Holding

The selective encadrement of only DRC posts was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and the Union of India must encadre all seven posts (IO, TIO, DRC) under a common seniority.

Summary

Virendra Krishna Mishra, an Information Officer (IO) in the DANICS cadre, challenged the Cadre Review Committee's decision to encadre only three Deputy Resident Commissioner (DRC) posts while excluding Tourist Information Officer (TIO) and IO posts, alleging violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Central Administrative Tribunal had directed the Union of India to reconsider the exclusion of IOs, a direction upheld by the Calcutta High Court. The Union of India subsequently sought to halt the encadrement process pending review. The Supreme Court examined whether the selective encadrement constituted arbitrary classification without a rational basis. It held that the Committee's action was discriminatory and violated the guarantee of equality, directing the Union to encadre all seven posts (IO, TIO, DRC) under a common seniority list. The appeal was allowed and costs awarded to the petitioner.

Issues considered

The validity of the Cadre Review Committee's selective encadrement of only DRC posts under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the exclusion of Information Officer and Tourist Information Officer posts amounts to arbitrary classification lacking a rational nexus to the object of the rule.
Whether the Union of India should be directed to encadre all seven posts under a common seniority list.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Equality before lawArticle 14EncadrementCivil ServicesDiscriminationClassificationDANICSCadre Review CommitteePromotionSeniority

Judgment

. .

\
~

' ;

(

I
I ~ .'. :' -
, '· , •_-, .• ' • /
-
.-: " .

),
'
[2014) 13 S.C.R. 17
(, '

VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA
' v. .-
UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS -
· (Civil Appeal No. 9979 of 2014)
OCTOBER3°1, 2014' . . .
B
· ···· · [ANIL R: DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 1

l
R. K.AGRAWAL, JJ.] . · - .
. • . -d
· : Service Law - Encadrement oi posts ~ Guarantee
,. . . ' - -- -- ·- ' . .
·against discrimination u/Art.14 of the Constitution-National
J Capital Territory of Delhi; Andaman- and Nicobar Islands, C
Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Civil Services_- Posts 'of Deputy Resident Commissioner
(DRC), Tourist Information Officer (TIO) and Information
Officer (10}- /n status, grade, scale of pay and professional
content, the posts of 10, . TIO and DRC were same - Feeder D
cadre for all the posts was PRO-:- Cadre Review Committee
encadred only, the DRCs, ignoring T/Os and the /Os -
Justification . - Held: Not justified -:- Whole conduct of the
Cadre Review Committee was arbitrary and a blatant
violation of the guaranteed protection of equality u!Art.14 of E
the Constitution - No justification for distinguishing persons
·who are grouped together - If posts of DRC· only are
.encadred, th_e juniors' in the feeder as well as promoted
category will steal a march over their seniors, merely F on
foituitous situation of posting as DRC- Direction issued.to.
the Union of India to encadre all the posts which were treated ·
- ·by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands under a common ·~
seniority ..;. Andaman and Nicobar Administration
(lnformation.Officerin the Directorate of lnfomiatior;i, Publi~ity G
and Tourism) Recruitment Rules, 1988 - Andaman and
Nicobar Administration (Group 'B' Gazetted post of Tourist
Information Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner in
.
.· the. Directorate of Information, Publicity and Tourism)
/,·,

H
17
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A Recruitment Rules, 1997 - Constitution of India. 1950 -
Art. 14.
Fundamental Rights- Right to equality- Held: Cannot
be arbitrarily denied to equals in the absence of a valid
B classification.
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Equality before law and equal protection
of laws is the quintessence of Right to Equality, a
C Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution
of India. Equals cannot be treated unequally, nay, they
are to be treated equally. Right to such equality cannot
be arbitrarily denied to the equals in the absence of a
valid classification. [Para 2][19-F-G]
D
1.2. In the case at hand, one fails to understand, on
elementary principles, as to how the Cadre Review
Committee would encadre only the Deputy Resident
Commissioners (DRCs), ignoring Tourist Information
E Officers (TIOs), leave alone the Information Officers (IOs).
The whole conduct is arbitrary and a blatant violation of
the guaranteed protection of equality under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. [Para 15][31-C-E]

