1980 (10) TMI 208 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of orders dated May 29, 1965, and May 16, 1975, issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs.
2. Striking down provisions in Column 10 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 1969.
3. Allegation of discriminatory promotion practices for Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) from Audit Offices versus other departments.
4. Legality of classification based on the source of UDCs for promotional opportunities.
5. Validity of directives issued by the Director General conflicting with Recruitment Rules, 1969.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Orders Dated May 29, 1965, and May 16, 1975:
The petitioners sought a writ to quash the orders issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs on May 29, 1965, and May 16, 1975. The orders modified the policy of reservation of 10% of the posts in the cadre of UDCs in the Selection Grade by directing that the total number of Selection Grade posts available for UDCs from Audit Offices should be 10% of the total number of Audit Office UDCs working in any particular Circle of the organization. This policy was deemed discriminatory as it limited promotional opportunities for UDCs from Audit Offices based on their numbers in a particular Circle, leading to potential stagnation and lack of promotional opportunities in smaller Circles.

2. Striking Down Provisions in Column 10 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 1969:
The petitioners challenged the provision in Column 10 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 1969, which required UDCs from Audit Offices to have 10 years of service for promotion eligibility, while other UDCs needed only 5 years. This provision was argued to be discriminatory. However, the Court upheld this provision, stating that considering the history leading to the formation of the new organization SBCO-ICO, the distinction was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The longer service requirement for Audit Office UDCs was justified based on their potential retrenchment and the need for more experience in the new organization.

3. Allegation of Discriminatory Promotion Practices for UDCs from Audit Offices Versus Other Departments:
The petitioners contended that the classification of UDCs for promotion based on their source (Audit Offices vs. other departments) was discriminatory, arbitrary, and unreasonable. The Court agreed, stating that the duties, functions, and responsibilities of all UDCs in the new organization were identical, and there was no justification for different promotional criteria based solely on their source. The impugned directives were found to be unconstitutional as they introduced an unjustifiable classification that denied promotional opportunities to UDCs from Audit Offices in smaller Circles.

4. Legality of Classification Based on the Source of UDCs for Promotional Opportunities:
The Court found the classification of UDCs based on their source for determining promotional opportunities to be unreasonable and arbitrary. It noted that all UDCs in the new organization performed identical duties and responsibilities, and there was no reason for different promotional criteria. The Court rejected the argument that different rules of promotion could be applied since the UDCs were not integrated into a common service. The impugned directives were struck down as they created an unjustifiable and discriminatory classification.

5. Validity of Directives Issued by the Director General Conflicting with Recruitment Rules, 1969:
The Court held that the Director General could not issue directives inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules, 1969, framed by the President under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Recruitment Rules provided for a classification based on the length of service in the new organization, and any directive introducing a new criterion was beyond the Director General's jurisdiction. The impugned directives, which prescribed additional criteria for promotion eligibility, were found to be an unauthorized amendment of the Recruitment Rules and thus invalid.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the writ petition partly, quashing the directives issued by the Director General on May 29, 1965, and May 16, 1975, regarding the promotional opportunities for UDCs from Audit Offices. The petitioners and similarly situated individuals were entitled to equal promotional opportunities based on seniority-cum-fitness. The provision in Column 10 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 1969, requiring 10 years of service for Audit Office UDCs for promotion eligibility was upheld. The Court directed that the petitioners be promoted to the Selection Grade/Head Clerks Cadre from the dates they were due for promotion, and the Government was advised to create supernumerary posts to avoid undue hardship and administrative confusion. The writ petition succeeded partly, and the petitioners were awarded costs from the Union of India.