http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: KARAM PAL & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1985

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BHAGWATI, P.N. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  774            1985 SCR  (3) 271  1985 SCC  (2) 457        1985 SCALE  (1)488  CITATOR INFO :  D          1986 SC 638  (12,21)  R          1987 SC2359  (20)

ACT:      Labour and Services:      Central Secretariat  Service Rules,  1962, Rules 13, 18 and Regulation  3 of Fourth Schedule-Seniority and Promotion of direct  recruits  and  promotees-Quota  and  rota  rules- Whether select  list can  be challenged  in the  absence  of challenge to the Rules and Regulations.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioners 1 Assistants are covered by the Central Secretariat Service  Rules, 1962  (Rules, for  short).  They challenged under  Art. 32 the correctness of the Select List for the  grade of  Section Officers for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980  and the common seniority list dated April 26, 1979 as also  the provisional supplementary list of Assistants on the ground:  (i) that  the quota  rule had  broken  down  as direct recruitment  had not  been made  in many years and on account  of   such  failure,   fixation  of  seniority  with reference to  the rotational  method was not available to be followed; and  (ii) that  Select List as contemplated by the Rules had not been framed for quite a long period and in the absence of  such a  select list framed in time, select lists of 1978,  1979  and  1980  prepared  without  following  the criterion of  length of  service of officers in the grade of Assistants was  not only  unfair and  arbitrary  worked  out prejudicially to  the petitioners.  The  petitioners  prayed that the  select list  and seniority  list be republished on the basis  of length  continuous service  in  the  grade  of Assistants and promotion to the grade of Section Officers be granted from  the dates  when Assistants junior to them were promoted as  Section Officers. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1-Union  of India  argued that  there had  been  regular direct recruitment into the Service in all years except only two,  viz.,  1966  and  1970.  Thus,  the  quota  rule  has, therefore,  really   not  broken  down  as  pleaded  by  the petitioners and  the Rules,  having contemplated a scheme of direct recruitment  and promotion,  quota and  rota have  to work together  and since the manner of fixation of seniority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

is covered  by statutory  rules, the  petitioners  are,  not entitled to claim determination of seniority on the basis of length of service. 272      Dismissing the Writ Petitions, ^        HELD:1  (i) It  will be  appropriate  if  a  detailed reference to  the Rules  is made  in order  to ascertain the Scheme. The  Rules contemplate  that there shall be separate cadres  in  respect  of  Section  Officers’  grade  and  the Assistants’ Grade  and these  shall be  constituted for each Ministry or  Office specified  in  Column  2  of  the  first schedule. Sub-rule  (6) of  Rule 13  prescribes that 50%  of the vacancies in the Assistants’ grade in any cadre is to be filled  by   direct  recruitment   on  the  results  of  the competitive examinations  to be  conducted by the Commission from time  to time  and the  remaining vacancies  are to  be filled by substantive appointment of persons included in the select list  for the  Assistants’ grade  in that cadre. Such appointments are to be made in the order of seniority in the select list  except when  for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in writing, a  person is  not considered fit for appointment in his turn.  When difficulties were experienced in working out the Rule, two provision were added to sub-rule(6). The first proviso provided  that substantive  vacancies in  any  cadre reserved for direct recruitment on the appointed day against which no  direct recruits  have been appointed may be filled by  substantive   appointments  made   after  the   date  of commencement  of  the  Central  Secretariat  Service  (Third Amendment) Rules,  1970, of  persons included  in the Select List for  the Assistants’  grade in  that cadre.  The second proviso was  to the  effect that  if  sufficient  number  of candidates are not available for filling up the vacancies in a cadre  in any year by direct recruitment as aforesaid, the unfilled vacancies  in the  direct recruitment quota in that cadre shall  be filled  by the  substantive  appointment  of persons included  in the  Select List  for  the  Assistants’ Grade  in   that  cadre."   