F 1.3. There is no justification for distinguishing
persons who are grouped together. The feeder cadre is
PRO for all the three posts of 10, TIO and DRC. Promotion
is based on seniority. If 3 posts of DRC only are
encadred, the juniors in the feeder as well as promoted
G category will steal a march over their seniors, merely on
fortuitous situation of posting as DRC. People who have
burnt their boats should sail together. Therefore, the
interest of justice would be protected and cause of justice
would be advanced only if a positive direction is issued
H
VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 19

to the Union of India to en cadre all the seven posts which A
are treated by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands under
a common seniority. [Para 17][32-D·G] ··'
Budhan Choudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR
1955 SC 191 : 1955 SCR 1045 - referred to. B
Case Law Reference:
1955 SCR 1045 referred to Para 16 ·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal C
No. 9979 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2012 of the
High Court at Calcutta, circuit at Port Blair, in COCT No. 01 of
2012. .
D
J.S. Attri, Gurukrishana Ku'mar, Sr. Advs., Surajit
Samanta, Sujoy Monda!, S. K. Poddar, Bijan Kumar Ghosh,
Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi Grover (For Ms. Sushma Suri),
Mohan Prasad Gupta, R. Balasubramaniam, D.S. Mahra, B.K.
Prasad,.Hiren Dasar:i; Ms. Shanta Pandye,Avinash Singh, S.K. E
Bhattacharya, D.K. Mishra for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
· 2. Equality before law and equal protection of laws is the
quintessence of Right to Equality, a Fundamental Right
guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Equals cannot be
treated unequally, nay, they are to be treated equally. Right to
such equality cannot be arbitrarily denied to the equals in the G
absence of a valid classification. Had the first respondent borne ·
in mind these elementary principles of one of the most sacred
fundamental rights as indicated above, a long drawn three tier
litigation of the appellant employee could have been averted.
H-
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 3. Andaman and Nicobar Administration (represented
by its various officers, respondent nos. 2 to 5) has been
requesting the first respondent-Union of India in the Ministry
of Home Affairs for encadrement of the post of Information
Officer, Tourist Information Officer and Deputy Resident
B Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 10, TIO and DRC,
respectively) in the National Capital Territory of Delhi; Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu and
Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Services (hereinafter referred
to as DANICS). In Andaman and Nicobar Islands, there are
C three posts of DRC, two posts of TIO and two posts of 10. The
appellant belongs to the 10 cadre. The Cadre Review
Committee recommended encadrement only of three posts
of DRCs and, accordingly, the qovernment vide notification
D dated 01.10.2009, encadred three posts of DR Cs. The
appellant approached the Central Appellant Tribunal, which,
by order dated 31.01.2012, held as follows:
"13 .... The decision of respondents not to include the
post of Information Officer cannot therefore be sustained.
E The UOI is directed to reconsider the matter relating to
their encadrement from the date of notification ....
14 .... The respondents UOI are directed to reconsider
the matter relating to non-inclusion of the post of
F Information Officer in the Schedule I. In case they are
included they will be included wef the date of notification
of revised Schedule I. ... "
(Emphasis supplied)
G 4. The appellant, finding that the directions are not
sufficient enough to protect his interest, moved the High Court
of Calcutta on the Appellate Side leading to the impugned order
dated 14.03.2012. It was held by the High Court as follows:

H
VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 21
[KURIAN, J.]

