1982 (3) TMI 264 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 16 regarding seniority determination.
2. Impact of new rules on pre-existing rights.
3. Reasonableness and arbitrariness of Rule 16.
4. Applicability of Regulation 251 and Order AO102/73.
5. Allegations of misuse of power and fraud.
6. Nature of rule-making as quasi-judicial or legislative.
7. Specific grievances of the appellant regarding postings and assignments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 16 regarding seniority determination:
The appellant challenged Rule 16 of the rules promulgated in November 1979, arguing it was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rule stipulated that the seniority of service officers permanently seconded to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (R&D) would be based on their substantive rank of Major/Squadron Leader/Lieutenant Commander. The Court found that this principle had been consistently followed since at least February 1974, as evidenced by the minutes of the DRD&I Selection Board and subsequent practices. The rule was thus upheld as a reasonable and fair method for determining seniority.

2. Impact of new rules on pre-existing rights:
The appellant contended that his seniority and promotion rights, established under the 1967 Memorandum, should not be affected by the new rules. The Court rejected this, noting that service conditions, including seniority, can be altered by new rules, which would govern future promotions and seniority. The Court found no vested right that was illegally divested by the new rules.

3. Reasonableness and arbitrariness of Rule 16:
The appellant argued that Rule 16 was unreasonable and arbitrary. The Court disagreed, emphasizing the specialized nature of the R&D Organisation, which necessitated a consistent and fair principle for seniority determination. The rule was seen as ensuring equitable treatment by considering the length of service in the parent service, thus striking a reasonable balance. The Court also noted that the rule was not discriminatory and did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Applicability of Regulation 251 and Order AO102/73:
The appellant relied on Regulation 251 and Order AO102/73, which govern the relative seniority of officers from different services in an inter-service organization. The Court found these provisions inapplicable, as the R&D Organisation is predominantly a civilian organization and not an inter-service organization. The Regulation and Order were intended for command and operational purposes, not for determining seniority in a civilian-dominated cadre like the R&D.

5. Allegations of misuse of power and fraud:
The appellant alleged that the issuance of the rules was a fraud on the Constitution, orchestrated by a senior official for personal gain. The Court dismissed this as a reckless and baseless allegation, finding no evidence of misuse of power. The rules had been processed and approved through proper channels, including a joint meeting of the Chiefs of Staff.

6. Nature of rule-making as quasi-judicial or legislative:
The appellant argued that the rules were quasi-judicial and required notice to affected persons. The Court clarified that the promulgation of statutory rules governing seniority is a legislative function, not quasi-judicial. Thus, the principles of natural justice did not apply, and the rules were validly issued without the need for prior notice to individuals.

7. Specific grievances of the appellant regarding postings and assignments:
The appellant claimed he had not been given any posting or assignment despite the High Court's directions. The Court reviewed the relevant files and found no factual basis for this grievance. The appellant had been assigned specific tasks at the DR&D Laboratory in Hyderabad. The Court refrained from detailed comments to avoid prejudicing the appellant's future service prospects but suggested the appellant focus on contributing positively to the R&D Organisation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the validity of Rule 16 was upheld. The Court directed the parties to bear their respective costs. The appellant's additional applications, including the Contempt Application and the application under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were also dismissed as meritless.