Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Jaswant Raj Singhvi on 11 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986WLN(UC)310
JUDGMENT Shri Kishan Mal Lodha, J.
1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated October 31, 1985 of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner -respondent was allowed in part. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in the writ petition:
(a) it be declared that the provision made in Column 11 of the Schedule of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1980, in so far as it excludes the post of Assistant Foreman from the categories of posts from which appointment can be given to the post of Junior Scientific Officer, is illegal and an appropriate direction be made in this regard:
(b) in the alternative and, in addition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to prepare an interlaced seniority list of the Foremen, Senior Scientific Assts. and the Chief Draftsmen, by placing the Foremen enblock senior to the Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief Draftsmen, or no the basis of date of appointment on the posts of Assistant Foremen, and then to make selections on the basis of such an interlaced seniority list;
(c) the respondents may be restrained from making appointments to the posts of Junior Scientific Officers on the basis of the Panel, Annexure 3;
(d) the respondents may further be directed to prepare the panel afresh after determining the seniority as prayed here in above and then to proceed to give appointment on that particular basis by taking necessary and requisite steps in this behalf, if any other step is required to be taken.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Foreman in 1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-900. The petitioner-respondent received appointment on promotion to the post of Foreman carrying the pay scale of Rs. 840-1040 on July 31, 1979. This was the post which the petitioner held when the writ petition was filed on October 15, 1984. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Defence Research Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1980 which will here in after be referred to as the Rules. Rule 5 of the Rules provides that the post of Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) shall be filled in according to the provisions which are contained in columns 5 to 13 of the Schedule appended to the Rules. This post has been classified as civilians in defence service as Group, B Gazetted non-ministerial post. It carries pay scale of 650-1200. It is a selection post. This post can be filled in by promotion, transfer or deputation from amongst Senior Scientific Assistants, Chief Draftsman and Foreman with five years service in the respective grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis. The petitioner-respondent has produced a chart which is as under:
Chart Showing the Scales, required Qualification for appointment and Line of promotion:
JSO 650-1200 Foreman Scale Rs. 840-1040 Required qualification
(i) Degree in Engineering with 2 years experience
(ii) Diploma in Engineering with 5 years Experience Assistant Foreman Senior Scientific Chief Draughtsman Assistant Scale Rs. 700-900 Scale Rs. 550-900 Scale Rs. 700-900 Required Qualification (1) Degree in engineering (1) M.Sc. or Degree (1) Certificate Diploma with 1 year experience in Eng. with 1 year in Draughtsmanship experience with 5 years experience.
OR OR
(2) Diploma in Eng. with (2) B.Sc. with 4 years
4 years experience experience
OR
(3) Diploma in Eng. with
4 years experience
3. The promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officers in the pay scale 650-1200 were held through the Deparmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.). A panel Ex. 3 dated August 25, 1984 was prepared. That panel did not contain the name of the petitioner respondent. He therefore, filed the writ petition as aforesaid for the reliefs which have already been mentioned here in above. A show cause notice was issued to the non-petitioners appellants. They filed a reply to the show cause notice contesting the writ petition along with the copy of letter dated May 30, 1984 marked Anx. R/1. According to the non-petitioners-appellants, the post of J.S.O. is a selection post and criteria for selection is merit-cum-seniority. It was contended in the reply that the petitioner respondent was considered by the D.P.C. and he was not found suitable in merit and on account of that he could not be selected and placed in the panel of the selected candidates for the post of J.S.O. A further plea was raised that as no quota for the promotion to the post has been fixed for each of the three feeder grades, the list that was prepared was a combined eligibility list and it was not the seniority list of all the three feeder grades of the D.P.C. on the basis of length of continuous regular service as Foreman, Senior Scientific Assistant or Chief Draftsman subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority in each grade. Ann. R.1 is reproduced as under:
In this connection it is clarified that as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, promotion to the grade of JSO is made from amongst Foremen, C/D' Men and SSA who have rendered at least 5 years regular service in that grade. For this purpose, separate seniority rolls of F' Man C/D' Men and SS As are prepared on the basis of date of the DPC/Selection Board and circulated to Estt/Lab. When promotion to a grade is to be made from different streams a common eligibility list is prepared for the convenience of the DPC. For promotion to the grade of JSO, persons in the grade of F' Men C/D' Men and SSAs who are eligible for promotion on the basis of date of seniority in the respective grades subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority as assigned to them in their respective grades.
The learned Single Judge after considering the submissions that were made by the learned Counsel appearing before him passed the following order on October 31, 1985:
Therefore I need not to quash any list nor I can do so for the simple reason that all candidates are not parties before me;
Thus, in the result I allow this writ petition in part and direct the respondents to evolve the proper criteria for consideration to the post of Junior Scientific Officer and consider the eligible candidates including the petitioner over again. No order as to costs.