" ... We are of the considered view that the Tribunal has A
sufficiently protected the interest of the petitioner. The
contention of Mr. Sa manta that the petitioner is an officer
senior to the proforma respondents and if the selection
process for induction of the Deputy Resident
Commissioners in DANICS is not stayed, he may have B
to work asjuniorto them, does not impress us, in view of
the fact the Tribunal ha! directed that in the event the
post of Information Officer is included in Schedule-I of
DANICS, the same shall have effect from the date of
notification of the revised Schedule -I dated 1st October, C
2009. Importantly, while entertaining the original
application the Tr:ibunal had not stayed the selection
process and directed that it would be subject to result of
the original application.
D
Therefore, we find no justification to restrain the official
respondents from proceeding further with induction of the
Deputy Resident Commissioners in DANICS in
accordance with law, but make it clear that any action
taken hereafter in this behalf shall abide by the decision E
to be taken in terms of the Tribunal's order.
We may, however, record ttiat Mr. Das appearing for the
respondent No. 1 has submitted before this Court that
the process of reconsideration as directed by the Tribunal F
would be completed within a period of three months. We
hope and trust that the submission made before this Court
shall be honoured in letter and spirit. ... "
(Emphasis supplied) G
5. Still not satisfied, the appellant approached this Court.
6. On 11.09.2013, this Court passed the following Order:

H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13S.C.R.

A "At the time of hearing of this petition, the learned ASG
appearing for Respondent No. 1 - Union of India has
submitted that the matter is being considered with
regard to the encadrement of the post in question
including Information Officers and Tourist Information
B Officers. It has been further submitted by him that the
process of review shall be expedited.

We wish that the prdcess be concluded by 28th
February, 2014.
c List on 4th March, 2014.
It is clarified that by an order dated 20.04.2012, it
has been recorded that induction of any Deputy Resident
Commissioner to DANICS shall be subject to the final
D result of the petition. This indicates that there is no stay
with regard to the induction of Deputy Resident
Commissioner to DANICS."
(Emphasis supplied)
E
7. In the counter affidavit filed on 27 .07 .2012, the Union
of India has submitted before this Court that:
" ... the Ministry intends to stop the process of
encadrement of DRCs till the final outcome of the present
F SLP, since the very process of en-cadrement is proposed
to be reviewed ... ."
8. The Cadre Review Committee, in its meeting held on
09.01.2014 (Annexure-'C' produced with I.A. No. 11 of 2014),
G took the following decision:
"5. The entire issue of encadrement, relevant rules and
issues pertaining to cadre structure of DANICS was
discussed in detail. The representations given by Officers
for encadrement were also discussed. It was also noted
H
VIRENDRAKRISHNAMISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 23
[KURIAN, J.]

that no court order makes it mandatory to en cadre any A
particular post. After considering the recommendation .
of the A& N Administration, all the grievances in various
OAs/WPs/SLP, directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 11.09.2013, proceedings of the Cadre Review
Committee and all the material on record, it is decided B
to recommend 3 posts of DRCs for encadrement as
decided by the earlier CRC and duly notified. It is also
decided that the request of encadrement of the posts of
IOs/TIOs of A& N Islands and other simila(requests from
other outlying UT segments regarding encadrement of C
posts of DANI CS will be considered as per administrative
requirement, cadre structure and pyramid and the Rules
during the next cadre review..
Sd/- (Anuj Sharma) Sd/-(Kailash Chandra) o
Director (Services) Secretary
(Services)
Sd/- (I S Chahal)
Joint Secretary (UTs)"
(Emphasis supplied) E
9. It is disturbing if not shocking to note that the Cadre
Review Committee has not applied its mind at all to any of the
· relevant aspects. It has virtually ignored the submissions made
on behalf of the Government of India before the High Court F
and this Court and the direction issued by this Court vide Order
dated 11.09.2013.
10. The undisputed factual and legal position is as follows:
a. The finding by the Central Administrative Tribunal that G ·
"The decision of respondents not to include the post
of Information Officer cannot therefore be sustained.
The Union of India is directed to reconsider the matter
relating to their re-cadrement from the date of
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A notification", has not been challenged so far by the
Union of India.

b. Before the High Court, it was submitted that the
process of reconsideration, as directed by the High
B Court, was being done.

c. In the affidavit filed on 27.07.2012 before this Court,
the Union of India has submitted that" ... the Ministry
intends to stop the process of en-cadrement of DRCs
till the final outcome of the present SLP, since the very
c process of en-cadrement is proposed to be reviewed.

