http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: R. PRABHA DEVI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/03/1988

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  902            1988 SCR  (3) 147  1988 SCC  (2) 233        JT 1988 (1)   488  1988 SCALE  (1)453

ACT:      Constitution of India, 1950-Central Secretariat Service Rules-Rule 12(2)  as amended fixing 8 years approved service for  both  direct  recruits  and  promotees  as  eligibility condition-Whether arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.      Service  Jurisprudence-Promotion-Rule-making  authority competent lo frame rules laying down eligibility conditions- Seniority  relevant  for  promotion  only  when  eligibility criteria is  fulfilled-Seniority cannot  be substituted  for eligibility-Mere seniority  will not  entitle a  person  for promotion-Seniority relevant only amongst eligible persons.

HEADNOTE: %      The appellants  are direct recruit Section officers and were appointed  in substantive vacancies of Section officers in accordance  with the  quota reserved for direct recruits. The inter-se  seniority of the direct recruits and promotees is fixed  in accordance  with the  quota  and  rota  system. According  to   the  C.S.S.  Rules,  1962,  the  substantive vacancies of  Section officers are manned by direct recruits and promotees  and a  quota of  one-fifth of the substantive vacancies has  been reserved  to  be  filled  up  by  direct recruits. The  remaining substantive  vacancies  of  Section officers are  to be  filled up  by  appointment  of  persons included in  the select  list i.e.  by promotion. The direct recruits on  their appointment against substantive vacancies become senior to the promotees, as is in the present case.      The promotion  of Section  officers to  Grade I post of C.S.S. Rules  is made  in accordance  with the provisions of sub-rule 2  of rule  12 of  the said  Rules framed  in 1962. According to this rule the direct recruits were eligible for promotion to  Grade I  in C.S.S.  even though  they have not rendered 10  years service,  when promotee  Section officers junior to  them are considered for promotion to Grade l. The promotee Section  officers had  to render 10 years’ approved service as  Section  officer  before  being  considered  for promotion to Grade I. This rule had been 148 amended from  time to time, the last of which was in 1984 by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

way of  Notification No.  5/9/80 CS.  I dated 29th December, 1984 which prescribed 8 years of approved service as Section officer as condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post in C.S.S.      This  amendment   was  challenged  before  the  Central Administrative Tribunal  which dismissed  the  applications, holding that  the amended  rule is valid, just and equitable and no  exception can  be taken  to it,  and that  it is not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.      Aggrieved by  the said  order three  appeals have  been preferred before this Court, by way of special leave. It was contended that  the amendment  purports to entrench upon the prospects of  the directly  recruited Section  officers  for being considered for promotion to Grade l in as much as they are left  out of  the  zone  of  consideration  while  their juniors i.e.  the promotee Section officers are eligible for being considered for promotion to Grade I. This condition of eligibility has no nexus to suitability for promotion to the post and  as such  is in violation of the equality clause in Article 16 of the Constitution of India.      It was  contended that  for purposes  of  seniority  in service the  senior will  be considered for promotion before those who  are junior  to them  in  service,  and  that  the condition of  eligibility as  laid down in the said rule has no reference to suitability for promotion to the post and as such it  is arbitrary  and so  void. The system prior to the amendment worked  out satisfactorily  and the direct recruit Section officers who were promoted to Grade I post performed their  duties   attached  to   the  higher   post  duly  and satisfactorily, and therefore the amendment is arbitrary and inequitable, and  that  this  amendment  works  out  to  the serious prejudice of the direct recruit Section officers.      It was submitted that the effect of the amendment is to neutralise and  negative the  decision of this Court in H.V. Pardasani &  Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 2 SCC 468 which held  that the  rules of  seniority on  the  basis  of quota-rota basis are unexceptionable.      On behalf  of the  promotee  Section  officers  it  was contended that the inter-se seniority between direct recruit Section officers  and promotee  Section officers is fixed in accordance  with   the  quota-rota  rule  and  thus  has  no reference to  the length  of service.  The promotee  Section officers have  not been  considered for promotion m spite of their rendering  service as  such for  more than  13  years, whereas the direct recruit 149 Section  officers   who  were   appointed  much  later  were considered and  promoted purely  on the ground of seniority. This has  created frustration  in the minds of the promotees and in order to obviate this, the Government has amended the proviso and  that the  amendment is  neither  arbitrary  nor unjust.      Dismissing the appeals, this Court, ^      HELD: 1.  The rule  in  question  which  prescribes  on uniform period  of qualified  service cannot  be said  to be arbitrary or unjust or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The  rule making  authority, by  the amendment made  in   1984,  has  brought  in  an  uniform  eligibility qualification of 8 years’ approved service to be rendered by the Section  officers-both  promotees  and  direct  recruits before coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to Grade  I. Thus it treats all Section officers equally and there is no discrimination between the Section officers. The directly recruited Section officers are not totally excluded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

