Back
1994 Supreme(SC) 693
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., AND R.M. SAHAI AND S. MOHAN, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
SURENDRA MOHAN ARORA AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal Nos. 4858-59 of 1994 with C.A. Nos. 4860-61 of 1994 decided on July 22, 1994
Appeals allowed
Advocates appeared
Ms K. Amreshwari, Senior Advocate (Ms Ameeka Singh and C.V. Subba Rao, Advocates, with her) for the Appellants;
V. Subramanian, P.I. Jose and V.J. Francis, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Ambika Pratap Singh, C.V.SUBBA RAO, K.AMARESWARI, P.I.Jose, SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY, V.J.Francis
Headnote:
Indian Ordnance Factories Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Class III) Personnel Rules, 1956 - Rule 7, 8 and 12 – Recruitment - Promoted as Supervisor - Promotion - Number of diploma-holders and science graduates were appointed in various Ordnance factories - Service conditions of those were governed by Indian Ordnance Factories Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Class III) Personnel Rules, 1956 - On a circular was issued that all diploma-holders who were appointed as Supervisors B, on completion of one year service in the grade, will be entitled to be promoted as Supervisor A - After satisfactory completion of two years of service, they will be eligible for promotion to grade post of Chargeman Grade-II - Another circular was issued in which decision was taken to appoint all diploma-holders working as Supervisor B, as Supervisor A irrespective of completion of one year service as Supervisor B - Requirement was questioned by many persons in writ petitions before High Courts urging that on completion of two years service-as Supervisor A they should be automatically promoted as Chargeman Grade-II – Held, an executive instruction could make a provision only with regard to a matter which was not covered by Rules and that such executive instruction could not override any provision of Rule - Notwithstanding issue of instruction dated therefore, procedure for making promotion as laid down in Rule 8 of Rules had to be followed - Only effect of circular dated was that Supervisors A on completion of two years satisfactory service could be promoted by following procedure contemplated - Right was conferred by Rule 7 which inter alia provides that subject to exception contained in Rule 11, vacancies in posts enumerated therein will normally be filled by promotion of employees in grade immediately below in accordance with provisions of Rule 8 - Requirements of Rule 8 in brief have already been indicated above - This right of promotion as provided by Rules was neither affected nor could be affected by the circular - Order dated which provided a minimum period of service of three years in lower grade for promotion to next higher grade and circular dated - Impugned order of Tribunal could be sustained - It may be relevant to note that similar applications were filed before Bench and they came to be dismissed - In result, Court hold that order of Tribunal cannot be supported and is liable to be set aside - It is accordingly set aside - Civil appeals will stand allowed.
Judgment
MOHAN, J.-
Leave granted.
2. During the period of 1962 to 1966, a number of diploma-holders and science graduates were appointed in the various Ordnance factories. The service conditions of those were governed by Indian Ordnance Factories Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Class III) Personnel Rules, 1956. On 6-11-1962, a circular was issued that all diploma-holders who were appointed as Supervisors B, on completion of one year service in the grade, will be entitled to be promoted as Supervisor A. After satisfactory completion of two years of service, they will be eligible for promotion to the grade post of Chargeman Grade-II. Another circular was issued on 11-3-1963 in which the decision was taken to appoint all diploma-holders working as Supervisor B, as Supervisor A irrespective of completion of one year service as Supervisor B. The fresh recruits from 11-3-1963 were also appointed straightway as Supervisor Grade A by circulars dated 28-12-1965 and 20-1-1966. It was decided that in future promotion of Supervisor Grade A to Chargeman Grade-II and further promotion will be effected in accordance with the Recruitment Rules only after completion of three years service as Supervisor Grade A.
3. This requirement was questioned by many persons in writ petitions before the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh urging that on completion of two years service-as Supervisor A they should be automatically promoted as Chargeman Grade-II. Those writ petitions came to be dismissed both by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well as by the High Court of Allahabad.
4. Special leave petitions were preferred and leave was granted on 2-2-1981. A subsequent batch of writ petitions filed by the diploma-holders came to be filed from science graduates in the High Court for treating them on a par with the diploma-holders. That was allowed and it was held that they should be deemed to have been appointed as Supervisor Grade A from the date of their initial appointments. On 30-6-1987, the Central Administrative Tribunal in the matter of one B.H. Ananthamurthy directed that the science graduates be treated as Supervisor A from the date of their initial appointment and their notional seniority be revised. They shall be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Chargeman Grade-II on completion of two years satisfactory service as Supervisor A retrospectively. Subsequent to this, there are other judgments including a judgment of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541: (1989) 10 ATC 378 where it is held that there could not be automatic promotion on completion of the minimum service as prescribed in the circular of the ordnance factory but the promotion would be made in accordance with the recruitment rules.
5. This Court had occasion to comment on the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal in Ananthamurthy case. When the Madras Tribunal rendered a decision relying on the judgment of the Tribunal of Jabalpur Bench dated 30-6-1987, this Court set aside the judgment on 6-9-1989. Thereafter when similar matters were agitated before the Madras Tribunal they were dismissed.
6. Notwithstanding all this by the impugned judgment dated 15-5-1989, the Tribunal had directed that the appointment be treated the initial appointment of diploma-holders and science graduates as having been made to the post of Supervisor Grade A in spite of their recruitment to Supervisor Grade B. On the basis of two years experience of Supervisor A, it was directed that the respondent shall be entitled to promotion to the post of Chargeman Grade-II on the recommendation of a review DPC which may be constituted and further promotions on the recommendation of a review DPC from the requisite dates when they were due to be considered for promotion on the basis of departmental rules or executive instructions.
7. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has come to be preferred. The first point that is urged on behalf of the appellants