Sub-rule  (6)(a)  provides  that notwithstanding anything  contained  in  sub-rule  (6),  the substantive vacancies  reserved for direct recruitment as on 30th June  1979  on  each  cadre  against  which  no  direct recruits have  been appointed till that date plus 50% of the number of  such substantive  vacancies n  the cadre  may  be filled by  substantive appointments  made after  the date of commencement   of   Central   Secretariat   Service   (Third Amendment) Rules,  1979, of  persons included  in the select list for the Assistants’ grade in that cadre."                                      [276D; 278C-D; H; 279A]      1(ii). Rule  18, sub-rule(3)  makes provision  for  the rule in the matter of fixation of inter se seniority for the Assistants’ grade.  Direct recruits  are to rank inter se in the  order  of  merit  in  which  they  are  placed  in  the competitive examination  on the  result of which recruitment is effected.  Recruits of an earlier examination are to rank senior to  those of  a later  examination, Persons appointed substantively to  the grade  from the  select list  for that grade shall  rank inter  se according  to the order in which they are  so appointed  and the  inter se  seniority between direct recruits  and persons  substantively appointed to the grade for  that grade  shall be regulated in accordance with the provision  made in  the Fourth  Schedule.  Clause  3  of Regulation 3  in the  Fourth Schedule  provides that  direct recruits to  a grade  and persons substantively appointed to the Grade  from the  Select List  for  the  Grade  shall  be assigned seniority  inter se  according  to  the  quotas  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

substantive vacancies  in  the  Grade  reserved  for  direct recruitment and  the appointment  of persons included in the Select List,  respectively.  The  proviso  to  Clause  3  of Regulation 3  provides that  persons appointed substantively in accordance with the provi- 273 sions of  sub-rule (6)  of rule  13 to  the Grade  from  the Select List  in  any  cadre  in  any  year,  against  direct recruitment vacancies  for which  direct  recruits  are  not available shall  be placed  en bloc  below the  last  direct recruit appointed  in that  year irrespective  of the quotas reserved for  direct recruits  and persons  included in  the Select List. [279F-G; 279H; 280A]      2. (i)  The Rules have held the field for 22 years now. During this period direct recruitment had not been made only in two  years  being  1966  and  ]970  Though  in  the  writ petitions a  general stand  had  been  adopted  that  direct recruitment had  not been  made in  several years, after the counter  affidavit   was  filled  and  it  was  emphatically asserted  that   excepting  in   these  two   years   direct recruitment had  been made in other years, there has been no challenge to  that assertion.  There is  no doubt that quota and rota have got to go hand in hand and if the quota is not properly adhered to, the rota System must fall. In fact, the scheme is  such that  it can  operate in  an appropriate way only when recruitment is effected through both the processes as envisaged.  In  the  instant  case,  the  difficulty  was experienced in  working out the process with the quota fixed by the  Rules had  not been adhered to for one reason or the other and  vacancies were  being carried  forward for  being filled up  in  future  years.  This  situation  necessitated insertion of the first proviso to sub-rule (6) or rule 13 in August 197()  and the other proviso in 1977 as also sub-rule (6)  (a)  in  1979.  The  grievance  voiced  in  these  writ petitions  obviously  relates  to  a  period  prior  to  the modification of the scheme.                                               [280H; 281A-D]      2  (ii)   Unless  there   is  any  serious  failure  in implementing the  Rules and  grave injustice is done to some individuals or  a group  of officers, it would not be proper to interfere  with the  working of  the scheme and dislocate the inter  se seniority  of the officers in these grades. No mala fides has been pleaded nor has any grave injustice been established in  the writ  petitions. At  the most  a case of improper working of the scheme with reference to some of the officers has  been  alleged.  Hari-splitting  arguments,  if accepted, might  indicate that  some of the petitioners have not been  promoted to  the grade  of Section Officers as and when due.  This Court  is of the view that if there has been substantial compliance  in implementing the scheme under the Rules, judicial interference is not called for. [282B-C]      Dr. G. Marulasiddaiah v. Dr. T.G. Siddapparadhya & Ors. [1971] 1  S.C.C. 568, N.K. Chauhan & Ors v. State of Gujarat JUDGMENT: State of  U.P. &  Ors. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 449 & V.T. Khanzode & Ors. v.  Reserve Bank  of India  & Anr.  [1982] 3 S.C.R. 411 referred to.      S.B. Patwardhan  & Ors.  etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1977]  3 S.C.R. 775. & A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors [1983] 2 S.C.R. 936 held inapplicable.      3. Neither  in the  writ petitions nor in arguments any challenge was  advanced against  the vires  of the Rules. In the absence  of challenge  to the Rules and the Regulations, resultant situations flowing from compliance of the 274