from the  zone of  consideration for promotion. They will be considered like  the promotee  Section officers  as soon  as they have  rendered eight years’ approved service as Section officers. The  eligibility conditions imposed has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, viz. enlisting experienced officers of  proven merit  to man the higher posts by way of promotion. [158B; 156B-D]      2. The  validity of  rule  providing  for  fixation  of seniority between  the direct  recruits and promotees in the grade of  Section officer on the basis of quota reserved for direct  recruits   (i.e.  1/5   of  the   total  substantive vacancies) has  already been  upheld by this Court. But this does not mean that the direct recruits who are senior to the promotees are  entitled to  be considered for promotion to a higher post  even though  they do not fulfil the eligibility qualification specified  in the  rule framed  by  the  rule- making authority.  The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules  laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a  higher post,  and it  cannot be  said  that  a  direct recruit who  is senior  to the  promotees is not required to comply with  the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The submission that a senior Section officer has  a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post  when his  juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are  being considered  for promotion to the higher post, is wholly unsustainable. [155G; 156A-B; 157D-F]      H.V. Pardasani  & Ors.  v. Union of India, [1985] 2 SCC 468, followed. 150      3. When  qualifications for  appointment to a post in a particular  cadre  are  prescribed,  the  same  have  to  be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in  a particular  cadre does  not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition  prescribed by  the relevant  rules. A person must  be eligible  for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed  for the  post before  he  can  be considered for  promotion. Seniority  will be  relevant only amongst persons  eligible. Seniority  cannot be  substituted for eligibility  nor can  it over-ride  it in  the matter of promotion to the next higher Post. [157G-H: 158A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 2040- 2042 of 1987      From the  Judgment and  order dated  11.2.1986  of  the Central  Administrative   Tribunal,  New   Delhi  in  Appln. Registration No. 4, 9 and 10 of 1985      Shanti Bhushan,  K.R. Nagaraja,  R.S. Hegde  and Jayant Bhushan for the Appellants.      V.C. Mahajan,  C.V. Subba  Rao, A.  Subba Rao  and T.S. Sundrarajan-in-person for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RAY, J.  In these  appeals under special leave the only question that falls for consideration is whether the service rule requiring  8  years  of  approved  service  as  Section officer  both  for  the  direct  recruits  as  well  as  for promotees for being eligible for consideration for promotion to the  Grade I  Post  in  Central  Secretariat  Service  is arbitrary being  in contravention  of Articles  14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.      The matrix  of the  case is  that the  appellants along

