1. Dispute over a notification altering recruitment and promotion rules for Train Examiners, creating a distinction between direct recruits and promotees for promotion to a higher grade. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 218
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
1. Roshan Lal Tandon (In W. P. No. 154 of 1966), 2. Kunj Behari (In W. P. No. 203 of l966) Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India and another (In W P. No. 154 of 1966), 2. Union of India and others (In W. P. No. 203 of 1966), Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos 154 and 203 of 1966
D/- 14-8-1967
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates, for Petitioners (In both the Petitions); Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. Sreedharan Nambiar, Advocate and Mr. R. H. Dhebar. Advocate for Mr. R N. Sachthey, Advocate, with him), for 1890 Respondent No. 1 (In W. P. No. 154 of 1966); M/s. I. M. Lall and E. C. Agrawala Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 (In W. P. No. 154 of 1966); Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate for Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (In W. P. No. 203 of 1966); Mr. H. R. Gokhale, Senior Advocate, (Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 6 (In W. P. No. 203 of 1966); Respondent No. 10 in person (In W. P. No. 203 of 1966).
Writ Petition No. 154 of 1966.
Advocates:
A.SRIDHARAN NAMBIAR, E.C.AGARWAL, H.R.GOKHALE, I.M.LAL, K.L.Mehta, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, R.N.SACH, S.K.MEHTA
A.SRIDHARAN NAMBIAR, E.C.AGARWAL, H.R.GOKHALE, I.M.LAL, K.L.Mehta, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, R.N.SACH, S.K.MEHTA
Once direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a single cadre, they form one class, and any discrimination between them for further promotion violates Articles 14 and 16. Additionally, government service is a matter of status, not contract, allowing unilateral alteration of service rules.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Equality of opportunity in public employment - Integration of direct recruits and promotees into a single cadre - Once absorbed into one cadre, they form one class - Discrimination between them for further promotion to a higher grade is arbitrary and violative of the guarantee of equality. (Para 5)
(B) Government Service - Nature of relationship - Status vs. Contract - Legal position of a government servant is one of status rather than contract - Rights and obligations are determined by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the government - No vested contractual right to specific terms of service. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, who were promoted from skilled artisans to the entry grade of a technical post, challenged a notification that reserved 80% of vacancies in the next higher grade for apprentice recruits and allowed existing apprentices in the entry grade to be absorbed without selection, while the remaining 20% for others were filled on a selection basis. This replaced the previous rule of seniority-cum-suitability applicable to all employees in the entry grade regardless of their source of recruitment.
Findings of Court:
The notification is discriminatory as it differentiates between two groups of employees who had already been integrated into a single cadre. However, the claim of a contractual right to the previous service conditions is rejected as government service is a matter of status, not a simple contract of service.
Issues: Whether the notification discriminating between direct recruits and promotees for promotion to a higher grade after they were integrated into a single cadre violates Articles 14 and 16, and whether terms of government service are contractual or based on status.
Ratio Decidendi: Once direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they constitute a single class; any subsequent discrimination between them for further promotion is unconstitutional. Furthermore, government employment is a status-based relationship, meaning the legal relationship is determined by public law and statutory rules, allowing the government to unilaterally alter service terms.
Result: Petitions allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Yes, the Supreme Court held that once recruits from different sources (e.g., direct recruits and promotees) are integrated into one common grade (Grade D Train Examiners), they form one class and cannot be differentiated or discriminated against for the purpose of further promotion to the higher grade (Grade C Train Examiners). (!) (!) (!) (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges discrimination violating Articles 14 and 16; Respondent contends the reorganization was based on technical necessity for safety and maintenance of rolling stock. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Once direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a single cadre, they form one class and cannot be discriminated against for further promotion to a higher grade. (Para 5 )
4. Discrimination in promotion is prohibited when the source of recruitment for the higher grade is a single integrated cadre consisting of both direct recruits and promotees. (Para 5 )
5. Writ of mandamus issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to the discriminatory portions of the notification. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can the government discriminate between direct recruits and promotees when promoting them from a single integrated cadre to a higher grade?
