IMPORTANT POINTS
Chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service. As such, mere alteration of chances of promotion, would not per se call for judicial interference, unless arbitrary.
When two cadres are by and large similar, on merger equation of different posts on the basis of pay scales is not unjustified.
Provisions of Rule 4, TA Rules 2003 and Rule 5, STA Rules 2003 are valid.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Cadre – Options asked from staff of original ministerial cadre for posting in newly created Data entry operator cadre – Full cadre of Data Entry Operators with different levels of hierarchy like Grade A, B, C and D created – The exercise cannot be termed as bifurcation of original cadre simpliciter. (Para 19)
       1985 (Supp.) SCC 218 – Distinguished
       (b) Service law – Cadre – New cadre of Data Entry operators (regulated by the Electronic Data Processing Posts (Group ‘C’ Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992) created out of staff of original ministerial cadre (regulated by the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group ‘C’ Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979) by option – Two cadres amalgamated by promulgation of TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003 – Not a re-amalgamation simpliciter to restore status quo ante under 1979 Rules – It is a fresh amalgamation merging cadre of Data Entry Operators and Ministerial Staff into independent cadres of Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants – Seniority position under the original ministerial staff cadre prior to 1992 cannot be restored. (Para 20)
       (c) Service law – Conditions of service – Chances of promotion – Do not constitute conditions of service – As such, mere alteration of chances of promotion, would not per se call for judicial interference, unless arbitrary. (Para 22, 23, 24)
       (1981) 4 SCC 130; (1989) 2 SCC 541; 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575; (1997) 8 SCC 522; (2014) 7 SCC 303 – Relied upon
       (d) TA Rules, 2003 – Rule 4 r/w Rule 5, STA Rules, 2003 – On amalgamation, Data Entry operators requited to pass departmental examination in relevant procedures – Likewise, Ministerial staff required to pass departmental examination in computer proficiency – None of the two could be treated as superior to the other – Equal treatment given to both for purposes of seniority – Not hit by Article 14 or 16. (Para 31)
       (e) Service law – Equation of posts – By creating cadre of Data Entry Operators duties discharged by original ministerial staff divided – Ministerial staff left with procedural duties while members of the other cadre discharged duties aimed at computerization which could not be possible without their previous experience – By TA Rules, 2003, and the STA Rules, 2003 nature and duties of the two cadres combined – Both required to perform all functions by undergoing training and departmental examination – On account of by and large similarity, inter se seniority justifiably determined on basis of pay-scales. (Para 37)
       (1981) 4 SCC 130; (1998) 4 SCC 598 – Distinguished
       (f) TA Rules, 2003 – Rule 4 and Rule 5, STA Rules, 2003 – Validity – Provisions of Rule 4, TA Rules 2003 and Rule 5, STA Rules 2003 – Not arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 – Held valid. (Para 35)
       Facts of the case:
       These cases concern seniority in service.
       In the Customs and Central Excise Department a separate cadre was constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for discharging electronic data processing responsibilities. This was necessitated by the decision of the department to introduce computerization, in its functioning which commenced in 1991-92 and fully implemented in or around 2002-03.
       The separate cadre so created, was sought to be re-amalgamated with the existing ministerial cadre. This resulted in coincidental career advancement, for those who had accepted to break away from the original ministerial cadre. Some of those who were originally placed at inferior positions in the seniority list of the original ministerial cadre, acquired superiority over their counterparts (in the original ministerial cadre), consequent upon their promotion within the cadre of data entry operators, which resulted in their acquiring a higher position in seniority, over and above those who were senior to them in the original ministerial cadre.
       The solitary contention raised at the hands of the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre (who had not opted for the appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry Operators) before the Tribunal was, that the process of bifurcation of cadres followed by the re-amalgamation thereof, had adversely affected their seniority. Accordingly, the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre, claimed restoration of the position of their seniority as it originally existed, with reference to such other members of the ministerial cadre who had opted for absorption into cadre of Data Entry Operators, and who had thereafter, as a matter of re-amalgamation (under the provisions of the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003) been appointed as Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants respectively. The instant claim raised by the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre, came to be accepted by the Administrative Tribunal.
       This was affirmed by the high Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service; therefore, alterations in promotion prospects generally do not warrant judicial interference unless they are arbitrary or mala fide (!) (!) (!) .
The creation of a new cadre out of an existing cadre, such as the formation of Data Entry Operators from the ministerial cadre, is not merely a bifurcation but a distinct reorganization involving different duties, responsibilities, and promotion avenues (!) (!) (!) .
The process of amalgamation or reorganization of cadres, including the merging of different posts into a new cadre, should be based on relevant factors such as nature of duties, powers exercised, qualifications, and pay scales, and must adhere to principles of fairness and equality (!) (!) (!) .
Seniority rules and inter se seniority determination should be based on the date of regular appointment and not solely on pay scales, especially when the posts have different duties or qualification requirements, unless justified by specific circumstances (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The mere equivalence of posts based on pay scales alone is insufficient to justify the fixation of seniority or the treatment of posts as equal; the nature of duties, qualifications, and departmental examinations are also relevant considerations (!) (!) (!) .
The process of amalgamation or reorganization must be conducted in a manner that is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, respecting the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and must not arbitrarily disadvantage any cadre or group of employees (!) (!) (!) .
The alteration of chances of promotion, when not affecting conditions of service or rights vested under the rules, generally does not constitute a violation of constitutional rights; however, arbitrary or mala fide changes can be challenged (!) (!) (!) .
The determination of seniority and promotion avenues should be aligned with the original position, nature of duties, and relevant service rules, and any change must be justified and consistent with constitutional principles (!) (!) (!) .
The legal approach emphasizes that the rules governing recruitment, seniority, and promotion are to be applied consistently, and any deviation or arbitrary fixation can be challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 16 (!) (!) (!) .
The process of cadre reorganization, including the creation, merger, or re-amalgamation of cadres, must be based on administrative policy that is fair, non-discriminatory, and in accordance with constitutional mandates, ensuring that employees' rights are protected and that promotion and seniority are determined justly (!) (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight the importance of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and adherence to constitutional principles in cadre restructuring, seniority fixation, and promotion considerations.

