and common
seniority of all the employees should be maintained.

3. Shri P.P. Rao and Shri C.M. Nayyar, learned counsel for the
appellants in the respective appeals contended that the appellants Y
If were selected along with the persons appointed in the office of the
respective Directorates. They possessed the same qualifications; their
scales of pay are now the same. Their service conditions are also the
same under the rules, and therefore, they are entitled to maintenance
of common seniority for the purpose of promotion. It is seen that the
appointments were made somewhere in 1973. From the list produced
G before us in Civil Appeal No. 3221/82 relating to the State ofHaryana,
among the persons selected by the Recruitment Board, though some 'r-
of the persons are found to have secured higher ranking in the list
prepared by the Selection Board, they were appointed to the Subor-
. dinate Offices while persons below them, in ranking were appointed in
the Directorate. When we enquired from the counsel for the State Shri
lfl Rohtagi, the learned Senior Counsel has produced before us the not-
SOM RAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA [K. RAMASWAMY, J.l 539

~ ings which show that the Director had taken five of them, one of whom
had secured first class in Matriculation, two ex-service candidates and
two candidates who secured higher percentage of marks at the qualify-
ing matriculation examination. In the view we are taking this solitary
circumstances does not militate against the ultimate conclusion that we
have reached in the matter. Admittedly, rule 3 of the rules provides
1--: that the service shall consist of seven sections and in each section there
B
shall be such number of posts whether permanent or temporary of
each grade specified in the appendix as the Local Government from
time to time may determine. Under rule 4(1) the Director of Agri-
culture shall make appointment to all the posts in the service except
the post of Junior Clerks, other than those sanctioned for Head Office,
Mukaddams and the posts shown under Section 7 of the appendix. All c
other appointments shall be made by the Head Office concerned, vide
rule 4(2). Rule 7 prescribes the method of recruitment. Rule 7(1)(I)
specifies thus:

"'In the case of Superintendent, Office of the Director-
D
(i) by promotion from the amongst the Head Assistants
employed in the office, or

(ii) by selection from amongst Superintendents or Head
Assistants with at least five years clerical experience in
other Government office." E
;

-..., Rule 7( i)(J) read thus:

"'In the case of Head Assistant-

( i) by promotion from amongst Assistant and Stenograp- F
hers with clerical experience who have proved their fitness
for the appointment, or

(ii) by selection from amongst. clerks employed in the
office of Government other than the office of the
Director." G

Rule 7( i)(K):

"In the case of Superintendent or Head Clerk of a Subor-
dinate Office-
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] I S.C.R.

(i) by promotion from amongst Senior Clerks who have ~·
A proved their fitness for the post, or '-

(ii) by selection from amongst clerks employed in Govern-
ment Office other than the office in which the post/office is
to be filled."
B
Rule 7(1)(L):

"In the case of Assistant-

(i) by promotion from amongst Senior Clerks in their
respective offices who have proved their fitness for
c appointment to the post; or

(ii) by selection from amongst clerks employed in Govern-
ment Offices other than the office in which the post is to be
filled; or
D
(iii) by direct recruitment-

provided that no graduate not already in Government
service shall be appointed to be an Assistant unless he has
been recommended as fit for appointment by the Punjab
E University Appointment Board."

Sub-rule (2):

"Appointment to any post by the promotion of officials
already in service or by the transfer of officials shall be
F made strictly by selection and no official shall have any
claim to such an appointment as ofright."

The candidates have to undergo probation as provided in Rule 9,
the details of which are not relevant. Rule 10 provides seniority of
members of the service. The seniority of the members in the service
G shall, in each class of appointment shown in the appendix, be
determined by the dates of their substantive appointment on probation r--
or otherwise to a permanent vacancy in such class. The other details
are not necessary. Hence omitted.

4. In the appendix, the office of the Director of Agriculture,
H Section 6 mentions ministerial posts of Superintendent, Head Assis-
SOM RAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 541

tants, Assistants, Stenographers, Senior Clerks, Junior Clerks. Their
varying pay scales have also been mentioned, the details of which are A
now not material. In the Subordinate Offices one Superintendent,
seven Head Clerks and two Senior Clerks are the cadres.