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

same are  not open to attack. Occasion for similar grievance would not  arise in  future as  the proviso  in the relevant regulation and  clauses (4) and (5) Of the Regulation 3 will now meet the situation. [280F-G]

&      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition Nos. 9328,9333/82 & 4830/83       (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      R.K. Garg, V.J. Francis, for the petitioners.        Shanti  Bhushan, Miss A. Subhashini, A. Subba Rao for the Respondents.      S.N. Andley,  S.S. Jouhar,  R.N. Poddar,  K.M.  Sharma, Randhir  Jain,   J.D.  Jain  and  Mrs.  K.  Kocher  for  the Interveners.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by        RANGANATH   MISRA.  J. These  12  applications  under Article 32  of the Constitution are by Assistants covered by the Central  Secretariat Service  Rules, 1962  (’Rules’  for short), and challenge is to the select list for the grade of Section Officers  for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980, and the common seniority  list dated  April 26,  1979, as  also  the provisional supplementary  list of  Assistants dated  August 21,1980. They  have further  prayed that the select list and seniority list  be re-published  on the  basis of  length of continuous service  in the grade of Assistants and promotion to the  grade of  Section Officers be granted from the dates when Assistants  junior to  them were  promoted  as  Section Officers.      The Rules  framed under  the proviso  to Article 309 of the Constitution  came into force from October 1,1962. Under the Rules,  the Central  Secretariat Service was constituted and as  per rule  3 there  are four  grades in  the  Service classified as follows:      (i)  Selection   Grade   (Deputy   Secretary   to   the      Government of India or equivalent);      (ii) Grade I  (Under Secretary  to  the  Government  of      India or equivalent);      (iii)     Section Officers;      (iv) Assistants. 275      The first  two grades  are classified  as Central Civil Service,   Grade ’A’,  while the  other two are known as the Central Civil  Service, Grade  ’B’ Ministerial.  Post in the first  three   grades  are   gazetted  while  posts  in  the Assistants’ Grade  are non-gazetted.  The Rules  contemplate that there  shall be  separate cadres  in respect of Section Officers’ grade and the Assistants’ grade and these shall be constituted for  each Ministry or office specified in col. 2 of  the  First  Schedule.  Under  rule  4,  a  single  point gradation list in respect of officers of the Selection Grade and Grade  I for  all the Ministries or offices specified in col. 2 and for the offices specified against such Ministries or offices  in col.  3 of  the Schedule is to be maintained. The Rules  contemplate direct  recruitment as also promotion in respect of certain grades.      According to  the petitioners the quota rule had broken down as  direct recruitment  had not been made in many years and on  account of  such failure, fixation of seniority with reference to  the rotational  method was not available to be followed. The  petitioners also  contended that select lists as contemplated by the Rules had not been framed for quite a long period  and in the absence of such a select list framed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

in time,  select lists  of  1978,  1979  and  1980  prepared without following  the criterion  of length  of  service  of officers in  the grade of Assistants was not only unfair and arbitrary but  worked out  prejudicially to the petitioners. The main  grievance of  the petitioners in short is that the scheme  for  fixation  of  seniority  and  consequently  the provisions relating  to promotion  having not  worked out as contemplated,  the  manner  of  determination  of  seniority should be  usual rule  of total length of service and action taken otherwise  should be  struck down and seniority should be directed  to be  redetermined on  the basis  of length of service only. F      Respondent No.  1, Union of India, has challenged these allegations by  contending that  the manner  of fixation  of seniority is  covered by statutory rules and the petitioners are, therefore,  not  entitled  to  claim  determination  