d. It was again submitted on behalf of the Union of India
before this Courton 11.09.2013 that ... "the matter is
D being considered with regard to encadrement of posts
in question including the Information Officers and
Tourist Information Officers".
e. That the Andaman and Nicobar Islands maintains a
E common seniority list of the Information Officers, Tourist
Information Officers and Deputy Resident
Commissioners. The final seniority list is of
07.02.2001 and a provisional seniority list thereafter
was published in January 2014 (Annexure-'B' in I.A.
F No.11of2014).
f. Under both Rules, viz., the Andaman and Nicobar
Administration (Information Officer in the Directorate
of Information, Publicity and Tourism) Recruitment
G Rules, 1988 and the Andaman and Nicobar
Administration (Group B Gazetted Post of Tourist
Information Officer and Deputy Resident
Commissioner in the Directorate of Information,
Publicity and Tourism) Recruitment Rules, 1997, the
H
VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 25
[KURIAN, J,]

posts are cla_ssified as Group B Gazetted non- A
ministerial with the same scale of pay.
g. In case, the method of appointment is promotion, it is
from the feeder category of Public Relations Officer,
a common feeder cadre. B
h. The posts are interchangeable. It is the specific stand
. of the administration that the personnel posted at
Kolkatta, Chennai and New Delhi, had to be
designated as Deputy Resident Commissioner only C
since the posts in those places are of the said
category.
i. Rule 4(2) of DANICS, 2003 specifically provides that
the Government may include in the service, such posts
which are equivalent to the posts included in the D
service in status, grade, scale of pay and professional
_content. To quote:
"4. Grades, strength and their review.-
( 1) The duty posts included in the various grades, their E
number and the scales of pay attached to them on the
date of commencement of these rules shall be as
specified in Schedule I:
Provided that ten per cent and twenty per cent F
of the sanctioned strength of the posts in the Service shall
be non functional grades of Junior Administrative Grade-
l and Selection Grade respectively, and these shall be
operated within the respective number of posts specified
in Parts Band C of Schedule I: • G
Provided further that the number of posts in
Junior Administrative Grade I shall not exceed the total
number of sanctioned posts in the Junior Administrative
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A Grad!e in the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-16,500.
I
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule( 1), the
• G<!vernment may-

(a) from time to time, make temporary additions or
B alterations to the duty posts in various grades;
•
(b) in consultation with the Commission include in the
Service such posts as are be deemed· to be
equivalent to the posts included in the Service in
c status, grade, scale of pay and professional content
or exclude from the Service a duty post already
included in the Service; and

(c) in consultation with the Commission appoint the
D regular incumbent of the post which has been
included in the Service as a duty post to the
appropriate grade of the Service and fix his
seniority taking into account the regular service
rendered by him in the said post or analogous
E grade.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (b) and
(c) of subrule (2), in case any regular incumbent of the
post which has been encadred in the Service is not
found suitable for appointment to the Service under
F
clause (c) of sub-rule (2), he shall continue to hold the
p,ost and for the purpose the post shall be treated to
have been excluded from the Service till such time it
is held by such incumbent. The suitability of such
G persons for induction into the Service will be reviewed
every year."
j. It is•the specific stand of the administration that in status,
grade, scale of pay and professional content, the posts
of Information Officer born in 1988 Rules and the posts
H
VIREN ORA KRISHNA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 27
[KURIAN, J.]

of Tourist Information Officer and Deputy Resident A
Commissioner born in the 1997 Rules, are the same.

k. The Cadre Review Committee, in its Report dated
. 24.10.2005, had resolved as follows:

"4(iv)b.Posts which are having duties and 8
responsibilities akin to the posts included in
Schedule-I to the DANICS Rules, 2003,
· although different in designations, may be
included in the Schedule in the corresponding C
grade; followed by,

c. Posts which are executive and administrative in
nature, but having no promotion grades may be
included in the appropriate grade in Schedule-I
to the DANICS Rules, 2003." D

(Emphasis supplied)

