Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : The question raised in Writ Petition No. 264 of 1961 relates to the constitutionality of an order passed on April 20, 1955 by the Ministry of Defence by which, in modification of certain orders passed previously thereto, certain rules were laid down for the computation of the seniority of Clerks falling within the category of Extra Temporary Establishment Service. The petitioner was employed by the Ministry of Defence (Army Ordnance Corps) on February 6, 1942 as an Extra Temporary Establishment Clerk. The nature of this service and its history are the matters which arise for consideration in the petition. It is the case of the petitioner that by reason of certain orders of Government which would be referred to in due course, there was an amalgamation of the service known as the non-industrial staff in the Extra Temporary Establishment with those in another parallel service known as the Temporary Establishment and that as a result seniority in both these services had to be reckoned on the same basis, viz, the date when any employee entered service. The Union Government, however, it is alleged, illegally discriminated against the Clerical personnel which were originally known as the Extra Temporary Establishment of which the petitioner was formerly a member by the order now impugned, with the consequence that persons much junior to him have superseded him and, in fact, 610 Clerks who belonged to the former Temporary Establishment had thus gain seniority over him. He has accordingly filed this petition impugning the constitutional validity of this order of Government and for a direction that his seniority be computed without reference to this order.

2. It will thus be seen that though the petitioner seeks relief for himself, the points involved in the Petition affect the entire personnel of the Extra Temporary Establishment who would be governed by the impugned order and these are said to number nearly 6,000. It is only necessary to add that a petition for intervention seeking to support the petitioner has been allowed and we have heard Mr, Chari on behalf of the intervener. The number of employees who would be adversely affected if the impugned order was set aside is also stated to be considerable-variously estimated from 600 to one thousand and one of this group has also intervened to resist the petition. We are stating these matters for pointing out that the question raised in the petition and its result would affect a very large number of employees of Government.

3. To understand the grievance of the petitioner it is necessary to set out in detail the history of the Extra Temporary Establishment Clerks in the Defence Services.

4. As early as 1925 Temporary Clerks came to be recruited in the Defence Establishment of the Army Ordnance Corps but the temporary hands were recruited as against sanctioned posts. The control of this service was central and they were borne on the records of the A.O.C. (Army Ordnance Corps) records at Jubbalpore (now transferred to Secunderabad). This state of affairs continued till about 1933 when a need was felt for recruiting a much larger establishment including Clerks than could be accommodated in the sanctioned posts. Special provision was made for enabling this additional recruitment to be effected by making rules under the Financial Regulations of India (referred to generally as FRI) by which this special recruitment was to be effected. Personnel so recruited were known as the Extra Temporary Establishment. In regard to the Service of which the petitioner was a member, the concerned clerical personnel could be recruited in the Ordnance factories under FRI Part 1, Para 25 of 1933 on a pay not exceeding Rs. 250/- p.m. and for a period not exceeding one year. As regards them there was no central office where their records were maintained as the case of the Temporary Establishment, but their records were maintained unit wise- in the office of the Director who recruited them. All