Judgment :-

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. The present controversy is yet another seniority dispute amongst employees of the Customs and Central Excise Department. The controversy herein has emerged on account of a reconstitution of cadres. In the first instance, a separate cadre was constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for discharging electronic data processing responsibilities. This was necessitated by the decision of the department to introduce computerization, in its functioning. The instant computerization project, which commenced in 1991-92, seems to have been fully implemented in or around 2002-03. Consequent upon achievement of the above objective, the separate cadre so created, was sought to be re-amalgamated with the existing ministerial cadre. The above noticed bifurcation and re-amalgamation, resulted in a coincidental career advancement, for those who had accepted to break away from the original ministerial cadre. Some of those who were originally placed at inferior positions in the seniority list of the original ministerial cadre, acquired superiority over their counterparts (in the original ministerial cadre), consequent upon their promotion within the cadre of data entry operators, which resulted in their acquiring a higher position in seniority, over and above those who were senior to them in the original ministerial cadre. Before embarking upon the niceties of the seniority dispute, it is imperative to delve upon the reasons of the afore-stated bifurcation, and reamalgamation of cadres. The instant aspect of the matter is accordingly being dealt with, in the following paragraphs.

2. The ministerial cadre as it originally existed, comprised of posts of Deputy Office Superintendents (Levels 1 and 2), Upper Division Clerks, Lower Division Clerks, Stenographers (Senior Grade and Ordinary Grade), Draftsmen etc. Conditions of service of members of the original ministerial cadre, were regulated by the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group ‘C’ Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as, the 1979 Rules). Members of the original ministerial cadre regulated by the provisions of the 1979 Rules were eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector (Ordinary Scale) - an executive cadre post. And thereupon, even further promotion, in the executive cadre.

3. Consequent upon the recommendations made by the Fourth Central Pay Commission in paragraph 11.45 of its report, the Government of India took upon itself the responsibility to examine the rationalization of pay scales for posts responsible for discharging work relating to data entry. The task sought to be undertaken was to prescribe uniform pay scales and designations for electronic data processing posts, in consultation with the Department of Personnel. Consequent upon the suggestions made by a committee set up by the Department of Electronics in November, 1986, the Government of India decided to introduce the following uniform pattern for Electronic Data Processing Posts:-

S.No.	Designation of post		Pay Scale
	Data Entry Operators
1.	Data Entry Operator Grade ‘A’		Rs.1150-1500	This will be entry grade for higher secondary with knowledge of data entry work
2.	Data Entry Operator Grade ‘B’		Rs.1350-2200	This will be entry grade for graduation with knowledge of data entry work or promotional grade for Data Entry Operator Grade ‘A’
3.	Data Entry Operator Grade ‘C’		Rs.1400-2300	Promotional Grade
4.	Data Entry Operator Grade ‘D’		Rs.1600-2660	Promotional Grade
5.	Data Entry Operator Grade ‘E’		Rs.2000-3500	Promotional Grade
	Data Processing/Programming Staff
1.	Data Processing Assistant Grade ‘A’	Rs.1600-2660		Entry grade for graduates with Diploma/Certificate in Computer Application
2.	Data Processing Assistant Grade ‘B’	Rs.2000-3200		Promotio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 258

Cases Referred (6)