http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DIRECTOR, LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LTD. ANDORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRAVAT KIRAN MOHANTY AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/02/1991

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 341        1991 SCC  (2) 295  JT 1991 (1)   430        1991 SCALE  (1)399

ACT:      Civil   Services:   Orissa   State   Lift    Irrigation Corporation  Ltd.- Reorganisation of   set   up-Amalgamation of   composite   cadre   of   Electrical-Mechanical     into Electrical   or   Mechanical   cadre-Validity   of Gradation List-Fitment  of  personnel of  composite   cadre   as   per date   of initial  appointment  vis-a-vis  scale  of    pay- Consequent  loss  of  seniority and  reduction  in   chances of   promotion-Whether  violative  of  Articles 14  and   16 of    the   Constitution-Right   to   promotion-Whether    a fundamental right.      Constitution  of  India,   1950:   Articles   14    and 16-Gradation  List-Prepared  consequent   to    amalgamation of   cadres-Seniority   and chances of Promotion   affected- Whether    violative   of   right   to   equality-Right   to Promotion-Whether a fundamental right.      Administrative     Law:     Judicial      Review-Policy decision     to    reorganise   set   up   and    amalgamate cadres    on    administrative   exigency- Whether  open  to judicial review.

HEADNOTE:      The   Lift  Irrigation  Corporation  Ltd.   had   three categories      of   services,      namely,      Mechanical, Electrical     and    Composite    unit     of   Mechanical- Electrical    when   it   was    carved    out    of     the Government     organisation.    Subsequently,    due      to administrative   exigency,   the   Corporation  decided   to reorganise  its set up and  classify  the   employees   into two  categories’  namely,  Electrical  and   Mechanical   by amalgamating  the   composite  Electrical   and   Mechanical Engineering   diploma    holders  either  in  Electrical  or Mechanical wing,  and  invited  objections  to  the  scheme. It also called for options from persons  holding  only   the composite   diploma,  namely,  Mechanical   and   Electrical Engineering    Supervisors.  On  consideration  of   options received,  the  Corporation  prepared two gradation lists in the  order  of  seniority  from  the  respective  dates   of appointment to the posts  and  higher  scale  of  pay   held by   respective  Persons and fitted them in  the  respective lists as per options.      Respondent  No. 1,  a  diploma  holder  in   Electrical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Engineering,  who                                                        342 was  working  as  Sub-Assistant  Engineer  (Electrical)   in Government service, and had been drawn on deputation to  the Corporation  along with Respondents No. 6 and 7,  appellants in third appeal, holders of double diploma in Mechanical and Electrical   Engineering,   and   working   as    Mechanical Supervisors, along with others, had not filed any  objection to  the  scheme, but questioned before the  High  Court  the gradation  of  Respondents  No. 6 and 7 and  others  in  the Electrical Wing.      The High Court quashed the gradation lists and directed the Government and the Corporation to treat Respondent No. 1 and the other respondents as belonging to two cadres of Sub- Assistant    Engineer    (Electrical)    and    (Mechanical) respectively.      The Corporation, the State Government and the aggrieved employees   filed  separate  appeals,  by   special   leave, contending that the Corporation had the power to  amalgamate the  three  sections  into  two,  due   to    administrative exigency    and    to   prepare    seniority   lists    from respective dates of employees’ initial appointment, etc.      Respondent  No. 1  contended  that  his  seniority   as No.  2  in  the Electrical  Wing  could  not  be   disturbed by  taking  Mechanical   Supervisors  into  the   Electrical Wing   offending   his   right    to    promotion  enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.      Allowing the appeals, this Court,      HELD: 1. 1  The  Government  or  the  Corporation,  due to  administrative exigencies, is entitled to and has  power to  reorganise the  existing cadres or amalgamate  some   or carve   out  separate  cadres.  The  decision to  amalgamate the  existing  cadres   by  reorganising   them   into   two cadres  being  a policy decision, taken  on   administrative exigencies,   is  not  open to judicial review unless it  is mala   fide,   arbitrary  or  bereft   of   any  discernible principle. [345E, G]      1.2 On account of  amalgamation  into  two  cadres   by absorbing   the  personnel   working   in   the    composite cadre,  namely,  Electrical-Mechanical in either  Electrical or Mechanical  cadre,  and  their  adjustment,  the order of seniority  of  the employees  working   in   Electrical   or Mechanical  cadres is  likely  to  be  reviewed.  