S.K.Bhate & Ors Vs. Union of India
& Ors  INSC 286 (20 November 1975)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH RAY,
A.N. (CJ) SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH SHINGAL, P.N.
CITATION: 1976 AIR 363 1976 SCR (2) 758 1976
SCC (1) 369
Indian ordnance Factories (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Class 11 Personnel) Rules, 1956-Appointment various
cadres and inter se seniority - Principles.
The Ordinance Factory in which the
petitioners were employed hold four cadres. In the 2nd cadre of non-gazetted
officers there were four grades-Foremen. Assistant Foremen, Chargemen Grade I
and Chargemen Grade II. The 3rd cadre of non-industrial employees had 2 grades
Supervisor 'A' Grade and 'B' Grade, and were governed by the Indian ordnance
Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel)
Rules,1956. Appointment was on the basis of 20% of the quota for direct
recruits and 80% for promotees.
In answer to an advertisement for appointment
by direct recruitment to the 4 grades of the 2nd cadre, the petitioners, all of
whom except petitioner No. 12, were serving as Supervisors 'A' Grade, applied.
Petitioner No. 12 was not in service. They were interviewed but none of the
petitioners, except Petitioner No. 12, received orders of appointment.
Petitioner No. 12 was appointed Chargeman Grade II. Between April, 1963, and
November, 1963, The other petitioners were promoted as Chargemen Grade II.
Respondents 5 to 16 who were apprentices, were also promoted as Chargemen Grade
II, and were later promoted to the grade of Assistant Foremen. Treating this
order as an order of supersession, the petitioners filed a writ petition under
Art. 32 claiming to be promotees, and seniority on the basis of statutory rules
10(1)(i) to (iv) contained in S.R.O. 4.
Dismissing the petition, ^
HELD. (I) There was a justifiable ground for
distinction between the petitioners, who were direct recruits, and the
respondents who were promotees, and hence, there was no violation of Art. 16.
1762-G] The petitioners were really direct recruits and not promotees despite
the wrong description in their service records and even wrong orders conveying
the impression that they were promoters. even though they had not received
intimation of their appointment as direct recruits.
Promotions arc only made under s. 8 of the
Indian ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of service of Class III
Personnel) Rules, 1956, as amended in 1961, to Charge men Grade II, on the
basis Of a selection list prepared by the appropriate Departmental Promotion
Committee. The Committee had prescribed a normal minimum qualification of 3
years' service in the post of Supervisor Grade 'A' before promotion except in
exceptional cases of ex-apprentices. The petitioners did not belong to the
class which had any exceptional qualification, and, since they had not
satisfied the 3 years' condition, they could not be considered for promotion in
the 80% quota reserved for promotees, to the post of Chargemen, Grade Ir. [762
B, C, 761 E-Hl (2) The petitioners have not established that they have been
denied their seniority in violation of any right under Art. 16 nor that the
seniority list had been prepared in violation of any rule or principle of
justice. The question of inter se seniority is also based upon the 4:1 (80%:
20%) ratio and it was for the petitioners to satisfy the Court that they were
not given the senior 759 grade although they satisfied all the required
conditions, and that others, who A were promoted, were given unjustifiable
preference over them. [763C] Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise
Central Revenue & ors., AIK 1975 S.C. 538 @ 546, followed.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 469
Under article 32 of the Constitution of
V. M. Tarkund, V. N. Ganpule and P. C. Kapoor
for the petitioners.
G. L. Sanghi and S. P. Nayar for respondents
1-4, respondents S to 16 not represented.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J.-Twenty two petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution have come
to this Court with the following assertion: (1) They are employed as civilian
non-gazetted Officers holding posts of Chargemen Grade-II (Chemists) in high
explosives' Factory, Kirkee, which is one of the 28 ordnance Factories, located
all over India, controlled by opposite party No. 2, the Director General of
ordnance Factories, with his Head office at Calcutta.
(2) The Factory has four cadres of officers:
(i) Gazetted officers; (ii) Non-Gazetted officers; (iii) Non- Industrial
employees; (iv) lndustrial employees. The petitioners belong to the second
cadre which has four grades: (a) Foremen; (b) Assistant Foremen; (c) Chargemen
Gr. I; (d) Chargemen Grade II. The 3rd cadre of nonindustrial employees has two
grades (i) Supervisor 'A' Grade; and (ii) Supervisor 'B' grade. The employees
of the 3rd cadre are classified as- Class III employees in the general scheme
of classification of Govt. servants who are governed by India ordnance
Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class II personnel) Rules.
