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

1983 Supreme(SC) 85

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
D.D. Joshi and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 3685-91 of 1982 and 5636 of 1980, D/- 1-3-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Sr. Advocate and Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Advocate, for Petitioners; Mr. N. C. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V. B. Sahariya and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.SUBASHINI, Indra Sawhney, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, N.C.TALUKDAR, V.B.SAHARYA

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16 - Complaining of a discriminatory treatment - Ante-dating benefit - Petitioners in the first batch of petitions were granted commission in AMC between 1954 and 1963. Petitioner in second petition was commissioned as a regular officer in AMC on March 15, 1970 - There are in all 154 commissioned officers including petitioners belonging to AMC who are similarly situated and who according to petitioners suffered same discriminatory treatment - Petition is not in a representative capacity - Petitioners assert that decision in his group of petitions would affect roughly 147 other officers - Held, On behalf of respondents, it was urged that if the contention of the petitioners is accepted which could compel first respondent to re-settle seniority list, those over whom petitioners and those similarly situated would score a march should have been impleaded as respondents and in their absence, no relief can be given to them - Union of India would have merely to give effect to decision of this Court - Therefore, absence of those who may by our interpretation be adversely affected in facts and circumstances of case need not be necessarily here and if relief could have been granted, same would not have been denied on ground that proper parties were not before Court - But second reason why we should not examine this contention is that we are not inclined to grant any relief and matter ends there - Petitions dismissed.

Judgment

DESAI, J.:- Commissioned Officers belonging to Army Medical Corps (AMC for short), having post-graduate qualifications in different specialities at the time of obtaining commission have approached this Court under Article 32 complaining of a discriminatory treatment in the matter of granting ante-dating benefit which is directly linked to seniority and promotional prospects.

2. Petitioners in the first batch of petitions were granted commission in AMC between 1954 and 1963. Petitioner in the second petition was commissioned as a regular officer in AMC on March 15, 1970. There are in all 154 commissioned officers including the petitioners belonging to AMC who are similarly situated and who according to the petitioners suffered the same discriminatory treatment. The petition is not in a representative capacity. Petitioners assert that the decision in his group of petitions would affect roughly 147 other officers.

3. Petitioners held post-graduate qualifications in different branches of medical science and some of them held an approved wholetime appointment in a recognised civil hospital for a period of six months or more prior to their being commissioned in AMC.

4. There is a provision for giving the benefit of ante-dating the commission for varying periods, if the commissioned officer at the time of entry fulfils prescribed qualification. The earliest available reference is to Army Instruction No. 31/S/48 dated August 16, 1948 which provided as under :

"(a) An officer who has held an approved wholetime appointment in a recognised civil hospital for a period of six months or more will be eligible for an ante-date of six months.

(b) A candidate will be eligible for the grant of an ante-date not exceeding six months if he, at the time of selection, is in possession of a Post-graduate Diploma in any branch of medical science recognised by the Indian Medical Council, provided that the candidate has to attend a course of Instruction in a recognised institution for at least 9 months to qualify for such Diploma.

(c) At the time of appointment a candidate will be eligible for the grant of an ante-date not exceeding 12 months in respect of higher qualifications obtained prior to appointment. This will normally be granted for qualifications such as Doctor of Medicine, Master of Surgery, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, Member of the Royal College of Physicians or an equivalent qualification obtained by examination from recognised Universities or Colleges.

(d) In the case of a candidate who is eligible for an ante-date under more than one of the preceding sub-paragraphs, the maximum period of ante-date will be limited to eighteen months."

It appears that prior to December 31st, 1965 maximum period of ante-dating benefit was 11/2 years which was reduced to one year from Jan. 1, 1966. It was enlarged to maximum, 2 1/2 years from April 1, 1978. Thus the period varied but the conditions for eligibility remained more or less constant.

5. By Army Instruction No. 74 of 1976, the period of ante-dating under clauses (a), (b) and (c) remained unchanged but the period under clause (d) was raised to 18 months in the aggregate.

6. By the impugned Army instruction No. 78 of 78 dated Nov. 4, 1978, a further upward revision in the period of ante-dating the commission by amending Army Instruction No. 74 of 76 was prescribed. By this amendment, the period prescribed in Cl. (a) above remained unchanged. The period of ante-dating prescribed in clause (b) was revised from 6 months to 12 months and the period of instruction was revised from 9 months to 12 months. In clause (c) the Period of 12 months was revised to 2 years and in clause (d), the aggregate was upward revised from 12 months to 21/2 years. A Note was appended to this amendment which according to the petitioners introduces the discrimination. It reads as under :

"The above provisions are effective w. e. f. 1-4-78. However, the seniority of officers who joined with PG qualifications during 11/2





















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