of seniority on the basis of length of service; the plea of the petitioners that  there had  been no  direct recruitment for several years  is denied and it has been pleaded that direct recruits have come into the service in all years except only two, viz.,  1966 and  1970. The  quota rule  has, therefore, really not broken down as pleaded by the petitioners and the rules having contemplated a scheme of direct recruitment and promotion, quota  and rota  have to work together Therefore, fixing seniority 276 with reference  to the  rotational method  was not  open  to challenge. The  Rules have  been in  force for well over two decades. Great  care has  been taken  in making provision in the Rules to safeguard the interests of the different groups and greater  care has  also been  taken by the Department of Personnel in  the Ministry of Home Affairs to give effect to the Rules.  Since the  officers  are  drawn  from  different Ministries for promotion and working out the scheme involves a somewhat  complicated process, as long as the policy under the Rules  has been  given effect to, the working should not be allowed  to be  attacked merely  on account  of a  casual failure to work up to mathematical precision.      Before we  start examining the correctness of the rival contentions advanced  on either side, it is appropriate that a detailed  reference to  the Rules  is  made  in  order  to ascertain the scheme.      ’Cadre’ has  been defined  in rule  2, sub-rule  (2) to mean the group of posts in the grades of Section Officer and Assistant in  any of  the Ministries or offices specified in col. 2  of  the  First  Schedule  and  any  of  the  offices specified against  such Ministry or office in col. 3 of that Schedule. ’Cadre  Officer’ in  rule 2(g)  in relation to the Section Officers’  grade or  the Assistants’  grade means  a member Of  the service  of the  Section Officers’  grade  or Assistants’ grade,  as the  case  may  be,  and  includes  a temporary officer approved for long term appointment to that grade.  ’Long   term  appointment’  means  under  rule  2(1) appointment for  an indefinite  period as  different from  a purely temporary  or ad  hoc appointment.  Common  Seniority List’ has  been defined  in rule  2(hh) in  relation to  any grade to  mean the  seniority list of officers in that grade serving in all the cadres specified in the First Schedule as on the  appointed day  any revised  from  time  to  time  in accordance with  the regulations to be framed in that behalf by the Central Government. ’Probationer’ has been defined in clause (o) of rule 2 to mean a direct recruit appointed to a grade on  probation in or against a substantive vacancy, and ’select list’  under rule 2(q) is defined to mean the select list prepared  in accordance with the regulations made under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

rule 12(4)  or under the regulations contained in the Fourth Schedule. Rule  8 contemplates  the initial  constitution of each cadre  and provides  that the  permanent and  temporary officers of  the Section Officers’ grade and the Assistants’ grade in each cadre on the appointed day shall be determined by the Central Government in the Department of 277 Personnel &  Administrative Reforms  in the Ministry of Home Affairs.      Rule 12  makes provision  for recruitment  to selection grade and  grade I.  We are  not concerned with this rule in the present  case as the dispute is raised by Assistants and the promotional rank to which claim has been laid is that of Section Officer. For them rule 13 is the relevant rule. Sub- rules (1)  to (5)  relate  to  Section  Officers  while  the remaining sub-rules (6) to (10) relate to Assistants. At the time when  the Service  was constituted  sub-rule  (1)  read thus:      "Subject to  the provisions  of  sub-rule  (3),  for  a      period of five years from the appointed day, 1/4 of the      substantive vacancies in the Section Officers’ grade in      any  cadre  and  thereafter,  1/3  of  the  substantive      vacancies in  that grade,  shall be  filled  by  direct      recruitment  on   the  results   of   the   competitive      examinations held  by the  Commission for  this purpose      from time to time.. "      Sub-rule (I) of rule 13 as it now stands reads thus:      "1/6  of  the  substantive  vacancies  in  the  Section      Officers’ grade  in any  cadre shall  be filled  up  by      direct recruitment  on the  results of  the competitive      examinations held  by the  Commission for  this purpose      from time  to time.  The remaining  vacancies shall  be      filled  by   the  substantive  appointment  of  persons      included in  the select  list for the Section Officers’      grade in that cadre. Such appointments shall be made in      the order  of seniority  in the select list except when      for reasons  to be recorded in writing, a person is not      considered fit for such appointment in his turn."      