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

with one Rajiv Kalsi made four applications under section 19 of the  Administrative Tribunals  Act, 1985  challenging the vires of  proviso to  sub-rule  2  of  Rule  12  of  Central Secretariate  Service   (C.S.S.),   1962   as   amended   by Notification No.  5/8/80-CS. I  dated  29th  December,  1984 prescribing 8  years of  approved service as Section officer as  condition   of  eligibility  for  being  considered  for promotion to  Grade-I Post  in C.S.S.  The appellants,  Miss Prabha Devi  and Shri  Rajiv Kalsi  were recruited directly- through examination held by Union Public Service Commis- 151 sion in  1978 as  Section officers. The appellants Shri G.S. Grewal  and   Shri  Surjit   Singh  were  recruited  through examination held  by Union Public Service Commission in 1980 as  Section   officers.  These   direct  recruits  had  been appointed in  substantive vacancies  of Section  officers in accordance with  the quota  reserved for  direct recruits by the service  rules. The  inter se  seniority of  the  direct recruits and  the promotees  is fixed in accordance with the quota and  rota system.  The appellants  are seniors  to the promotees in  accordance with  the said quota and rota Rule. The promotion  to Grade  I post  of C.S.S.  Rules is made in accordance with  the provisions  of sub-rule 2 of rule 12 of the said  Rules. The  proviso to  sub-rule 2  of rule  12 of C.S.S. Rules, 1962 was originally to the following effect:           "Provided that  if any  person  appointed  to  the           Section officers’ Grade before the prescribed date           is  considered   for  promotion   to  Grade  I  in           accordance with  the provisions  of this sub-rule,           all persons senior to him in that grade before the           prescribed   date   shall   also   be   considered           notwithstanding that they may not have rendered l0           years’ approved service in the grade."      According  to   this  rule  the  direct  recruits  were eligible for  consideration for  promotion  to  Grade  I  in C.S.S. even  though they have not rendered 10 years’ service when promotee Section officers junior to them are considered for promotion  to Grade I. The promotee Section officers had to render  10 years’  approved service  as  Section  officer before being  considered for  promotion  to  Grade  I.  This proviso to  sub-rule (2)  of Rule  12 was substituted by the following proviso with effect from July 31, 1972:           "Provided further  that if any person appointed to           the Section  officers’  Grade  is  considered  for           promotion to  Grade I  under  this  sub-rule,  all           persons senior  to him in that grade shall also be           considered notwithstanding  that they may not have           rendered 10 years’ approved service in that grade.           "      The proviso  to sub-rule  (2)  of  rule  12  was  again substituted  by  the  following  proviso  with  effect  from February 23, 1978:           "Provided further  that if any person appointed to           the Section  officers’  Grade  is  considered  for           promotion to  Grade I  under  this  sub-rule,  all           persons senior  to him  in Section Officers’ Grade           who have rendered not less than six years’ 152           approved service  in that  Grade,  shall  also  be           considered notwithstanding  that they may not have           rendered 10 years’ approved service in that Grade;           provided  that  the  aforesaid  condition  of  six           years’ approved  service  shall  not  apply  to  a           person belonging  to the  Scheduled Castes  or the           Scheduled Tribes."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

    Thus according  to this proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 12 a  direct recruit  Section officer  who has  rendered six years’ approved  service in  that  grade  was  eligible  for consideration for  promotion to  Grade I  whereas a promotee Section officer  would have  to render  ten years’  approved service  in  the  grade  of  Section  officer  before  being eligible  for  consideration  for  promotion.  In  1979  the substantive part  of sub-rule  (2) of rule 12 was amended to provide  eight   years’  approved  service  in  the  Section officers’ Grade  as against  ten years  approved service for eligibility for  promotion to  Grade I  of C.S.S.  The third proviso of  sub-rule (2)  of rule 12 was further substituted by the  following proviso by Notification dated December 29, 1984:           "Provided further  that if any person appointed to           the Section  officers’  Grade  is  considered  for           promotion to  Grade I  under  this  sub-rule,  all           persons senior  to him in Section officers’ Grade,           belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled           Tribes who  have rendered  not less  than 4 years’           approved service  in that  grade,  shall  also  be           considered for promotion.      This amended  rule enjoins  that a  directly  recruited Section officer  has to  render 8 years’ approved service in the grade  of Section  officer  before  being  eligible  for consideration for  promotion to  Grade I. The only exception made in  this  rule  is  with  regard  to  Section  officers belonging to  the Scheduled  Castes or  Scheduled Tribes who shall have  to render  only four  years approved  service in that  grade   in  order  to  qualify  themselves  for  being considered for promotion to the said Grade I.      This condition of eligibility as introduced by the 1984 amendment of  the third  proviso of  sub-rule (2) of rule 12 has been  questioned in  the petitions  before  the  Central Administrative Tribunal  which  after  hearing  the  parties dismissed the  applications by  a  common  judgment  holding inter alia  that neither the amendment of February, 1978 nor the amendment  of December, 1984 made in the proviso to sub- rule  (2)   of  rule   12  of  the  C.S.S.  Rules,  1962  is discriminatory or arbitrary or 153 unreasonable so as to be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16  of the  Constitution of  India. It  has been further held that  the amended rule of December, 1984 is valid, just and equitable and no exception can he taken to it.      Aggrieved by  the said  order these  three  appeals  on special leave  have been  preferred before  this Court.  Mr. Shanti Bhushan,  learned counsel  appearing on behalf of the appellants has  advanced three-fold  submissions before this Court. The  first submission  is that the impugned amendment made in  third proviso  of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of C.S.S. Rules  purports  to  entrench  upon  the  prospects  of  the directly recruited Section officers for being considered for promotion to  Grade I in as much as they are left out of the zone of  consideration while their juniors i.e. the promotee Section officers  are  eligible  for  being  considered  for promotion to  Grade I.  This condition of eligibility has no nexus to  suitability for  promotion to the post and as such this is in violation of the equality clause in Article 16 of the Constitution  of India.  It has  been submitted that any rule framed  by  the  Government  must  be  subject  to  the Fundamental Rights  guaranteed by  the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution  of India. Seniority of the direct recruits entitles them  for consideration for promotion to the higher post while  their juniors i.e. promotee Section officers are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

