Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- These 12 applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution are by Assistants covered by the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 (Rules for short), and challenge is to the select list for the grade of Section Officers for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980, and the common seniority list dt. April 26, 1979, as also the provisional supplementary list of Assistants dated August 21, 1980. They have further prayed that the select list and seniority list be re-published on the basis of length of continuous service in the grade of Assistants and promotion to the grade of Section Officers be granted from the dates when Assistants junior to them were promoted as Section Officers.

2. The Rules framed under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution came into force from October 1, 1962. Under the Rules, the Central Secretariat Service was constituted and as per rule 3 there are four grades in the Service classified as follows :

(i) Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent);

(ii) Grade I (Under Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent);

(iii) Section Officers;

(iv) Assistants.

The first two grades are classified as Central Civil Service, Grade A, while the other two are known as the Central Civil-Service, Grade B Ministerial. Posts in the first three grades are gazetted while posts in the Assistants Grade are non-gazetted. The Rules contemplate that there shall be separate cadres in respect of Section Officers grade and the Assistants grade and these shall be constituted for each Ministry or office specified in col. 2 of the First Schedule. Under rule 4, a single point gradation. list in respect of officers of the Selection Grade and Grade I for all the Ministries or offices specified in col. 2 and for the offices specified against such Ministries or offices in col. 3 of the Schedule is to be maintained. The Rules contemplate direct recruitment as also promotion in respect of certain grades.

3. According to the petitioners the quota rule had broken down as direct recruitment had not been made in many years and on account of such failure, fixation of seniority with reference to the rotational method was not available to be followed. The petitioners also contended that select lists as contemplated by the Rules had not been framed for quite a long period and in the absence of such a select list framed in time, select lists of 1978, 1979 and 1980 prepared without following the criterion of length of service of officers in the grade of Assistants was not only unfair and arbitrary but worked out prejudicially to the petitioners. The main grievance of the petitioners in short is that the scheme for fixation of seniority and consequently the provisions relating to promotion having not been worked out as contemplated, the manner of determination of seniority should be usual rule of total length of service and action taken otherwise should be struck down and seniority should be directed to be re-determined on the basis of length of service only.

4. Respondent No. 1, Union of India, has challenged these allegations by contending that the manner of fixation of seniority is covered by statutory rules and the petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to claim determination of seniority on the basis of length of service; the plea of the petitioners that there had been no direct recruitment for several years is denied and it has been pleaded that direct recruits have come into the service in all years except only two, viz., 1966 and .1970. the quota -rule has, therefore, really not broken down as pleaded by the petitioners and the rules having contemplated a scheme of direct recruitment and promotion, quota and rota have to work together. Therefore, fixing seniority with reference to the rotational method was not open to challenge. The Rules have been in force for well over two decades. Great care has been taken in making provision in the Rules to safeguard the interests of the different groups