Being dissatisfied, the non-petitioner-appellants have come in appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. J.P. Joshi learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Mridul for the respondent (caveator) and have further carefully considered the writ petition, reply thereto, the documents filed by the parties and the order under appeal.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the list that was prepared was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as according to him the list as prepared was a proper one as no quota for promotion to the post was fixed for each of the three feeder grades and so a combined eligibility list was prepared on the basis of length of continuous regular service as Foreman, Chief Draftsman or Senior Scientific Assistant subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority in each grade. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that by preparing this list unequals have been made equal and, therefore, the proper course for preparing combined list for the D.P.C. should be, while placing the persons of higher grades above than those of the lower grades but this appears to have not been done. In support of this conclusion he has referred to Nawal Kishore Singh v. Union of India 1973 (1) SLR 509 which has been approved by a Special Bench of this Court in Amarchand v. State of Rajasthan 1977 WLN (UC) 261.
6. We have bestowed our most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the chart showing the scales, required qualification for appointment and line of promotion which was submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition shows that the promotion to the post of JSO, is to be made from Foreman (the qualification prescribed therein are (i) degree in Engineering with 2 years experience, (2) Diploma in Engineering with 5 yrs. experience (pay scale 840-1040, Senior Scientific Assistant (the qualifications prescribed there in are (i) M. Sc or degree in Engineering with 1 yr. experience, (2) B. Sc. with four yrs. experience, or (3) diploma in Engineering with four yrs. experience) in the pay scale 550-900 and Chief Draftsman (certificate diploma in draftsmanship with five years experience) in the pay scale of Rs. 700-900. There is no dispute with regard to the qualifications and the pay scale. The learned Single Judge after considering this chart opined that persons like Foreman who are in the higher pay scale are sought to be made junior on the criteria of the regular service in the grade concerned from the persons like Senior Scientific Assistants who are drawing the pay scale of 550-900 or Chief Draftsman drawing the pay scale of 700-900. It was held in Nawal Kishore Singh's case (supra) that if the officers are appointed from two different grades one higher from the other, then in that event, the officer appointed from a higher grade should not be placed before one appointed from the lower grade. In that case Rule 7 of the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1971 came up for consideration. The appointment to one cadre was to be made from two different sources and the officer coming from sources enjoying higher grade be placed above in seniority. The case of Nawal Kishore Singh (supra) was considered in Amar Chand's case (supra). The Special Bench of this Court held as under:
While giving two suggestions, the learned Single Judge did not throw a third suggestion to the State which can conveniently be given by us i.e. when the officers are appointed from two different grades one higher from the other, then in that event, the officer appointed from a higher grade should not be placed below one appointed from the lower grade. This principle of fixing seniority has been laid down in Nawal Kishore Singh's case (supra) by the Patna High Court. We are in agreement with the Patna High Court judgment.
The learned Single Judge adopted the reasons given by the Patna High Court and was of the opinion that the proper course for preparing combined list for the DPC, should be to place the persons of the higher grade above than those of the lower grade and as this was not admittedly done when the list was prepared for consideration by the DPC, he held that list prepared by the non-petitioners -appellants was not in accordance with law. It is correct that the appointment of JSO, is clearly on the basis of merit but according to the rules the eligible candidate for promotion is to be three times the number of vacancies. Since the criteria adopted by the non-petitioners-respondents was not correct and it was in contravention of the law laid down by this Court, the learned Single Judge gave a direction that the non-petitioners-appellants should prepare the combined list for promotion to the post of JSO by evolving the proper criteria or the criteria laid down by the Patna High Court in Nawal Kishore Singh's case (supra) which has been approved by this Court and thereafter to reconsider the matter for promotion to the post of JSO. This conclusion of the learned Single Judge is not incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the Award of the Board of Arbitration (JCM) Ministry of labour, New Delhi (C.A. Reference No. 9/1983 and No. 10/1983) and also to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officer) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1985 and in particular invited our attention to the Schedule which has been substituted to the Rules. The aforesaid Award had come into operation with effect from September 22, 1982 and the Amendment Rules, 1985 were published on 20th July, 1985. It was put to the learned Counsel fort he appellants whether any plea in respect of the Award and the Amendment Rules has been has been taken in the reply or any argument has been advanced before the learned Single Judge in this respect or not. Learned counsel rest contended by placing the copies of the aforesaid Award and the relevant amendment made in the Schedule to the Rules for our perusal. In our opinion, it is not necessary to make any probe in the matter on the basis of the aforesaid Award and the amendment in the Rules as the learned Single Judge has not quashed the list Anx. 3 dated August 25, 1984 but the learned Single Judge has merely directed to evolve a proper criteria for consideration to the post of JSO, and consider the eligible candidates including the petitioner-respondent. This direction of the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, is just and proper and for the reasons mentioned above, no interference can be made in this special appeal.
7. No other point survives for our consideration in this appeal.
8. The result is that this appeal fails and is here by dismissed sum.