JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—These two sister appeals have gained access to this Court by certificate under Article 133 and project a service dispute between the Army and civilian wings (both engineers) of the Survey of India. The constitutional missiles used, with success, in the encounter in the High Court by the civilians to shoot down the military mens preferential claims under the relevant service rules, are Articles 14 and 16. And here, in this Court, the Army wing is fighting back to repulse the civilian wing by defusing the warhead of these two fundamental rights. Military imagery vivifies the litigative havoc when sectors of our public services go to battle against each other, though there is so much else to wage war against in the service of the people.

2. A narration of facts falling within a short compass will unfold the real issue, revolving round the salary, seniority and de facto promotional disparity inter se, which has sparked off the forensic war. The Union of India, one of the appellants, supports the stand of the military sector of the Survey Service, if we may so designate it. A survey of the story of this conflict suggests the sombre thought the unending litigation, affecting the public services with inevitable impact on morals and efficiency, is becoming an epidemic in courts even among strategic cadres and sensitive sectors - a matter almost for consternation which surely must kindle a search for constitutional alternatives for resolution of service questions without large numbers of civil servants being locked in long-drawn-out legal struggles. Does the experience of 30 years under the Constitution indicate that, save where fundamental constitutional issues arise, Whitley Councils, Service Tribunals and other specialised adjudicatory agencies, with the imprimatur of finality, are a more pragmatic mechanism of Service Justice?

3. The factual setting, sufficient to unravel the constitutional contention, may now be delineated. Both the appeals against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cover the same subject-matter, although one of them is by the Central Government and the other by the members of the Survey of India from among the Defence personnel, and both have been resisted on the same basis by the civilian recruits to the Service. A common judgment will dispose of both the cases but we must begin from the very beginning to get a (hang) of the controversy.

4. The genesis of the Survey of India, its life before birth, its genetic composition and hereditary characteristics, mould the structural engineering of the Service and, therefore, have a bearing on the issues debated before us by both sides. While the High Court has, to some extent, slurred over the chronicle, both sides have heavily stressed before us the saga of the Survey of India, each to lend strength to its point of view. So, a peep into the bicentennial biography of the Survey of India is a necessary exercise as a starting point. To blink at history is to lose the living link with the past and to stumble in the present. Yet strangely, none such, i.e. history of the Service, to serve as a lucid background is given in their statement by either party, save incidentally. Unfortunately, the fine and fruitful art of presenting a lucent written brief is still in the long Indian year of the infant and we have to cull out and piece together materials which should have been set out as a scenario of meaningful development. If the High Court has gone wrong the blame must fall in part on the Central Government which could and should have projected the story of the Survey of India, its functional complexion and recruitment rationale instead of leaving judges to run around the corridors of padded paper books or launch on speculative surmises. The State, the largest and resourceful and most affected public litigant, leaves much to be desired in the written presentation of its cases. The other parties fare no better, though. And instalments of addit