Judgment

KHALID, J.:- This writ petition involves the familiar rivalry between promotees and direct recruits. Normally a resolution of such a dispute between these two well known groups of service employees would necessitate consideration of various decisions relating to the quota and rota rule and such other allied matters. We have been relieved of this exercise because we feel that the dispute in this case can be resolved on facts unaided by precedents on such matters. The counsel. on both sides advisedly, therefore, restrained themselves from citing the relevant authorities before us.

2. Now the facts :

All the 39 petitioners are promotees to the post of Assistant in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short the Society) the 1st respondent herein. The second respondent is the Union of India and respondents Nos. 3 to 31 are direct recruits to the same post. Respondents Nos. 32 to 88 are also promotees and have been impleaded as pro forma respondents.

3. The petitioners originally belonged to the service of the Central Secretariat, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture. The Society was a part of that department till 1-4-1965 on which date the Government of India decided to reorganise the Society into a fully autonomous organisation with its own secretariat. The petitioners opted to join the service in the Society on such reorganisation. Respondents Nos. 3 to 31 were directly recruited after an open competitive test held by the Society in 1967 and 1971. A seniority list was prepared by the Society in 1976 showing the relative positions of the promotees and the direct recruits. The provocation for filing the writ petition was the publishing of a second seniority list, by the Society by its Memorandum No. 27(5)/81-Estt. II dated 7-4-1981. This list brought changes in the earlier list and pushed down the promotees from the positions they occupied in that list. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash this seniority list on the ground that it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to stay its implementation.

4. The petitioners case is that they came into the Society by virtue of the option exercised by them and that they are entitled to seniority on the basis of the length of their service from the date of option. According to them, recruitment rules laying down the terms of service in the Society were not available then and as such seniority had to be fixed on length of service. The case of the contesting respondents is that seniority has to be fixed not with reference to the date of the reorganisation of Society and the date of option exercised by the petitioners but from the date of their appointment on a regular basis. They seriously disputed the case of the petitioners that they were entitled to seniority from the date they exercised their option. According to them the petitioners have to establish that they were duly appointed in the service on a regular basis when they exercised their option to claim seniority on the strength of length of service from the date of their option.

5. We must confess that there was considerable confusion both on the side of the petitioners and on the side of the Society and the Government regarding the existence of rules regulating the conditions of service in the Society. Things proceeded in the Society on the basis that there were no recruitment rules in existence till 1974 while the factual position is that rules were in existence from 1964. It was on this wrong assumption that the seniority list was prepared on 2nd Feb., 1976. In that list, seniority was reckoned with reference to length of service. It was after realising that a mistake had been committed And that rules, in fact, existed that the impugned list was drawn up on 7th April, 1981.

6. The petitioners have given a comparative statement as Annexure 9 showing the manner in which the new list has worked to their detriment. This Annexure shows the relative positions of the promotees and the direct