1981 (12) TMI 170 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968.
2. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.
3. Principles for fixing seniority in the BRO.
4. Equating posts of Supply Inspectors and Clerks.
5. Provisions of Rule 4 and Rule 7 of the Government Resolution.
6. Preparation and validity of seniority lists dated November 18, 1975, and November 27, 1975.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968:
The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968, which laid down the principles for determining the inter se seniority of personnel appointed in the BRO. The Supreme Court concluded that the principles enunciated in the Resolution were reasonable, just, and equitable, and thus, not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the BRO was a newly constituted organization with personnel drawn from different sources, necessitating the formulation of fair principles for seniority determination.

2. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay and laches in filing the writ petition, arguing that the challenge was highly belated. The Supreme Court upheld this objection, noting that the petitioners had ample opportunity to challenge the Resolution and the seniority lists but failed to do so within a reasonable time. The Court highlighted that the petitioners were aware of the seniority principles since the provisional gradation list was published on May 28, 1971, yet they approached the court only in 1976, which was deemed inordinate delay.

3. Principles for fixing seniority in the BRO:
The Supreme Court found the principles laid down in the Government Resolution for fixing seniority in the BRO to be reasonable and justified. It was noted that the BRO's staff was drawn from four different sources, including the CFD personnel, deputationists from other departments, and direct recruits. The Court held that the equation of posts and the seniority determination principles were necessary for the integration of personnel from diverse sources and were not arbitrary or discriminatory.

4. Equating posts of Supply Inspectors and Clerks:
The Court rejected the contention that equating the posts of Supply Inspectors in the CFD with Clerks from other departments was discriminatory. It was noted that the Supply Inspectors were temporary appointees, while the Clerks were regular appointees through the Public Service Commission. The Court found the equation reasonable, given the nature of duties and the precarious status of the Supply Inspectors' appointments.

5. Provisions of Rule 4 and Rule 7 of the Government Resolution:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of clauses (a) and (c) of Rule 4 and the proviso to Rule 7 of the Government Resolution. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that these provisions were violative of Articles 14 and 16. It was held that the principles for determining seniority, including the deduction of two years from the length of continuous service for certain categories, were reasonable and justified in the context of integrating personnel from different sources.

6. Preparation and validity of seniority lists dated November 18, 1975, and November 27, 1975:
The Supreme Court found substance in the petitioners' grievance that the seniority lists were not prepared in strict accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution. It was noted that some juniors in the CFD were ranked above the petitioners in the BRO, and some Clerks were shown as seniors to the petitioners despite their subsequent promotions. The Court directed the State of Maharashtra and the Controller of Rationing to revise the seniority lists and refix the rankings in accordance with the legal principles explained in the judgment.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court were set aside. The writ petition was allowed to the limited extent of directing the revision of the seniority lists, and it was dismissed in other respects. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.