SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 97

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASWAMI, J.M. SHELAT, AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
S. K. Ghosh and another, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 131 of 1966,
D /- 2-4-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. B. Mehta, Advocate. with him), for Petitioners; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate with him) for Nos. 1 and 2) and M/s. B. P. Maheshwari and S. M. Jain, Advocates (for No. 4), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.P.MAHESHVARI, B.SEN, K.B.MEHTA, R.H.Dhebar, S.M.Jain

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 16 and 32 - Examination - Service on probation - Recruitment to Service - Promotion - Normal rule laid down was that appointments to junior time-scale were to be made by direct recruitment against 75 per cent of vacancies and remaining 25 per cent were to be filled by promotion by selection of best officers in Postal Superintendents Service Class II, seniority being regarded only when all other qualifications were practically equal - Whether latter was under Central or Provincial Government in India or Pakistan - Order of seniority laid down by order continued in force for a number of years - Held, It is clear that revision of seniority in grade of Directors of Postal Services by order was not based on any rule or appropriate principle applicable to determination of seniority in that grade, and must, therefore be held to be totally arbitrary - Such an arbitrary order, which affects civil rights of petitioners in respect of future promotion must therefore be struck down as violating Art. 16 of Constitution - Once this order is quashed, petitioners will no longer be affected in future by the revision of their seniority in time scale of Service by order and consequently - Court have refrained from going into question of validity of that order petitioners are not claiming any relief on basis of invalidity of order which would give to them any additional benefit over and above relief which they can obtain on order being quashed - Petition allowed.

Judgement

BHARGAVA, J. : S. K. Ghosh and A. M.. Narula, the two petitioners in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, appeared for the examination held in October, 1945 for recruitment to the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and other Allied Central Services. On the basis of the result of the examination both of them were selected for appointment to the Postal Superintendents Service Class II. Petitioner No. 1, S. K. Ghosh, joined a post in that Service on probation with effect from 9th April, 1947, while petitioner No 2, A. M. Narula joined as a probationer on 11th February. 1947. At that time there was no Class I Service in the Postal Department. In Class II Service, to which these two petitioners were appointed. recruitment was made by a competitive examination to the extent of 50 per cent. while the remaining 50 per cent posts were filled by promotion from lower cadres of the Department.

2. On 24th May 1948, the Government sanctioned the creation of Indian Postal Service Class I with four grades follows:-

(i) Directors of Postal Services, Grade

(ii) Directors of Postal Services , Grade II;

(iii) Senior Time Scale, and

(iv) Junior Time Scale.

This decision of the Government was communicated to the Director-General Posts and Telegraphs, by their letter dated 13th November, 1948, which also laid down the manner of recruitment to the Service and the various sources from which recruitment was to be made. The normal rule laid down was that appointments to the junior time-scale were to be made by direct recruitment against 75 per cent of the vacancies and the remaining 25 per cent were to be filled by promotion by selection of the best officers in the Postal Superintendents Service Class II, seniority being regarded only when all other qualifications were practically equal. To this rule, however, an exception was laid down to the effect that all initial appointments to the time scale cadres of the Indian Postal Service Class I consisting of 64 posts (23 in the senior scale and 41 in the junior scale) were to be made by promotion from amongst officers of Postal Superintendents, Service Class II by selection Future recruitment was to be governed by the general rules cited above. Appointments to Grade II of the Directors of Postal Services was to be made by promotion by selection of the best officers in the senior time-scale of the Indian Postal Service, Class I, seniority being regarded only where other qualifications were practically equal. These promotions were to be made through a Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of the Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs, Senior Deputy Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, and a member of the Federal Public Service Commission Appointments to Grade I of Directors of Postal Services were to be made by promotion from Grade II of Directors in the order of seniority, provided the senior officer was considered fit for such promotion. The Service under these rules was, in fact, constituted with effect from 15th September 1948, and, even in cases where appointments were actually made later, they were made effective retrospectively from 15th September, 1948 for purposes of confirmation. The two petitioners were still probationers in Postal Superintendents Service Class II on 15th September, 1948; and, since only persons holding permanent posts in the cadre of Class II were to be considered for appointment to this Class I Service, the petitioners were not considered at the initial stage. Both the petitioners completed their probation in Class II Service in the year 1949. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 was promoted to Class I Service on 2nd December, 1949 and petitioner No. 2 on 5th December 1949. They were shown as officiating in this Service. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 was confirmed in the junior time-scale of Class I Service with effect from 11th May, 1951, while petitioner No. 2 was confirmed with effect from 12th February, 1952. In the meantime, direct recr











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top