When   the persons   in   the  composite  Electrical-Mechanical   cadre opted   to  the  Electrical  cadre,  they  were entitled  to be  considered  for their fitment in the cadre as  per   the seniority from the date of their initial appointment  vis-a- vis   their   scale   of pay.   This   was   the   procedure adopted  by  the  Corporation  in   fixing   the                                                        343 inter se seniority. The  procedure  adopted  is  just,  fair and   reasonable   and  benificial   to  all  the  employees without   affecting  their  scales  of  pay  or  losing  the seniority  from  the date of initial  appointment.  [345G-H, 346A-B]      Undoubtedly, in  this  process,  the  first  respondent lost  some  place in seniority which  is  consequential   to amalgamation.   He  has  not  been deprived of his right  to be   considered  for  promotion;  only   his   chances    of promotion have been receded.      1.3 There is no  fundamental  right  to  promotion.  An employee  has only right to be considered when it arises, in accordance  with  the  relevant rules. [346C]      1.4  In  the circumstances, the High  Court   was   not right   in  holding that the gradation list prepared by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Corporation  was  in  violation  of Respondent No. 1’s right to equality  enshrined  in  Article  14  read  with  Article 16 of the Constitution, and that  he  was  unjustly   denied of  the same. [346D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 699  of 1985.      From  the  Judgment  and  Order  dated   17.5.1984   of the   Orissa High Court in O. J. C. No. 936 of 1979.      G.L.   Sanghi,   Adv.,  R.K.  Mehta,  Ms.   Uma   Jain, M.A.  Firoz   and P.N. Misra for the appearing parties.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      K.    RAMASWAMY,   J.   These   three    appeals    are against     the judgment  of  the  Orissa  High   Court   in O.J.C.   No.  936  of  1979.  The Division   Bench   allowed the  writ  petition  and  quashed  the   gradation lists  of sub-Asstt.    Engineers   (Electrical)    and     Sub-Asstt- Engineer (Mechanical), Annexures  5  &  6  before  the  High Court  and  the  promotions given to the  respondents   Nos. 4   and   5  therein  Annexure  7.  The Government  and  the Corporation  were  directed  to  consider  the  question  of promotion   treating   the   writ   petitioner    and    the respondents  as belonging  to  two  cadres   of   Sub-Asstt. Engineer    (Electrical)    And  (Mechanical).  These  three appeals  were  filed,  one  by  the  Corporation, another by the   State   Government   and  the   third   one   by   the aggrieved employees.                                                        344      The  facts are simple.  Shri Bidura  Charan  Mohapatra, the  6th respondent/first appellant in the third  appeal,  a diploma holder in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, was appointed as Mechanical Supervisor on August 24, 1962 in the pay   scale  of  Rs.215-396.  Shri  Parijat  Ray,  the   7th respondent/2nd  appellant, equally possessed of  diploma  in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, was appointed in  the same scale of pay as a Mechanical Supervisor on November  5, 1962.   Shri P.K. Mohanty, the writ petitioner in  the  High Court  and the respondent in these appeals holds diploma  in Electrical Engineering and was appointed as Hand Driller  in the pay-scale of Rs. 100- 155, on October 23, 1963 and  Sub- Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the payscale of Rs.  185- 325  on September 1, 1965.  The Lift Irrigation  Corporation Ltd., a part of the Government Organisation, was carved  out separately and the three persons alongwith others were drawn on deputation from the Government service to the Corporation in  the  year  1963.   Three  categories  of  services  were existing in the Corporation, namely, Mechanical,  Electrical and Mechanical-Electrical Composite unit.  In the year 1971, three   tentative   gradation  lists   were   prepared   for classification  purpose  of those three  divisions  as  Sub- Assistant  Engineer  (Mechanical),  Sub-Assistant   Engineer (Electrical),  Supervisors, Electrical and Mechanical  which includes  Electrical  Supervisors,  Mechanical  Supervisors, Drilling  Supervisors and Foreman-cum-Instructors.  In  1977 the  Corporation  decided to reorganise its set  up  and  to classify  the  employees into two categories,  namely,  Sub- Assistant      Engineer     (Electrical),      Sub-Assistant Engineer  (Mechanical)  to attend to the  respective  works, namely, mechanical and electrical.  The Corporation  invited objections to amalgamate Composite Electrical and Mechanical Engineering   Diploma  Holders,  either  in  Electrical   or Mechanical  Wing.  Options were called for from the  persons