5. A resume of these rules clearly shows that for the appoint-
ment of all the posts including Junior Clerks in the Head Office, the B
appointing authority is the Director. All appointments to the ppst of
Junior Clerks other than Head Office shall be by the concerned Head
Office. As per the appendix, the staffing pattern in the Office of the
Director of Agriculture and the Subordinate Offices is entirely diffe-
rent. The only common element is the Senior Clerks. The seniority is
to be maintained on the basis of the substantive appointment to the
respective cadres. The seniority of the members of the service shall, in c
each class of appointment shown in the appendix be determined by the
date of their substantive appointment or promotion or otherwise to
permanent vacancies in such a class. The method of appointment has
been adumbrated under Rule 7(1)(1) to (L) by promotion from
amongst the persons working in the respective subordinate posts in the D
respective offices in the first instance, or by selection from amongst
persons working in the Government Offices including Subordinate
Offices and in some cases by the direct recruitment. Thereby it is clear
that for filling up the vacancies arising in the post of Superintendent,
Assistants and Senior Clerks, the persons working in the Subordinate
Offices or the Government Offices are the feeder channels, or in some E
; cases by direct recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 makes the matter
clear that they have got right to be considered, but it is strictly by
selection and they have no claim to the appointment as of right. It is
open to the Government to constitute different cadres in any pariicu-
lar service as it may choose according to its admini~trative convenience
and expediency. The office of the Director is the apex office obviously F
to control and oversee the functioning of the subordinate offices and
the other allied departments under his control monitoring the
implementation of the Government's agricultural programmes. It may
,not be necessary to maintain a common cadre of the employees of the
Directorate and the Subordinate Offices. Each cadre is a separate
service or a part of the service sanctioned for administrative expe- G
diency. Therefore, each may be a separate unit and the posts allocated
to the cadre may be permanent or temporary. It is seen from the
appendix that in the office of the Directorate there is one Superinten-
dent, three Head Assistants, four Assistances, two Stenographers,
seven Senior Clerks and twelve Junior Clerks. In the Subordinate
,Offices, there is one Superintendent, seven Head Clerks and two H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A
Senior Clerks. This is obviously on the basis of administrative need.
No doubt the office of the Directorate and the Subordinate Offices
-r
have been compendiously shown in Section 6 of the Appendix. That
does not by itself mean that office of the Directorate and Subordinate
Offices are treated under the rules as one unit or at par. as contended
for by Shri P.P. Rao. As pointed out in the beginning, the Director
a had committed some irregularities at the time of initial appointments
in the year 1973 when he picked up five persons out of the select list of
the candidates and appointed them in the Directorate of Haryana
Government deviating from the order of merit prepared by the Board.
They were selected at a common selection by the Recruitment Board
al6ng with other candidates who stood higher in the order of merit
prepared by the Selection Board. But this was done in the year 1973
C and the appointments have not been challenged till date of filing of the
writ petition in 1979. Even in the writ petition no challenge was made .
.This is pressed into service only to show that the appellants are simi-
larly situated with them. After the appointments were made and the
candidates joined in the respective posts for consideration for promo-
D tion the Rules occupy the field and the claims are to be considered
according to Rule 7. Therefore, though we may not agree with the
learned counsel for the State that the Director had absolute discretion
to pick and choose arbitrarily and make appointment of the posts, yet
undoubtedly, he had power to appoint them. Normally the order of
appointment would be in the order of merit of candidates from the list
IE and must be in accordance with rules. His exercise of power should not
be arbitrary. The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of
rule of law upon which our whole constitutional edifice is based. In a
system governed by Rule of Law, discretion when conferred upon an
executive authority must be confined within clearly defined limits. The
rules provide the guidance for exercise of the discretion in making
F appointment from out of selection lists which was prepared on the
basis of the performance and position obtained at the selection. The
appointing authority is to make appointment in the order of gradation,
subject to any other relevant rules like, rotation or reservation, if any,
or any other valid and binding rules or instructions having force of law.
If the discretion is exerc:sed without any principle or without any rule,
G it is a situation amounting to the anti-thesis of Rule of Law. Discretion
means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known princi-
ples of rules, not by whim or fancy or caprice of the authority. We
refrain from going into the correctness of the choice made by the
Director due to latches in not assailing the correctness of the appoint-
ment for well over six years. The validity of the rules have not been
1f1 questioned. The only question is, as stated earlier, whether the
SOM RAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA [K. RAMASWAMY, J.J 543

employees working in the Head Office and the Subordinate Office are A
entitled to common seniority. The rules themselves made a distinction
between the persons appointed in the Directorate and the Subordinate
Offices as separate cadres and the subordinate cadre in some cases is
the feeder cadre for promotion to the post in the Head Office. In this
view, by no stretch of imagination, the appellants can be considered to
be equally placed for treating them at par with the Directorate B
employees for being treated as being in a common cadre. There is
reasonable nexus to differentiate the two cadres. Therefore, the clas-
sification cannot be said to be arbitrary violating Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution.

6. It is not necessary to burden the judgment with the decisions c
cited by either counsel as they are not directly or nearer to the core in
the case. Accordingly we hold that the appellants are not entitled to be
treated at par with the employees working in the respective Directo-
rates for giving direction to the respondents to maintain common
seniority between the employees of the Directorate and Subordinate
Offices. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. D

T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.