Judgment

KHALID, J. :- The petitioners, six in number, are working in the Ministry of Defence, Department of Production. They joined their service on different dates ranging from 1963 to 1969. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th petitioners joined service as Senior Technical Assistant while 4th and 6th petitioners joined as Technical Assistant. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are now working as Senior Technical Officer (officiating), 3rd and 4th petitioners are working. as Technical Officer (officiating) and 5th and 6th are working as Junior Technical Officer. None of the petitioners have been confirmed in their respective posts to which they have been promoted.

2. The first respondent is the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Defence and respondent 2, Director, Directorate of Production and Inspection, Naval.

3. The appointment and promotion of persons like the petitioners were governed by the department of Defence Production (Directorate of Production and Inspection, Naval) Group A and Group B Technical Post Recruitment Rules, 1976, for short the Rules. Prior to these rules, they were governed by the Rules framed in 1965 and revised in 1972.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Rules discriminate between them and the direct recruits, that their seniority is not taken into consideration while the seniority list is prepared and that the direct recruits are given seniority over them undeservedly by virtue of the operation of the method of recruitment contained in the rules. The petitioners complain that the list so prepared is purely arbitrary and ignores their length of service. They made representations to respondent 1 complaining against the injustice, done to them and for redressal of their grievances. There were no favourable orders. Hence this writ petition.

5. The prayer in the petition is for a mandamus declaring the rules and the seniority list dated 25-7-1977, 3-4-1977 and 7-9-1977, prepared according to rules, as bad as violative of Arts. 14 and 16.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents two preliminary objections were taken - (1) that the joint petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable inasmuch as it involves determination of different questions of facts based on separate causes of action and (2) that the petitioners have not arrayed as respondents all the officers who would be adversely affected by any order to be passed by this Court. The rules in question are justified on the ground that they were validly passed. It is stated that the offending clause cannot be faulted as violative of Art. 14 and Art. 16 of the Constitution. The rules were framed in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Cabinet Secretariat, in the light of the past experience. It is stated that the rules, far from causing any discrimination, seek to fix rationally (i) inter se seniority, (ii) quotas for recruitment and (iii) norms whereby the cases of all senior persons are to be considered. The preparation of the offending lists is justified on the plea that the principle of fixing seniority on the basis of length of service and dates of confirmation is not an inflexible rule and that it is possible in law that a direct recruit who is appointed later in point of time is senior to a promotee because of the working out of the quota rule. The counter-affidavit continues with the usual plea that in certain given cases seniority based on length of service can be ignored.

7. Before dealing with the merits of this case we will dispose of the preliminary objections. We are not impressed with the preliminary objections. The petitioners have clearly given the details about the dates of appointment, promotion, etc. The dates do differ. But nothing prevents this Court from modulating the relief and giving directions to the respondents to reconsider the offending lists with reference to each of the petitioners in the light of what follows.

8. The second objection has been met by the petitioners by imple