No. Once direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form one class. They cannot be discriminated against for the purpose of further promotion to a higher grade. (Para 5 )
7. Are the terms and conditions of government service contractual and thus immutable without consent?
No. Government service is a matter of status rather than contract. Rights and obligations are determined by statute or statutory rules, which the government may unilaterally alter. (Para 6 )
8. How is seniority determined when a higher grade has only one source of recruitment?
Seniority is determined by the date of continuous appointment in that grade, regardless of whether the person was originally a direct recruit or a promotee in the lower grade. (Para 5 )
Judgment
RAMASWAMI, J. : In this case the petitioner, Roshan Lal Tandon has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India should not be issued commanding the respondents not to carry out the directives contained in the notification of the Railway Board No. E(NG)65 PM 1-26, dated the 27th October 1965, Annexure D to the Writ Petition, in so far as it grants protection to the existing Apprentice Train Examiners and lays down the procedure to fill upgraded vacancies. Cause has been shown by the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.
2. There were originally two scales for Train Examiners - Rs. 100-185 ( D Grade) and Rs. 150-225 ( C Grade). These scales were later revised as a result of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission and the scale of D Grade was increased to Rs. 180-240 and that of C Grade to Rs. 205-280. On February 18, 1961 the Railway Board issued a letter No. PC-60/ PS5/TP/8, Annexure A to the Writ Petition to the General Managers of all Indian Railways conveying its decision that vacancies in the Entry Grade of Train Examiners (in the scale Rs. 180-240) with effect from February 18, 1961 should be filled as follows :-
"(i) 50 per cent of the vacancies should be filled from Apprentice Train Examiners who successfully have completed the prescribed (4 years) apprenticeship the remaining 50 per cent of the vacancies being filled by promotion of skilled artisans.
(ii) 20 per cent of the annual requirements of Apprentice Train Examiners should be drawn from skilled artisans who are not more than 35 years old on 1st July of the year in which the apprenticeship is likely to commence".
Promotions to Grade C of Train Examiners used to take place on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability without any distinction whether the employee entered Grade D of the Train Examiners directly or was selected out of the category of skilled artisans. This rule was laid down by the Railway Board in its letter No. E(s) 1-57-TRS/41, dated January 25, 1958 which states :
"Ref: Para. 2 of Board s letter No. E(R) 49-JAC/1S, dated 23rd February 1950 laying down that 20 per cent of the posts in the TXR grade Rs. 150-225 should be reserve and the TXR in the grade of Rs. 80-160 (since revised Rs. 100-185) promoted from skilled and semi-skilled ranks. The Board have reviewed the position and have decided that promotion to the TXR grade of Rs. 150-225 should hereafter be made solely on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and the reservation of only 20 per cent as mentioned above will no longer be operative."
(Annexure B to the Writ Petition).
On the basis of this rule the Divisional Personnel Officer, New Delhi prepared a seniority list for the Train Examiners of Grade D of Delhi Division as on December 31, 1984 (Annexure C to the Writ Petition). On October 27, 1965 the Railway Board issued the impugned notification (Annexure D to the Writ Petition). The notification states in the first place that on and from April 1, 1966 vacancies in the Entry Grade of Train Examiners scale Rs. 180-240 should not be filled from Apprentice Train Examiners upto 50 per cent as hitherto, but should exclusively be filled by promotion from amongst artisan staff. With regard to the next higher grade, i.e., Grade C , it was provided that 80 per cent vacancies should be filled by Apprentice Train Examiners who had successfully completed the prescribe training of 5 years (three years in case of Diploma Holders and three years in case of Artisans recruited as Apprentice Train Examiner). Twenty per cent of the vacancies were to be filled by the Train Examiners from Grade D . It was further provided that the Train Examiners Grade D who began as Apprentice Train Examiners and who were to be absorbed in the C Grade against 80 per cent vacancies reserved for them should not be required to undergo selections before being abso