(3) The seniority rules of Gazetted and
Non-Gazetted officers of the ordnance Factories are laid down in office
Memorandum dated 4th January, 1956, amended in 1961 (Annexure 'B').
(4) The Director General of ordnance
Factories, Respondent No. 2, issued an advertisement, dated 14th November, 1962
for direct recruitment to the grade of Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Chargemen
Grade I and Ghargemen Grade II. At the time of this advertisement, all the
petitioners, except petitioner No. 12, were already serving as officiating Supervisors
of 'A' Grade of Class IIl:
employees. In answer to the advertisement for
appointment to temporary posts with prospects of being "considered for
permanent appointment in due course", the petitioners, who possessed the
minimum qualification prescribed, applied for direct recruitment which was open
to them also. The petitioners were for interview by a letter issued by the
General Manager, High explosives' I Factory, Kirkee, on 7th February, 1963,
but, after the interviews, no letters of appointment were received by the
petitioners other than petitioner No. 12.
760 (5) They were promoted between April,
1963, and November, 1963, from their substantive grade of Supervisor 'A' to
Chargemen Grade II by the General Manager of their factory, on short term basis,
by virtue of powers delegated to him. Petitioner No. 12, who was not in service
at all before, was appointed a temporary chargemen, Grade II, in April, 1963,
as a result of his selection after interview.
Respondents 5 to 16, however, entered ' the '
grade of Chargemen Grade II between 1st December, 1963 and 4th February, 1965,
and were also shown as temporary Chargemen Grade II, but, they were not holding
any post in the grade of Supervisors. The respondents were apprentices before
entering into the Grade II of Chargemen. r (6) The promotions of the
petitioners were given ' retrospective effect, by an order dated 11th June,
1965, passed by the Director General ordnance Factories. In December, 1967,
however, the petitioners were superseded by others who were alleged to be their
juniors. The petitioners made representations and sent reminders which were not
replied to. Respondents S to 16 were promoted from Chargemen Grade II to the
grade of Assistant Foremen by an order of the respondent No. 2 Director General
Ordnance Factories dated l 7th September, 1971. This order according to the
petitioners amounted to another supersession of the petitioners who were shown
as holding permanent posts only as Supervisors of 'A' grade in 1971. The
petitioners, therefore called to this Court on 14th December, 1971 against the
orders dated 17th September, 1971, Which amounted to their supersession.
The petitioners also alleged that as no
orders were communicated to them showing that they were considered direct
recruits by the ordnance Depot by the Ministry of Defence Production in the
Govt of India or anyone on its behalf, they came to know, for the first time,
as a result of the replies filed by the respondents to the Writ Petition that
they were being treated as direct recruits so that they could only be confirmed
when their turn came in the 20% quota of direct recruits and not in the 80%
quota of the promotees. The petitioners, therefore, applied for the amendment
of the petition and were permitted by this Court, under an order dated 16th
November, 1973, to do so. They alleged, by means of this amendment that their
classification as direct recruits instead of as Promotees was Seniority
fanciful, arbitrary, and even capricious".
They also alleged that the seniority list filed
in reply to their petition had been kept concealed from them and that it was
prepared in utter disregard to statutory rules 10(1) to 10 to (4) contained in
S.R.O. 4.. These rules are 10(1) The Director General will prepare a seniority
list of all the officers in their own categories according to the following
procedure:- (i) As between two officers holding a particular class of
appointment, in a substantive capacity, seniority in that 761 class of
appointment as well as in the officiating appointments held by them in the same
rank or different ranks shall be determined with reference to the date of the
(ii) Subject to the provisions of clause
(iii), an officer holding an appointment in a particular class in a substantive
capacity will he normally senior to an officer holding an appointment in the
same class in a non-substantive capacity.
(iii) Seniority of persons holding temporary
appointments which are made on agreement or on probationary basis and which are
expected to be continued after the expiry of the initial period, will be
reckoned vis a vis others holding permanent appointments in the same grade in
the ordnance Factories from the date from which the officer concerned have been
holding appointments of the same grade continuously. The seniority so assigned
to such per sons shall not be disturbed on their confirmation at a later stage.
Note: This clause applies only to persons
recruited through the Union Public Service Commission and to those recruited
directly, otherwise than through the Union Public Service Commission prior to
1st April 1947.
