1970 (2) TMI 148 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Determination of seniority for officiating clerks Grade I promoted from Grade II.
2. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment.
3. Classification of direct recruits and promotees for promotion purposes.
4. Application of Indian Railways Establishment Manual provisions regarding promotion and seniority.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Seniority for Officiating Clerks Grade I Promoted from Grade II:

The petitioners, officiating clerks Grade I in the Northern Railway, argued that their seniority should be determined from the date of their appointment as officiating clerks Grade I, not based on their position in the gradation list of Clerks Grade II. They contended that they were appointed as officiating clerks Grade I after passing the Appendix 2 examination, long before certain respondents, but these respondents were shown as senior due to their seniority in Grade II. The court noted that para 49 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual does not confer a right to immediate promotion upon passing the Appendix 2 examination; it merely makes them eligible for consideration based on seniority-cum-suitability. The promotion process treats all qualified candidates at par, irrespective of when they qualified.

2. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:

The petitioners claimed that the determination of seniority violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment. The court emphasized that the equality of opportunity in services includes all stages from initial appointment to termination, including promotion. However, it does not prohibit reasonable rules for selection and promotion applicable to all members of the classified group. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational connection to the objective sought. The court found that the classification of direct recruits and promotees was based on intelligible differentia aimed at achieving efficiency in the Accounts Department.

3. Classification of Direct Recruits and Promotees for Promotion Purposes:

The petitioners argued that both direct recruits and promotees had to pass the Appendix 2 examination, but their seniority was determined differently. The court observed that direct recruits and promotees constitute different classes, and this classification is sustainable on intelligible differentia related to efficiency. Promotion to Grade I is guided by seniority-cum-merit, and the classification does not violate Articles 14 and 16. The court held that the provisions placing all qualified Grade II clerks in one group for promotion purposes are not arbitrary or unreasonable and apply uniformly to all eligible members.

4. Application of Indian Railways Establishment Manual Provisions:

The court examined the relevant provisions in the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, including paras 48, 49, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20(b), and 21. Para 49 makes Grade II clerks eligible for promotion to Grade I upon passing the Appendix 2 examination, with promotion based on seniority-cum-suitability. Para 17 states that seniority for non-selection posts is determined by substantive or basic seniority. Para 20(b) specifies that seniority of Accounts Clerks Grade I and Stock Verifiers is determined by their substantive seniority in Grade II, regardless of when they qualify for promotion. The court found that these provisions do not confer any preferential claim to promotion based on the timing of qualification and do not violate the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish discrimination or any violation of their rights under Articles 14 and 16. The classification of direct recruits and promotees is justified by the objective of maintaining efficiency in the Accounts Department. The petition was dismissed without costs.