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

holding  only the composite diploma, namely, Mechanical  and Electrical  Engineering  Supervisors.   The  respondent-writ petitioner  did  not file any objection to the  scheme.   On consideration  of  the  objections  filed  by  others,   two gradation lists were prepared in the order of seniority from the respective dates of appointment to the posts and  higher scale  of pay held by respective persons and fitted them  in the respective lists as per options.  As stated earlier  the respondent questioned their gradation in the Electrical Wing in  the  High Court and the High Court quashed  it  and  the appellants obtained leave of this Court under Art. 136.     The contention of the appellants is that the  respondent has  no  right  to  be  kept  in  a  particular  wing.   The Corporation,  with  a  view to  H   create  two  categories, namely, Mechanical and Electrical sought to                                                      345 amalgamate the   third   Composite     Mechanical/Electrical Wing    and sought for  options  from  the  persons  holding the    composite    posts.   This   was   taken    due    to administrative  exigency.  The  Corporation   has   power to  carve out by  amalgamating  three  sections,  into   two divisions  and  to prepare the  seniority  lists  from   the respective  date  of  their  initial appointment,  etc.  The High  Court,  therefore,  was  unjustified  to  quash the   gradation   lists.  It   was   contended    for    the respondent   by   Sri  Misra, his  learned   counsel,   that the    persons    from   the   three    wings    are    only deputationists   holding  lien  on  Government  posts.   The Corporation   did not  frame  any  scheme  of  its  own   to appoint  its  own  employees,   nor given  options  to   all the  deputationists  for  confirmation  as  its   employees. So long as the  employees  are  continuing  on   deputation, they   are entitled to have seniority  in   the   respective wings.  The  writ  petitioner admittedly has  been   working on   the  Electrical  Wing  and  was  No.  2  in  the  order of  seniority   as  Sub-Assistant   Engineer   (Electrical). His  right to seniority,  cannot  be  disturbed  by   taking Mechanical    Supervisor    into  the    Electrical    Wing, offending  his  right  to  promotion  enshrined  under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.       The   writ   petitioner   holds   only   Diploma    in Electrical   Engineering. S/Shri  Bidura  Charan   Mohapatra and   Parijat   Ray   hold   double diploma  of   Mechanical and   Electrical  Engineering.  It  is   settled   law  that the    Government    or    the    Corporation,    due     to administrative  exigencies,   is   entitled   to   and   has power  to  reorganise  the   existing cadres  of  amalgamate some   or   carve   out   separate    cadres.    The    pre- existing   three   separate  cadres,   namely,   Electrical, Mechanical    and    the   composite     cadre,      namely, Electrical-Mechanical   were   sought   to   be  amalgamated into  two  cadres  by  absorbing   the   personnel   working in  the  composite  cadre,   namely,   Electrical-Mechanical in    either    Electrical  cadre   or   Mechanical   cadre. Options  have  been  called  for  in  that regard from   all the  persons  working  in  the  Electrical-Mechanical  cadre and   the   appellants   exercised   their    options    for absorption   in  Electrical cadre.  The  employees   working in   the   Electrical  and  Mechanical    cadres  were  also aware  of  the  same.  It  was,  therefore,  open   to   the respondent  to  raise any objection to the  policy  at  that stage.    But   he   failed   to   so.  The   decision    to amalgamate  the  existing  cadres  by   reorganising   into two    cadres    was   a   policy    decision    taken    on administrative   exigencies. The policy decision is not open

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

to judicial review unless  it  is  mala  fide, arbitrary  or bereft   of  any  descernable principle.  On   account    of the  amalgamation     and    adjusting     the     composite Electrical-Mechanical  cadre in either of the Electrical  or Mechanical  cadre  as  per  the  options given, the order of seniority  of  the  employees  working  in  Electrical  or Mechanical  cadres  is  likely  to  be  reviewed.  When  the persons  in  the                                                      346 composite   Electrical-Mechanical   cadre   opted   to   the Electrical  cadre,  they are entitled to be  considered  for their  fitment  to the cadre as per the seniority  from  the date  of their initial appointment vis-a-vis their scale  of pay.   This was the procedure adopted by the Corporation  in fixing  the  inter se seniority.  The procedure  adopted  is just,  fair  and  reasonable  and  beneficial  to  all   the employees  without effecting their scales of  pay or loosing the   seniority  from  the  date  of  initial   appointment. Undoubtedly, in this process the respondent/writ  petitioner lost  some  place  in seniority which  is  consequential  to amalgamation.   He has not been deprived of his right to  be considered for promotion, only his chances of promotion have been  receded.  It was not the case of the  respondent  that the action was actuated by mala fide or colourable  exercise of  power.  There is no fundamental right to promotion,  but an  employee has only right to be considered for  promotion, when it arises, in accordance with the relevant rules.  From this  perspective  in our view the conclusion  of  the  High Court that the gradation list prepared by the Corporation is in violation of the right of the respondent/ writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Art. 14 read with Art. 16 of the Constitution,   and  the  respondent/writ   petitioner   was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified. The  appeals are accordingly allowed and the  writ  petition stands  dismissed.   But in the circumstances,  parties  are directed to bear their respective costs.    N.P.V.                               Appeals  allowed.                                                       347