Holding

Equating posts with equal qualifications and comparable pay scales based on longer service experience is a permissible exercise of rule‑making authority and not unconstitutional.

Summary

The case concerned the validity of amendments to the Indian Meteorological Service (Group A) Recruitment Rules of 1978 and 1983, which broadened the field of consideration for promotion to the post of Meteorological Grade‑I (MG‑I) by equating service experience across different grades (MG‑II and Assistant Meteorologist). The respondents, who were MG‑II officers, challenged the amendments as unconstitutional, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and claiming that unequal posts were being treated as equal. The Central Administrative Tribunal struck down the provisions, but the Supreme Court held that when educational qualifications and pay scales are substantially equal, the rule‑making authority may equate posts based on longer experience without being unreasonable or irrational. The Court emphasized that promotion is a matter of selection, not a right, and that the rule‑making power under Article 309 is not subject to judicial interference unless the rule is wholly unreasonable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and allowed the appeal, upholding the amended recruitment rules.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment equating MG‑II, combined MG‑II/AM service, and AM service for promotion to MG‑I violates the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16.
Whether the amendment is ultra vires the Constitution and the rule‑making power under Article 309.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 16, s. Art. 309

Subjects

service lawpromotionequalityrule‑making authorityConstitutional lawArticle 14Article 16Article 309Indian Meteorological Departmentrecruitment rulesCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
N.Y. APTE AND ORS ..

AUGUST 4, 1998

B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.]

Service Law-Promotion-Equation of posts-To widen the field of
consideration for promotion by prescribing different length of experience
on different posts-Held, permissible, particularly when educational
C qualifications and scales of pay are almost equal-Hence, equating posts
on the basis of longer experience in lower post not irrational or bad-The
equation of posts is matter within the domain of rule-making authority,
unless unreasonable or irrational criterion is followed, the court ought
not to interfere.-Jndian Meteorological Department (Class I and Class II
D )posts Recruitment Rules, 1969-lndian Metoro/ogical Service (Group 'A'
Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1978-Meteorological Service (Group 'A' Posts
) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1983, Constitution of India, Art. 16 &
14 and 309.

The post of Meteorological Grade-I (MG-I) and Meteorological Grade-
E II (MG-II) were class-I Gazetted posts, whereas the post of Asst Meteorological
(AM) was class-II Gazetted posts. All the three posts were selection posts.

The Indian Meteorological Department (class I & class II ) Post
Recruitment Rules, 1969 was partially superseded by the Indian Meteorological
Service (Groups 'A' Post) Recruitment Rules, 1978. The changes are as
F under:
~~

POST 1969 RULES 1978 RULES [CHANGES]
Asst. 50% by promotion No change
Metrologist from professional
AM Asst. And 50% by
G direct recruitment.
Meteorologist 50% by promotion 50% promotion quota
Group-II from Asst. Metrologist from AM abolished.
(MG-II) and 50% by direct 100% by direct
recruitment. recruitment.
H Meteorologist 100% by promotion AM also made eligible
988
U.0.1. v. N.Y. APTE 989
Group-I fromMG-U Critieria for A
(MG-I) promotion
to MG-I
a) 5 year's service as
MG-U,or
b) 8 years
combined service as B
MG-II and AM, or
c) 10 years service
as AM. ( Made to 8
years service by 1983
amendment)
The educational qualification for all the three posts were same and the C
scales of pay were almost equal. The 1978 rules widened the field of
consideration for promotion to the post of MG-I by including persons who had
put in long number of years of service either as AM exclusively or as MG-
11 and AM put together.

Respondent filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid
D
... amendment that the said rules were void and ultra virus the Constitution. The
writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, who
opined that by virtue of the amendment, the post of AM had been equated to
the post of MG-II and thereby unequals were treated as equals and struck
down the said rules as unconstitutional. Hence, this appeal. E
Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : I. When educational qualifications arc same and the scales of
pay are almost equal there is nothing wrong in equating MG-II with five
years' approved service in the grade with MG-II with total of8 years' combined p
approved service in the grades of MG-II and AM, as well as AM with 10
years' approved service in the grade. Mere fact that on account of certain
fortuitous or other circumstances, a person with ,qual educational
qualification entered the service in a lower grade will not keep him
permanently inferior or unequal to a person who had entered in a higher
grade and prevent him from being placed on par with the latter after gaining G
sufficient experience in the service. All that has been done in the Rules is
only to include such persons in the field of consideration and to give an
-. opportunity to them to be considered for promotion. Such promotion is by
selection which is to be considered by a board consisting of high officials
_ in consultation w!th UPSC. There is no justification in respondents' contention
that they have been deprived of their right to promotion. Chances of promotion H
990 SUPREME ,COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A are not a right, nor a condition of service. It is also untenable to say that
unequals have been made equals. The matter regarding equality of posts is
entirely within the domain of rule making authority and unless the rule is
wholly unreasonable and irrational, court will not interfere with same.
[993-D-H]
B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 881 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.92 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Delhi in T. A. No. 16of1990.

Mrs. Niranjana Singh for S.N. Terdol for the Appellants for Union of
C India.

V.A. Mohta, (Suresh Ch. Gupta) for J.D. Jain, for the Respondent Nos.
I, 3-4, 6-7, 11 & 13.

B.S. Charya, S.C. Paul and Ms. Rekha Pandey for the Respondent Nos.
D 2, 5, 9, 12 and 14.
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SRINIVASAN, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
-
striking down the provisions of Indian Meteorological Service (Group A
E posts) Recruitment (amendment) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "1983
Rules") and Indian Meteorological Service (Group A posts) Recruitment Rules,
1978 (hereinafter referred to as "1978 Rules") to the extent indicated in the
order at the instance ofthe respondents herein who joined the Department
as Meteorologists Gr. II in 1981-82. We are concerned in this case with the
F posts of Meteorologists Gr.I, Meteorologists Gr. II and Assistant
Meteorologists. For the sake of convenience we will refer to them as MG-I,
MG-II and AM.

2. In January 1969, Indian Meteorological Department (Class I and Class
11) posts Recruitment Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "1969 Rules")
G were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The posts of MG-I and
MG-II were Class I Gazetted posts whereas the post of AM was Class II
gazetted post. All the three posts were selection posts. The post of MG-I was
to be filed up by promotion of MG-II with three years approved service in
the grade. The post of MG-II was to be filed up by promotion to the extent
of 50% and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment. The promotion was to
H be from AM/Assistant Agricultural Meteorologist/Assistant Seismologist with
U.0.1. v. N.Y. APTE [SRINIVASAN, J.) 991
three years approved service in the grade. The post of AM was to be filled A
up 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. The promotion in turn
was from the post of Professional Assistant (including Foreman),
Superintendent D.G.O's Office, Superintendent D.D.G.O's (Instrument) Office,
and Superintendent D.D.G.O's (Climatology and Geophysics) office. The
educational qualifications for all the three posts were the same, namely, B
Second Class M.Sc Degree in Physics, Statistics, Maths, Applied Physics and
Geo Physics or Second Class M.S.C. degree in Agriculture. As regards the
post of AM the knowledge of German, French or Russian as additional
qualification was mentioned as desirable. The scale of pay for MG-II was
Rs.400-40-800-50-950 whereas the scale of pay for AM was Rs. 350-25-500-
30-590-EB30-800-EB-30-830-35-900. C

3. In October 1978, in partial supersession of 1969 Rules, the President
made the 1978 Rules. Those rules related to MG-II and MG-I and higher posts.
As we are not concerned with higher posts, we are not referring to the same.
Both MG-I and MG-II were Group a Gazetted posts. The post of MG-II was
to be filled up entirely by direct recruitment. The post of MG-I was to be filled D
up by promotion from the post of MG-II with five years approved service in
the grade (excluding the period of training) or with 8 years combined service
in the grades of MG-II and AM or AM with 10 years approved service in the
grade. The selection was to be made in consultation with U.P.S.C. on each
occasion. The educational qualification for both the posts was the same i.e. E
at least Second Class Master Degree in Science or Second class Degree in
Engineering from a recognized University or equivalent. For the post of Mg-
! an additional qualification of five years experience in a responsible capacity
in the field was prescribed. Thus by the 1978 Rules the avenue of promotion
for AM to the post of MG-II was closed. In lieu of that AM with ten years
approved service in the grade and MG-II with 8 years combined approved F
service in the grades of MG-II and AM were included in the filed of
consideration for promotion to the post of MG-I alongwith MG-II with five
years approved service in the grade.

4. The respondents herein entered service as MG-II by direct recruitment G
in 1981/82 as per the 1978 Rules. In June 1983, the 1978 Rules were amended
whereby the requirement of I 0 years approved service in the grade of AM
for being considered for promotion to the grade of MG-I w~s reduced by two
years. Thus after the amendment of 1983 the post of MG-I can be filled by
promotion ofMG~II with five years approved service in the grade (excluding
the period of training), or MG-II with 8 years combined approved service in H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 998] 3 S.C.R.

A the grade of MG-II and AM or AM with 8 years approved service in the
grade. The note appended to the rule as amended was that the eligibility list
•
for promotion shall be prepared with reference to the date of completion of
the prescribed qualifying service in the respective grade/post.

5. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid amendment made in 1983 the
B respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court at Delhi seeking a declaration
that the said rules were void and ultra vires the constitution and praying for
a direction to the respondents therein to consider them for promotion to the
post of MG-I before considering the case of MG-II who has worked earlier
as AM and further to maintain their inter se seniority upon promotion. That
C writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi after the constitution thereof. The Tribunal opined that by
virtue of the amendment, the post of AM had been equated to the post of
MG-II and thereby unequals were treated as equals. Hence the Tribunal
struck down the said Rules as unconstitutional. Though there was no prayer
in the writ petition with reference to the I 978 Rules, the Tribunal allowed the
D counsel for the respondents to make an oral request for striking down the
relevant provision in the said Rules for the same reason. In the end, the
Tribunal struck down the I 983 Rules and that portion of the I 978 Rules which
provided for promotion to the post of MG-I. The tribunal issued certain
consequential directions while making it clear that the promotions already
E made to the cadre of MG-I before the coming into force of the Notification
of the I 983 Rules in accordance with I 978 Rules shall not be disturbed. It is
that order which is assailed before us now.

6. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.
We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that by the
F amended rules, unequals are treated as equals. Before setting out our reasons,
it is necessary to point out that at the time when the respondents filed the
writ petition before the High Court of Delhi they were not even in the zone
of consideration for promotion to the post of MG-I in fact, the Tribunal has
taken note of the same and observed that they have not earned eligibility for
promotion to the cadre of MG-I as they did not have to their credit five years
G of approved service in the grade as on that date. Thus when the respondents
approached the Court they could not even claim that they had a chance of
promotion at that time. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained
at their instance. In view of the pessage of time, we do not propose to rest
our conclusion on that aspect of the matter.

H 7. We have already pointed out that in 1978 when the 1969 Rules were
U.0.1. v. N. Y. APTE [SRINIVASAN, J.] 993
partially superseded and the posts of MG-I and MG-II were bracketed with A
higher posts all of which were termed as Group A posts, the persons holding
the posts of AM lost their chance of getting promoted to the post of MG-
11 as the same was to be filled up entirely by direct recruitment though they
had the requisite educational qualification. The only promotional avenue
available to them under the 1969 Rules was closed. Necessarily, the rule- B
making authority had to make an alternative provision for such qualified
persons with an avenue of promotion. Hence the 1978 Rules widened the field
of consideration for promotion to the post of MG-I by including persons who
had put in long number of years of service either as AM exclusively or as
MG-II and AM put together. It is obvious that the rule-making authority have
credit to the experience gained by AM either as AM or as AM and MG-II C
for specified number of years. When the educational qualifications are same
and the scales of pay are almost equal, there is nothing wrong in equating
MG-II with five years approved service in the grade with MG-II with total of
8 years combined approved service in the grades of MG-II and AM as well
as AM with IO years approved service in the grade. The mere fact that on
account of certain fortuitous or other circumstances a person with equal D
educational qualification entered the service in a lower grade will not keep him
permanently inferior or unequal to a person who had entered a higher grade
and prevent him from being placed on par with the latter after gaining sufficient
experience in the service.
E
8. Further, what all has been done in the rules is only to include such
persons in the field of consideration and give an opportunity to them to be
considered for promotion. It should not be forgotten that such promotion is
only by selection and that too by a Board consisting of high officials in
consultation with UPSC on each occasion. In such a situation there is no
warrant for the contention of the respondents that they have been deprived F
of any right. It is too well settled that chance of promotion is not a right, nor
a condition of service.

9. There is no merit in the contention that thereby unequals have been
made equals. A person holding the post of MG-II for five years cannot claim G
that a person holding the post of MG-II and AM on a combined service of
8 years is not equal to him; nor can it be said that the person holding the post
of AM for ten years is not equal to either of them. The matter of equation
of posts is entirely within the domain of the rule-making authority and unless
the rule is wholly unreasonable and irrational, the Court will not interfere with
the same. H
I

--1

994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A I 0. There is no basis for the fear expressed by the respondents before
the Tribunal that juniors to them in the cadre of MG-II who had served earlier
as AM in the lower cadre would go above them and be considered for
promotion as MG-I in preference to themselves. There is a fallacy in the
argument. In the 1978 Rules a person holding the post of MG-II as a direct
B recruit becomes eligible for promotion to the post of MG-I only after completing
five years approved service in the grade. From 1978 there could be no
promotion whatever to the post of MG-II. Hence, whoever entered the cadre
of MG-II by promotion could have done so only prior to 1978. Whoever was
thus in service as MG-II at the time when the respondents entered service
as MG-II was undoubtedly senior to the respondents.
c
11. With reference to the amendment brought in 1983, it is obvious that
the same was introduced on the footing that a person holding the post of AM
with 8 years approved service in the grade could be equated to a person in
combined service of 8 years in the posts of MG-II and AM. There is no
difference in the educational qualification and the scales of pay are almost
D equal. If the rule-making authority has thought it fit to equate those posts on
the basis of longer experience in the lower post, we do not find any justification
to interfere with the same. The respondents are not in a position to satisfy
us that MG-II with five years approved service is superior to MG-II with eight
years combined service in the posts of MG-II and AM or AM with eight years
E approved service in the grade.

12. The respondents have placed before us the rules made in 1982
regulating the method of recruitment to Grade B posts of AM. Recruitment
for that post from 1982 is by promotion only. The feeder category is that of
Professional Assistant including Professional Assistant (Foreman) with three
F years regular service in the grade and possessing at least Bachelor Degree
in Science or Diploma in Engineering from a recognized University/Institution
or equivalent or should have successfully completed intermediate training in
Meteorology conducted by India Meteorological Department. The respondents
placed reliance on those rules for the purpose of contending that the essential
G qualification of at least Second Class M.S.C. Degree prescribed for the post
of AM in the 1969 Rules had been done away with. Hence, according to them
AM with longer experience cannot be equated to MG-II.

13. The fallacy in the argument of the respondents is apparent. The
educational qualification for the post of MG-I as per the 1978 Rules arc at
H least Second Class Master Degree in Science or Second Class Degree in
' .

U.0.1. v. N.Y. APTE [SRINIVASAN, J.) 995
Engineering from a recognized University or equivalent plus five years A
• experience in a responsible capacity in the relevant filed. Any person holding
the post of MG-II with five years approved service in the grade or eight years
combined service in the grades of MG-II and AM or AM with eight years
approved service in the grade will be considered for promotion to the post
of MG-I only if such person fulfils the essential qualifications prescribed for B
that post. Hence, there is no substance in the contention that a person
holding the post of AM having been promoted thereto from the post of
Professional Assistant with lesser educational qualification would be equated
to those having the essential qualifications requisite for the post of MG-I

I 4. Looking at the matter from any angle, we do not find any illegality C
or unconstitutionality in the 1978 Rules or the 1983 Rules. consequently,
the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal dated 20.2.92 in T.A.
No. 16190 is hereby set aside. The said T.A. No. 16190 stands dismissed.

B.K.S. Appeal allowed.
D