being considered  for promotion  to  the  higher  post.  The purpose of  the seniority in service is that the senior will be considered  for promotion  before those who are junior to them in  the service.  Of course,  a senior incumbent may be considered not suitable for promotion. It has been submitted that the  condition of  eligibility as laid down in the said rule has  no reference  to suitability  for promotion to the post and  as such  it is  arbitrary and so void. It has been submitted in  this connection  that prior  to 1978  directly recruited Section  officers having  rendered  3-4  years  of service in  that grade had been promoted to Grade I and they had duly  performed their duties. Some of them have rendered their service in the promoted post very efficiently and they have  earned   remarks  such   as  "very   meritorious   and outstanding" from  the Department.  There is nothing to show that the promoted direct recruits were proved inefficient in discharging their  duties and responsibilities of the higher post.      Mr. Shanti  Bhushan  furhter  submitted  that  even  in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 as amended in 1978 direct recruit Section officers after having rendered six  years’ approved  service in the grade had been considered for  promotion and were promoted to Grade I. This system worked out very satisfactorily and 154 the direct  recruit Section  officers who  were promoted  to Grade I  post performed  their duties attached to the higher post  duly   and  satisfactorily.   The  amendment   of  the eligibility qualification  in 1984 providing a longer period of service as S.O. is, therefore, arbitrary and inequitable. There is  no rationale  behind this amendment which works to the serious prejudice of the direct recruit Section officers for being  considered for promotion to Grade I of the C.S.S. Service even  though the promotee Section officers junior to them are being considered for promotion.      It  has  been  secondly  contended  that  the  rule  of determination of  seniority on quota-rota basis in the grade of Section officers having been held valid and not arbitrary by this  Court in  the case  of H.V.  Pardasani and  ors. v. Union of  India and Ors., [1985] 2 SCC 468, the condition of eligibility introduced by the 1984 amendment of sub-rule (2) of rule  12 is  wholly unjust  and arbitrary  as it excludes direct  recruit   Section  officers   from   the   zone   of consideration for promotion even though their juniors having put in eight years’ approved service as Section officers are eligible  for  consideration  for  promotion.  It  has  been submitted that  the effect of the amendment is to neutralise and negative  the decision of this Court which held that the rules of  seniority on  the basis  of quota-rota  basis  are unexceptionable. It  has been  lastly contended  that at any rate the promotee Section officers form a very small portion of the  officers promoted  to the  Grade I  Post and as such elimination of  the direct recruit Section officers from the zone of  consideration  for  promotion  will  not  have  any appreciable effect  in as  much as  it will  not obviate the frustration of  the promotee  Section officers for not being promoted to the higher post. It has also been submitted that it is  unjust and  arbitrary to  prevent the  senior Section officers from  being considered  for promotion  by enhancing the period  of service  from six  years to eight years to be rendered in the grade of Section officer.      Mr. T.S.  Sundara Rajan,  a promotee  Section  officer, Respondent No.  2 has  submitted that the appellants who are directly  recruited   Section  officers  on  the  result  of examination held  by the  Union Public Service Commission in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