It is thus clear that the proportion of direct recruits      has been reduced from the initial l/4th or 1/3rd to the      present 1/6th.      Sub-rule  (2)   of  rule   13  prescribes:   "Temporary vacancies in  the Section  Officers grade in any cadre shall be filled by the appointment of persons included or approved for inclusion  in the  select list for the Section Officers’ grade in  that cadre.  Any  vacancies  remaining  thereafter shall be  filled in  equal proportion  from  among  the  (a) officers of the Assistants’ grade who have rendered 278 not less than 8 years’ approved service in the grade and are within the  range of  seniority on  the basis  of  seniority subject to  the rejection of the unfit.. and (b) officers of the Assistants’  grade in that cadre with the longest period of continuous  service in  that grade on the basis of length of service  subject to the rejection of the unfit." Sub-rule (5)  prescribes   the  preparation   of  a  select  list  of Assistants for  promotion to the Section Officers’ grade and the manner  of preparing  and revising  the select  list has been set out in the Fourth Schedule.      Sub rule  (6) prescribes  that 50%  of the vacancies in the Assistants’ grade in any cadre is to be filled by direct recruitment on  the results  of the competitive examinations to be  conducted by the Commission from time to time and the remaining  vacancies   are  to   be  filled  by  substantive appointment of  persons included  in the select list for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

Assistants’ grade in that cadre. Such appointments are to be made in  the order  of seniority  in the  select list except when for  reasons to be recorded in writing, a person is not considered  fit   for  appointment   in   his   turn.   When difficulties were  experienced in  working out the rule, two provisos were  added to  sub-rule (6),  one with effect from December 15, 1979. these were to the following effect:      "Provided further  that substantive  vacancies  in  any      cadre reserved  for direct recruitment on the appointed      day  against   which  no   direct  recruits  have  been      appointed may  be filled  by  substantive  appointments      made after  the date  of commencement  of  the  Central      Secretariat Service  (Third Amendment)  Rules, 1970, of      persons included in the Select List for the Assistants’      grade in that Cadre.      Provided also  that if  sufficient number of candidates      are not  available for  filling up  the vacancies  in a      cadre in  any year  by direct recruitment as aforesaid,      the unfilled  vacancies in the direct recruitment quota      in that  cadre  shall  be  filled  by  the  substantive      appointment of  persons included in the Select List for      the Assistants’ Grade in that cadre."      Sub-rule (6)  (a) which  was inserted  along  with  the latter   proviso   authorised:   "Notwithstanding   anything contained  in   sub-rule  (6),   the  substantive  vacancies reserved for direct recruitment as on 30th June 1979 on each cadre against  which no  direct recruits have been appointed till that date plus 50% of the number of such 279 substantive  vacancies   in  the  cadre  may  be  filled  by substantive     appointments  made   after   the   date   of commencement   of   Central   Secretariat   Service   (Third Amendment) Rules,  1979, of  persons included  in the select list for the Assistants’ grade in that cadre." Under rule 15 every direct  recruit to the grade of Assistant is Initially to be  appointed on  probation for  the period  of two years from the  date of  appointment and every person other than a direct recruit  when he is appointed would be on trial for a period of  two years  also.  Rule  16  makes  provision  for confirmation  of   probationers  subject   to   passing   of prescribed tests and satisfactory completion of probation.      Rule 18 prescribes seniority in the different grades as on the  appointed day.  