(iv) Temporary seniority in a given grade
will be reckoned from the date from which the officer concerned has been
occupying it continuously, irrespective of whether he has a substantive
appointment in some lower grade" The reply of the respondents is that the
so called promotion orders, of which the petitioners want to take advantage,
were really the result of a mistake or misunderstanding in not realising the
actual legal position of the petitioners as direct recruits. It was pointed out
that, in the letters issued calling them for interviews as direct recruits, it
was made clear to them that their appointments did not carry with them any
decision about their fitness for the post applied for and that they could be
considered for any lower post to which they might he so entitled. In other
words, this clearly meant that they were on trial. It was also pointed out that
promotions are only made under Rule 6 of the Indian Ordnance Factories
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956, as
amended in 1961 to Chargemen Grade II, on the basis of "a selection list
prepared by the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee". it was
asserted that, in the minutes of the Departmental Promotions' Committee held in
the month of April 1963, prior to the appointment of petitioners as Chargemen
Grade II, the Committee had prescribed a normal minimum qualification of three
years' service in the post of Grade 'A' for promotion barring exceptional cases
of ex- apprentices. It was asserted that, as the Petitioners had not satisfied
this condition, they could not be considered for promotion to the posts of
Chargemen Grade II. They did not belong to the class 762 which had any exceptional
qualifications. Hence, their names did not appear in the list of persons to be
promoted prepared by the Departmental Promotions' Committee for the post of
Chargemen Grade II.
It was asserted that they were being treated
as direct recruits and not promotees despite their wrong description and even
wrong orders conveying the impression that they were promotees. The condition
precedent to promotion not having been satisfied they could only be considered
as direct recruits and get the appointments reserved for the class of direct
recruits as and when their turns arrived in this quota. It was conceded on
behalf of the respondents that much larger number of appointments had been made
in the class of direct recruits than the vacancies available. It was, however,
explained that this was due to the sudden and exceptional demands for these
appointments as a result of the pressure on our ordnance Factories due to the
war with China and other defence requirements. It was urged that the
petitioners could not take advantage of erroneous orders made by the Manager of
their ordnance Factory even if the error had been repeated by the Director
General Ordnance Factories. If the petitioners had not satisfied the condition
precedent to promotion, they could not get the appointments reserved for the
80% quota of promotees whose work was watched by the Promotions' Committee so
that they could be declared fit for promotion. The promotions were on the basis
of a selection on merit, the tests of which had not been satisfied by the
petitioners In fact, the petitioners were considered with others, and were not
selected. It was not necessary to give them opportunities of being heard on
comparative merits, as they claimed, just as candidates at an examination are
not entitled to any such opportunities as these are not disciplinary
Counsel for the petitioners was, in our
opinion, not able to meet the objections put forward to petitioners' claims as
promotees. He could not show that they satisfied the conditions precedent to
promotions. Hence, the so called orders of promotion could not cure the defect.
It was immaterial that the petitioners were wrongly shown as Promotees in their
service records or that they had not received intimations or their appointments
as direct recruits. There was a justifiable ground for a distinction between
them and the class to which the respondents belonged. There was no challenge to
the fairness of the 20% quota reserved for direct recruits as against that of
promotees. Hence, we do not think that the petitioners can complain of
violation of any fundamental rights under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Petitioners cannot also claim any benefit
resulting from being treated as persons belonging to the same class as
respondents 5 to 16 whose places on the seniority list are questioned by them
as 763 amounting to illegal supersessionís of the petitioners. We may mention
here that Mr. Sanghi, Counsel appearing for the Union of India, Respondent No.
1, and the Director General ordnance Factory, Respondent No. 2, and other
officials, has fairly conceded that so far as the case af Petitioner No. 11 is
concerned, it stands on a special footing and that his clients are considering
it on that footing. Counsel for the petitioners has also conceded that so far
as 3 of the petitioners are concerned, they have been rightly treated as direct
recruits. We find no error in treating the others also as direct recruits.
It may also be mentioned here that Mr.
Sanghi, Counsel for the Union of India and its officials, has stated to the
Court that none of the petitioners will be reverted to his substantive post
merely on the ground that he was treated as a direct recruit. The question of
inter-se seniority is a different matter. The petitioners have been unable to establish
that they have been denied their seniority in violation of any right under
Article 16 of the Constitution.
Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue
& Ors this Court laid down (at p. 546):
"It was for the petitioner to satisfy
the Court that he was not given the senior grade although he satisfied all the
required conditions of it and that others, who were promoted into it were given
unjustifiable preference over him". As we are not satisfied that the
seniority list has been prepared in violation of any rule or principle of
justice, we are unable to accept the petition before us.
We therefore, dismiss this petition. The
parties will bear their own costs.
V.P.S Petition dismissed.