I. At the time of promotion to the post of 10 or TIO and
DRC, there is no option available to the promotee. It E
is simply fortuitous that one gets a p9sting as DRC
depending upon the vacancy.

m. lnAnnexure-P7, letter dated 03.06.2009, the Ministry
of Home Affairs in its letter addressed to the Union
Public Service Commission has taken the specific F
stand that:

"4. . .. In terms of the Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid
Rules, the Government may from time to time, make
temporary additions or alterations to the duty posts in G
various grades, and in consultation with the Union
Public Service Commission include in the Service such
'posts as are deemed to be equivalent to the posts
included in the Service in status, grade, scale of pay
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 13 S.C.R.

A and professional content or exclude from the Service
a duty post already included in the Service."
11. Despite such glaring factual and legal position, the
Cadre Review Committee has casually, if not callously resolved
B that the encadrement of the post of Information Officers and
Tourist Information Officers of Andaman and Nicobar Islands
will be considered during the next cadre review. By the
submissions on behalf of the Union of India, which we have
extracted hereinabove, before the High Court and this Court,
c the first respondent has been clearly, if not cleverly, averting
positive directions. The Cadre Review Committee had the
temerity, if not audacity, to record in its minutes that there is no
positive direction to encadre any post. Even at the risk of
redundancy, it may be noted that despite the clarification by
D this Court on 11.09.2003 that there was no stay operating in
this case, they did not proceed with the encadrement of the
three notified DRCs on the stand that the whole matter was
being reconsidered.
E 12. Though an attempt is made by the party respondents
to establish that there are two separate divisions, the
Administration is of the unambiguous stand that for all practical
purposes, the establishment continues to be one and the same.
Paragraph-12 of the order of the Central Administrative
F Tribunal which entered a finding that there is practically no
bifurcation of the department, is also relevant in this context:
"12. The recruitment rules for the post of Information
Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner/Tourism
Information Officer are framed in 1988 and 1997
G
respectively. The 2001 & 2003 recommendations were
submitted before the framing of th.e 2003 rules. The 2003
recommendation recommended for their inclusion in
Schedule II ie. Feeder grade for promotion rather than
H
VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 29
[KURIAN, J.]

Schedule I ie the posts encadred. These posts were not A
included in either of the Schedule. The 2005 proposal
recommends inclusion of the posts of Deputy Resident
Commissioner and Information Officers. The report of
CRC does not refer to the post of Information Officers.
The UOI does not disclose in their reply as to whether B
the proposal of Information officers was put up to CRC
and whether on receipt of CRC report and during its
examination this aspect was looked into. There is a
bifurcation of Directorate of Information, Publicity &
Tourism into two divisions but the reply of A& N C
Administration does not disclose, if as a result of it, the
Cadre was bifurcated. The only ground given by UOI in
the reply is that it was decided to increase the cadre
strength by 25% and hence similarly situated posts were D
left out. 7 posts have been included in the new schedule."
13. Respondents 2 to 5, in counter affidavit filed on
13.12.2012, submitted in paragraphs-3 and 4 as follows:
"3. That the duties and responsibilities of the posts of E
Information Officer (10), Tourist Information Officer (TIO)
& Deputy Resident Commissioner (DRC) of the
Directorate of Information. Publicity and Tourism of the
Union Territory Administration of Andaman and
Nicobar, are Executive/Administrative in nature with F
same pay scale/grade pay. The d_uties include co-
ordination in respect of wide varieties of subjects.
There is no separate cadre for the A & N Islands and
the incumbents of the said posts of TIOs, IOs and
DRCs have no promotional avenues during their whole G
service career which resulted.in their stagnating in the
same post till retirement. ·
4. That therefore number of representations were
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A received from the incumbents holding these posts for
inclusion of UTCS, and in the year 2001, the A & N
Administration, sent a proposal to the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India for simultaneous
encadrement of 3 posts of Deputy Resident
B Commissioner, 2 posts of Tourist Information Officer
and 2 posts of Information Officer in the National
Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and· Diu and Dadra
and Nagar Haveli Civil Service (DANICS) cadre
c stating therein that the said posts are inter-changeable
having same/similar recruitment rules, same scales
of pay and same nature of duties and responsibilities.
No bifurcation has taken place and all these posts are
interchangeable."
D
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Be that as it may, the specific stand of the Union of
India before this Court is that:
E "All these applications were disposed of vide a common
order dated 31.1.2012 by the Hon'ble CAT. The said
order was challenged by Shri V.K. Misra in the High Court
of Calcutta, Port Blair Bench in COCT No.001/2012
which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide
F order dated 14.3.2012. The Hon'ble High Court had
upheld the order passed by the Hon'ble CAT. The said
order passed by the Hon'b.le High Court is under
challenge in the instant SLP filed by Shri Virendra
Krishna Misra. Due to these developments, the Ministry
G
intends to stop the process of encadrement of DRCs till
the final outcome of the present SLP since the very
process of encadrement is proposed to be reviewed.
Further no action in compliance of the CAT's order has
H
VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 31
[KURIAN, J.]