Sub-rule (1) indicates that relative seniority shall  be as already determined on that day and if there had  been no  such determination  the same  has to  be determined by  the Department  of Personnel & Administrative Reforms. Sub-rule  (2) provides  that all permanent officers included in  the initial  constitution of a grade shall rank senior to  all persons substantively appointed to that grade after the  appointed day and all temporary officers included in the  initial constitution  of a  grade under rule 8 shall rank senior  to all  temporary officers  appointed  to  that grade after  the appointed  day. Rule 18. sub-rule (3) makes provision for the rule in the matter of fixation of inter se seniority for  the Assistants’ grade. Direct recruits are to rank inter se in the order of merit in which they are placed in  the   competitive  examination   on  the   result  which recruitment is  effected. Recruits of an earlier examination are to  rank senior to those of a later examination. Persons appointed substantively  to the  grade from  the select list for that  grade p shall rank inter se according to the order in which  they are  so appointed  and the inter se seniority between direct  recruits and persons substantively appointed to the grade for that grade shall be regulated in accordance with the provision made in the Fourth Schedule.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

    Regulation  3   in  the   Fourth  Schedule  deals  with seniority. Clause 3 of this regulation provides:      "Direct recruits  to a  Grade and persons substantively      appointed to  the Grade  from the  Select List  for the      Grade shall be assigned seniority inter se according to      the  quotas  of  substantive  vacancies  in  the  Grade      reserved for direct 280      recruitment and  the appointment of persons included in      the Select List. respectively,"      From  December   1977,   contemporaneously   with   the insertion of  the second proviso to rule 13(6) of the Rules, the following  was  added  as  a  proviso  to  clause  3  of Regulation 3:      "Provided  that   persons  appointed  substantively  in      accordance with  the provisions of sub-rule (6) of rule      13, to  the Grade  from the Select List in any cadre in      any year,  against  direct  recruitment  vacancies  for      which direct recruits are not available shall be placed      en bloc below the last direct recruit appointed in that      year irrespective  of the  quotas reserved  for  direct      recruits and persons included in the Select List."      In Course  of the  hearing counsel  for the petitioners referred to instances where a direct recruit coming into the cadre several  years after others coming into the cadre from the Select  List  had  been  assigned  seniority  over  such promotees. This was explained by counsel for the respondents to have  been the  outcome of  giving effect  to clause 3 of Regulation 3 as it stood prior to December, 1977 without the proviso. The  instances relied  upon were found to be events prior to  the introduction of the proviso. In the absence of challenge  to  the  Rules  and  the  Regulations,  resultant situations flowing from compliance- of the same are not open to attack. Occasion for similar grievance would not arise in future as the proviso in the relevant regulation and clauses (4) and (5) of the Regulation 3 will now meet the situation.      Neither in  the writ  petitions nor in arguments before us any  challenge was  advanced against  the  vires  of  the Rules. One  of the  known patterns  of  constituting  public service, particularly  in the  executive side,  is  to  draw officers both  by promotion  as also  by direct recruitment. The proportion  is fixed  depending upon  the nature  of the service, the  availability of  suitable manpower  and  other relevant considerations.  The petitioners  have,  therefore, rightly not  challenged before  us the  scheme under which a moiety of the substantive vacancies in the Assistants’ grade is to  be filled  by direct  recruitment and  the  other  by promotion through select lists.      The Rules  have held the field for 22 years now. During this period direct recruitment had not been made only in two years 281 being 1966 and 1970. Though in the writ petitions of general stand had  been adopted that direct recruitment had not been made in several years, after the counter affidavit was filed and it was emphatically asserted that excepting in these two years direct recruitment had been made in other years, there has been  no challenge  to that assertion. We agree with the contention that  quota and  rota have got to go hand in hand and if the quota is not properly adhered to, the rota system must fail.  In fact,  the scheme is such that it can operate in an  appropriate way  only when  recruitment  is  effected through both the processes as envisaged.      As  we   have  already   pointed  out,  difficulty  was experienced in  working out the process when the quota fixed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

by the  Rules had  not been adhered to for one reason or the other and  vacancies were  being carried  forward for  being filled up  in  future  years.  This  situation  necessitated insertion of the first proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 13 in August 1970)  and the other proviso in 1977 as also sub-rule (6)  (a)  in  1979.  The  grievance  voiced  in  these  writ petitions  obviously  relates  to  a  period  prior  to  the modification of the scheme      The petitioners  had inter  alia, prayed for the relief of striking down the select lists and for direction that the select lists  he reframed  on the  basis of  the  length  of continuous service  in the  grade of  Assistants. In view of what we  have said  regarding the  claim of seniority on the basis of  length of  continuous service,  it is  not at  all necessary to  examine the  validity of  that contention  and give any  direction regarding the select lists, particularly because the  claim relating  to  reconsideration  of  select lists  was  grounded  upon  length  of  continuous  service. Nothing was  also shown in course of arguments as to why the select lists  were  bad.  Tn  fact,  unless  the  Rules  and Regulations are  successfully assailed, the select lists are not at all disputable.      The field  which these  Rules cover is indeed very wide one. Assistants  in all  the Ministries or offices specified in the  First Schedule are covered by the Rules. With a view to maintaining the efficiency of the service and at the same time to meet the requirements and exigencies of the service. separate cadres  have been  formed in  respect of Assistants and Section Officers in the different Ministries and offices attached to  such Ministries.  Notwithstanding the fact that these cadres  are different,  the scheme makes provision for pro- 282 motional avenue  taking  all  of  them  into  consideration. Obviously, working  it out  keeping in view the interests of so many  employees in  the different cadres is indeed a very onerous  and  difficult  task.  This  has,  therefore,  been assigned to the Department of Personnel. Unless there is any serious  failure   in  implementing   the  Rules  and  grave injustice  is  done  to  some  individuals  or  a  group  of officers, we  do not  think it  would be proper to interfere with the  working of  the scheme  and dislocate the inter se seniority of the officers in these grades. No mala fides has been pleaded nor has any grave injustice been established in the writ  petitions. At  the most a case of improper working of the  scheme with  reference to  some of  the officers has been alleged.  Hairsplitting arguments,  if accepted,  might indicate that some of the petitioners have not been promoted to the  grade of Section Officers as and when due. We are of the view  that if  there has  been substantial compliance in implementing  the   scheme   under   the   Rules,   judicial interference is  not called  for. In  a vast country such as ours, a  strong  and  independent  bureaucratic  set  up  is indispensable. At the same time it is equally necessary that the service  from top  to bottom  must be  alive to the fact that it  is its  obligation to  maintain  proper  attitudes, discipline and  duty-oriented working. While it is the right of every  person in  the Service  set-up to  expect just and fair  treatment   in  regard  to  his  employment,  frequent litigation between  him and  the State  involving  countless other co-employees  in  the  Service  in  the  battle  is  a deviation from  the right  direction. It  is true  that very often instances come to light where the grievance is genuine and the  treatment meted  is unwarranted  and uncalled  for. Government in  a democratic  polity runs on impersonal basis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

but on  the cardinal  code that  every one shall perform his duty. We  may recall  what this  Court observed  in  Dr.  G. Marulasiddaiah v. Dr. T.G. Siddapparadhya & Ors.;      "The canker  of litigiousness  has  spread  even  to  a      sphere of  life where  discipline should check ambition      concerning   personal preferment.A teacher is justified      in taking  legal action  when he feels that a stigma or      punishment is  undeserved but  he is  expected to  bear      with  fortitude   and  reconcile  himself  to  his  lot      suppressing disappointment  when he  finds a  co-worker      raised to a position which he himself aspired after." (1) (1971) 1 S.C.R. 568. 283      There has been a phenomenal rise in service disputes in the last three decades. It is time that serious attention is devoted to  discover the  reason for  it and  take effective steps  to   ensure   curtailment   thereof.   Whether   such litigations  come  before  courts  or  tribunals  is  of  no consequence here. Frequent litigations between the State and its  employees  ultimately  affect  the  efficiency  of  the service and bring about indiscipline, lack of loyalty and an attitude of indifference.      In the  course  of  arguments  reference  was  made  to certain decisions  of this  Court. In N.K. Chauhan & Ors. v. State of  Gujarat &  Ors.,(l) this Court held that the quota system does  not necessitate  the adoption of the rotational rule in  practical application  and many ways of working out quota prescribed  can be  devised of which rota is certainly one. It was further held that while laying down a quota when filling up  vacancies in  a cadre from more than one source, it is open to Government, subject to tests under Article 16, to choose  ’a year’  or other  period or  vacancy by vacancy basis, to work out the quota among the sources. But once the Court is  satisfied, examining  the constitutionality of the method proposed, that there is no invalidity, administrative technology may  have free  play in choosing one or the other of the  familiar processes  of implementing  the quota rule. This Court did indicate that as Judges we cannot strike down a particular  scheme because  it is  unpalatable to forensic taste.  This  Court  further  pointed  out  that  ordinarily seniority is  measured by  length of  continuous officiating service.  This,  however,  does  not  preclude  a  different prescription, constitutionality  tests being satisfied. When the Court  found that promotees had been appointed in excess of their quota, the following direction was given:      "Promotees who  have been  fitted into vacancies beyond      their quota during the period B-the year being regarded      as the unit- must suffer survival as invalid appointees      acquiring new  life when  vacancies in their quota fall      to be  filled up.  To that  extent they will step down,      rather be  pushed down  as against  direct recruits who      were later but regularly appointed within their quota." (1.) [1977] 1 S.C.R. 1037. 284      The rationale  of this  decision is  indeed  very  much against the contentions of the petitioners.      Reference was also made to the case of S.B Patwardhan & Ors. etc.  v. State  of Maharashtra  & Ors. (1). The dispute that fell for adjudication in that case was one of seniority in the cadre of Deputy Engineers and grievance had been laid that notwithstanding the length of continuous service, later appointees had  been  shown  as  senior.  Attention  in  the decision was  mainly confined to the terms of the provisions of the Rules applicable to the State Engineering Service. In the view  we have  taken of  the matter this decision indeed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

does not help the petitioners.      Next is  the case  of Baleshwar  Dass &  Ors., etc.  v. State of  U.P. &  Ors.,(2) etc.  This Court pointed out that for the  purposes of seniority appointment to the service in a substantive  capacity was  necessary. But  that again  was said with  reference to  Rule 23  of  the  U.P.  Service  of Engineers (Junior  and  Senior  Scales-  Irrigation  Branch) Rules.      This Court  in V.T.  Khanzode & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India &  Anr., (3)took  not of  the fact  that "  no  scheme governing service  matter can be fool-proof and some section or the  other of employees is bound to feel aggrieved on the score of  its expectation being falsified or remaining to be fulfilled. Arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fides will  of course render any scheme unconstitutional but the fact  that the  scheme does not satisfy the expectations of every employee is not evidence of these.’ ’      Next is  the case  of A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors.(4) That  was a  case relating  to dispute  of inter  se seniority of  direct recruits  and promotees in the Military Engineering Service. Seniority lists drawn up earlier on the basis of  length of service including continuous officiation were subsequently  altered to  lists based  on quota between direct  recruits   and  promotees   leading  to   rota   for confirmation and  this led  to the  dispute The  Court found that some  of the  officers had  been promoted  prior to the enforcement of the Rules (1) [1981] 1 S.C.R. 449. (2) [1977] 3 S.C.R. 775. (3) [1982] 3 S.C.R. 411. (4) [1983] 2 S.C.R. 936. 285 in  1969.   The  Rules  had  no  retrospective  effect  and, therefore, seniority lists drawn up prior to the enforcement of the  Rules were  not open  to be  revised and re-drawn up after the  Rules became  operative The  Court further  found that  the  quota  rule  had  not  been  worked  out  and  if rotational  confirmation   was  to  be  done,  many  of  the employees considered  hitherto senior  would be  very  badly affected. Here  again we  must point  out that this decision has no  application to  the facts  before us  since  on  the finding reached  by us  the  quota  rule  was  substantially complied with.      The writ  petitions must  accordingly fail.  We make no order for costs. M.L.A.                                   Petitions dismissed 286