1978 and  1980 against  substantive vacancies,  have  become senior to  the promotee Section officers on the basis of the quota reserved  for direct recruits even though the promotee Section officers  have rendered  more than  thirteen  years’ service as  Section officers. This Fixation of seniority has no  reference  to  the  length  of  service.  The  inter  se seniority between  the  direct  recruits  and  the  promotee Section officers being determined on the basis of the 155 quota, the  promotee Section  officers even though they have been A  promoted to  the post  of Section  officers and have rendered service  for  a  considerable  period  have  become juniors to  them in  service and  were  not  considered  for promotion even.  These promotee  Section officers  like  the Respondent No.  2 have  not been considered for promotion in spite of  their rendering  service as  such  for  more  than thirteen years  whereas the  direct recruit Section officers who were  appointed much  later were considered and promoted purely  on   the  ground  of  seniority.  This  has  created frustration in  the minds  of the promotees. To obviate this the Government  after due consideration of all aspect has by Notification dated  December 29, 1984 amended the proviso to sub-rule (2)  of rule  12 of  C.S.S.  Rules  prescribing  an uniform  eligibility  of  rendering  eight  years’  approved service as  Section officers  by  both  the  direct  recruit Section officers and the promotee Section Officers for being considered for  promotion to  Grade I (Under Secretary). The said amendment,  it has been submitted, is neither arbitrary nor unjust.  It has been further submitted that the promotee Section  officers  if  given  promotion  will  render  their service duly  and efficiently  as has  been rendered  by the direct recruit Section officers promoted to Grade I.      According to  the C.S.S.  Rules, 1962,  the substantive vacancies of  Section officers are manned by direct recruits and  promotees  and  a  quota  of  one-fifth  of  the  total substantive vacancies  has been  reserved to be filled up by direct recruits.  The  remaining  substantive  vacancies  of Section officers  are filled  up by  appointment of  persons included in  the select list i.e. by promotion. The inter se seniority between  the  direct  recruits  and  promotees  is determined on  the basis  of the quota-rota rule. The direct recruits on  their appointment against substantive vacancies become senior to the promotees.      This Court  in the  case of  H.V. Pardasani and ors. v. Union of  India and  Ors. (supra) considered the question of the validity  of rule  providing for  fixation of  seniority between the  direct recruits  and promotees  in the grade of Section officer  on the  basis of  quota reserved for direct recruits and  held that  the prescription  of quota  becomes necessary to work out a scheme constituting a service manned by both  the direct  recruits as  well as  promotees. Such a scheme is  unexceptionable and seniority based upon the rota is also not open to attack. The scheme does not appear to be arbitrary and  the rules  and regulations  to give effect to the scheme  are not ultra vires either Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the inter se seniority of direct recruit and promotee Section officers on the basis of 156 quota-rota rules  has been  held to  be valid. This does not mean that  the A  direct recruits  who  are  senior  to  the promotees are  entitled to  be considered for promotion to a higher post  even though  they do not fulfil the eligibility qualification specified  in the  rule framed  by  the  rule- making authority. The rule-making authority by the amendment made  in   1984  has   brought  in  an  uniform  eligibility

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

qualification  of   eight  years’  approved  service  to  be rendered by  the Section  officers-both promotees and direct recruits before  coming within the Zone of consideration for promotion to  Grade I.  Thus it  treats all Section officers equally and  there is  no discrimination between the Section officers. It  has been submitted that this rule is arbitrary and unreasonable  as it prescribes a certain minimum service in a lower post for promotion to a higher post on the ground that it  has no  nexus to suitability for holding the higher post. This  submission in  our considered opinion, cannot be sustained in  as much  as experience  over certain number of years in  service and also due performance of the duties and responsibilities attached  to the post of Section officer is very relevant  and as  such prescribing  such an eligibility qualification has  nexus to the suitability for the promoted post.  The  directly  recruited  Section  officers  are  not totally  excluded   from  the   zone  of  consideration  for promotion. They will be considered like the promotee Section officer as  soon as they have rendered eight years’ approved service as Section officer. The Tribunal has held that:           "The qualifications  for any  post are  prescribed           having regard  to the  nature of  the post and the           duties and  responsibilities attached  to it.  For           due  discharge  of  duties  attached  to  a  post,           academic excellence  alone may  not be sufficient.           Factors like  experience over  certain  number  of           years in  service and  holding a post of a certain           level  are   relevant.   That   gives   them   the           opportunity to  deal with  several  files,  handle           different  situations,   tackle  varied  problems,           extract  work   from   subordinates   of   varying           capabilities  and   serve  under   superiors  with           differing  styles  of  functioning.  They  acquire           knowledge of  men and  matters and  the  necessary           acumen to  deal with  issues arising  from time to           time.   Academic    brilliance    and    excellent           performance at  the  competitive  examinations  by           themselves cannot  wholly  substitute  experience.           They can  only  supplement.  However  brilliant  a           person may  be, he needs experience such as can be           gathered  only   by  discharging  the  duties  and           responsibilities   attached    to   a   post.   If           recruitment to  a post is by way of promotion, the           minimum 157           number of years one should serve in the lower post           would have  to be  prescribed. Valuable experience           gained in  service,  better  equips  a  person  to           shoulder  higher   responsibilities  and  man  the           superior post. Period spent in discharge of duties           of a  post has  nexus to.  the object of enlisting           experienced  officers   of   proven   merit   with           consistent  good  record  over  sufficiently  long           period  to   man  the   higher  posts  by  way  of           promotion."      The  1984   amendment  of   the  rules   providing   an eligibility condition  of rendering  eight  years’  approved service as  section officer  for coming  within the  zone of consideration for promotion to Grade I Post of C.S.S. is not at all arbitrary and unreasonable as it prescribes a minimum period of  eight years’  of service  as Section officer both for  direct   recruits  and  promotees  as  a  condition  of eligibility for  consideration for  promotion to  the higher post. This  rule is, therefore, not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

    The rule-making  authority is  competent to frame rules laying down  eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When  such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service  rules, it  cannot be  said that a direct recruit who is  senior to  the promotees  is not  required to comply with the  eligibility condition  and he  is entitled  to  be considered for  promotion to  the higher  post merely on the basis of  his seniority.  The amended  rule in  question has specified a  period of  eight years’ approved service in the grade of  Section officer  as a condition of eligibility for being considered  for promotion  to Grade  I post  of C.S.S. This rule  is equally  applicable to both the direct recruit Section officers  as well  as the promotee Section officers. The submission  that a senior Section officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have  fulfilled  the  eligibility  condition  are  being considered for  promotion to  the higher  post, Grade  I, is wholly unsustainable.  The  prescribing  of  an  eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the  competence of  the rule-making  authority.  This eligibility condition  has to  be fulfilled  by the  Section officers including  senior direct  recruits in  order to  be eligible  for   being   considered   for   promotion.   When qualifications for  appointment to  a post  in a  particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can  be considered  for appointment.  Seniority in  a particular cadre  does not  entitle  a  public  servant  for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for  promotion having  regard to the qualifications prescribed for the 158 post before  he can  be considered  for promotion. Seniority will be  relevant only  amongst persons  eligible. Seniority cannot be  substituted for  eligibility nor it can over-ride it in  the matter  of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in  question which  prescribes  an  uniform  period  of qualified service  cannot be  said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of  Articles 14  or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal:           "When certain  length of  service in  a particular           cadre  can   validly  be   prescribed  and  is  so           prescribed,  unless   a  person   possesses   that           qualification, he  cannot be  considered  eligible           for appointment.  There is  no law which lays down           that a  senior in  service would  automatically be           eligible for  promotion. Seniority  by itself does           not outweight experience."      It has also been observed:           "In  any   event,  the   appropriate  Rule  making           Authority is  the best  judge in  this regard. The           Rule making  Authority is  certainly competent  to           amend the  Rule and extend the period from 6 years           to 8  years so as to make the direct recruits more           experienced and suitable for the higher post. That           is a  matter for  the Rule  making Authority;  the           Tribunal cannot  sit in  judgment over the opinion           of the Rule making Authority. No Court or Tribunal           can substitute  its own  view in  a matter such as           this. Such  a Rule framed by a competent Authority           cannot be  struck down  unless it  is shown  to be           violative of any Fundamental Right guaranteed to a           citizen under the Constitution."      We do  not find  any infirmity  in the  above  findings arrived at by the Tribunal.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

    In the  premises  aforesaid  we  hold  that  the  third proviso to  sub rule  2 of  Rule 12  of Central  Secretariat Service   Rules,  1962   as   amended  by  Notification  No. 5/8/80-CS. I.  dated 29th  December, 1984 is not ultra vires of Articles  14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment and order of  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  is  hereby affirmed and the appeals are dismissed without costs. G.N.                                Appeals dismissed. 159