been taken so far because the said order is under A
challenge by one of the applicants."

(Emphasis supplied)
15. All that apart, the Andaman and Nicobar
Administration (Group 'B' Gazetted post of Tourist Information B
Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner in the Directorate
of Information, Publicity and Tourism) Recruitment Rules, 1997,
provides for the name of the post in the Schedule as Tourist
Information Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner. There C
are no separate Recruitment Rules for Deputy Resident
Commissioner. The post under the Rules is Tourist Information
Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner. If that be so, one
fails to understand, on elementary principles, as to how the
Cadre Review Committee would encadre only the Deputy D
Resident Commissioners, ignoring Tourist Information Officers,
leave alone the Information Officers. The whole conduct is
arbitrary and a blatant violation of the guaranteed protection
of equality under Artide 14 of the Constitution of India.
16. Though it needs no elaborate discussion or reference E
to the guarantees under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
against discrimination, we shall refer to one of the earliest
constitution bench judgments delivered by a 7-JudgesBench
in Budhan Choudhry and others v. State of Bihar1 wherein F
it has been held at paragraph-5 as follows:
"(5) ... It is now well-established that while Article 14
forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation. In order,
however, to pass the test of permissible classification G
two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
1 AIR 1955 SC 191
H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A grouped together from others left out of the group and
(ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question. The classification may be founded on different
bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or
B occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there
must be a nexus between the basis of classification and
the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well-
established by the decisions of this Court that article 14
condemns dis,crimination not only by a substantive law
c but also by a law of procedure .... "

17. No plausible explanation is forthcoming from the Union
of India for the arbitrary and discriminatory conduct. There is
no justification for distinguishing persons who are grouped
D together. The feeder cadre is PRO for all the three posts of 10,
TIO and DRC. Promotion is based on seniority. If 3 posts of
DRC only are encadred, the juniors in the feeder as well as
promoted category will steal a march over their seniors, merely
on fortuitous situation of posting as· DRC. All the posts carry
E the same scale of pay. They come under the same category
of Group B posts. Professional content, status and grade are
the same. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that they
cannot be discriminated within the class. People who have
burnt their boats should sail together. Therefore, we are of the
F view that the interest of justice would be protected and cause
of justice would be advanced only if a positive direction is
issued to the Union of India to encadre all the seven posts
which are treated by theAndaman and Nicobar Islands under
G a common seniority. The first respondent-Union of India is hence
directed to take the required action forth"'<'.ith for the
encadrement of all the seven posts of Information Officer, Tourist
Information Officer and Deputy Resident Commissioner under
theAndaman and Nicobar lslandsAdministration. The process
H shall be completed within a month from the date of
VIRENDRAKRISHNAMISHRAv. UNION OF INDIA 33
[KURIAN, J.] ·

communication of this Judgment. Needless to say, the A
encadrement, as above, will be with effect from the same date.
18. The appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled
to costs of Rs.50,000/-. The costs shall be borne by the first
respondent. B

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal allowed: