2002 Supreme(SC) 1276

2003(1) Supreme 501
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad)
Doraiswamy Raju and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
P.U. Joshi & Ors. -Appellants
versus
The Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4679-4680 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal No. 10983 of 1996
Decided on 19-12-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, P.K. Bajaj, H.A. Raichura, S.W.A. Qadri, Mrs. Shashi Kiran, Mrs. Anil Katiyar & C.V. Subba Rao, Narottam Vyas and B.D. Sharma, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no right in the employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes.

Headnote:Service Jurisprudence-Indian Audit and Accounts Department-Plea of denial of equal opportunity and equal protection of laws by appellants in C.A. No. 4679-4680 in appeals to Supreme Court-Whether rightly rejected by CAT? (Yes)-Further direction by Cuttack Bench of CAT to the contrary-Whether proper? (No)-Order accordingly.

       Held : We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. So far as the grievances of the appellants and private parties-respondents in the above cases are concerned, they have no sound or valid basis in law. Before even bifurcation on 1.3.1984, the posts of Supervisors, Selection Grade Supervisors as well as Section Officers and Selection Grade Section Officers existed separately. Section Officers were considered senior to Supervisors and promotion to higher posts of Accounts Officers was open to Section Officers only and not to Supervisors. After bifurcation, since there was no cadre of Supervisors in the Audit Offices, the question of accommodating them in the Audit Offices as Supervisors did not arise. With the implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, Selection Grades were abolished from all non-gazetted cadres in all Departments of Government of India all over the country, including the Department of IA & AD. As observed by the Bench of the CAT at Cuttack which held in favour of the private parties on some other ground, it will be too late in the day to put the clock back by claiming to resurrect the abolished selection grade which was found to be already non-functional, too. As noticed supra, the supervisory cadre for A & E offices w.e.f. 1.4.1987 came to consist of (a) Section Officers - 20% (SOGE qualified hands); (b) Assistant Accounts Officers - 80% (SOGE qualified hands with further experience of three years regular service in the grade) and (c) Supervisors (unqualified hands - to the extent whenever clauses (a) and (b) were not available only. As noticed earlier, a Supervisor (unqualified) has to undertake SOG Examination to be promoted as Section Officers and thereafter only get promoted as A.A.O. Merely because the pay-scales were similarly granted to these unqualified Supervisors on par with Section Officers alone apparently due to alteration and restructuring in the set up of offices - those Supervisors, who had not even passed the SOG Examination, therefore, could neither be appointed on promotion as Section Officers nor could claim equal status with the SOG Examination qualified persons to straightaway get promoted as A.A.Os., to which the feeder category is only Section Officers and not Supervisors. It is necessary to notice here that Supervisors even earlier could not have been promoted to the higher post of Accounts Officers. In addition to it, the other criteria of three years regular service as Section Officer, before becoming eligible for consideration to be appointed as A.A.Os. on promotion also must be satisfied. The Cuttack Bench of the CAT, which decided the matter and which decision is challenged by the Department in Civil Appeal No.10983 of 1996, committed a grave error in taking it for granted equality in status and grade persons like the private parties-respondents on par with Section Officers with higher qualifications merely because a common seniority list was prepared - ignoring the fact that it was not for purposes of further promotion but for the limited purpose of giving only the benefit of non-functional selection grade. Consequently, as long as the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 4679-4680 of 1996 and respondents in Civil Appeal No.10983 of 1996 have not acquired the qualification of passing the SOG Examination and got promoted to the post of Section Officers and put in three years regular service as such, which alone constituted the feeder category for further promotion as A.A.Os., there is no scope for according promotion to them despite the fact that there may be vacancies available in the A.A.Os. The Tribunal, which passed the order, which is the subject-matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No.10983 of 1996, was not right in directing the promotion to them in derogation of the statutory rules under which they are ineligible for any such promotion. (Paras 10, 11 & 12)

       The plea based on the denial of equal opportunity and equal protection of laws has rightly been rejected in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions noticed by the Bench of the Tribunal, which rendered the decision in respect of the appellants, who serve in the State of Gujarat. Likewise, it was impermissible for the Bench of the Tribunal at Cuttack to have further directed to give the promotional monetary benefits and other benefits flowing from such promotion when they will not be entitled to any such relief under the statutory rules, which the Tribunal itself could not, on its own, either bypass or alter or give a go-by too or direct the department to ignore and contravene. For all the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal Nos. 4679-4680 of 1996 shall stand dismissed. Civil Appeal No.10983 of 1996 filed by the Union of India and others shall stand allowed and consequently the order passed in O.A. No.144 of 1991 shall stand set aside. There will be no order as to costs. (Paras 13 & 14)