Holding

The allocation scheme is a valid policy decision, does not infringe Articles 14 or 16, and the Tribunal cannot direct the Government to change its policy.

Summary

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No.145 (Revenue) on 29 January 1990 increasing the quota of Superintendents eligible for deputation as Tehsildars, a step contested by the Superintendents. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside the order and directed the government to revise its policy and allocation scheme. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the allocation of posts among different groups of officers is a policy decision within the executive’s domain and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that classifications based on differing functions and promotion prospects constitute a legitimate classification and that a tribunal cannot direct the government to formulate a new policy. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside, the applications were dismissed, and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the quota and allocation scheme for deputation of Superintendents as Tehsildars violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal can direct the Government to alter its policy or prescribe a new quota.
Whether the classification of officers into three groups for promotion purposes constitutes a valid classification under Article 14.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 14, s. Art. 16

Subjects

service lawpromotionequalityArticle 14Article 16judicial reviewpolicy decisionquotadeputationTehsildarTamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service

Judgment

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. A
v.
S. ARUMUGHAM AND ORS.
-.
NOVEMBER 20, 1997

[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B

Service law :

Promotion Policy-Persons performing different fimctions and having
different prospects and different avenues for promotion-Held, cannot be C
equated-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16.

Promotion Po/icy-Policy decision . of the Government-Judicial
,, .
Review-Allocation of posts among different offices of the State Revenue
Subordinate Service for deputing Section Officers/Superintendents/or training
as Tehsi/dar which would enable them to get further promotion as Deputy D
Collector in the State Civil Service-Held, it was the policy decision of the
Government-The Tribunal ought not to have given directions for formulating
a new policy and a different quota-No Judicial Review of policy decision.

The post ofTehsildar used to be filled as per the Tamil Nadu Revenue
Subordinate Service Rules either by promotion from Deputy Tehsildars or E
by deputation from amongst Section Officers in the Secretariat and the
Superintendents working in the Board of .Revenue of different offices which
would enable them to earn further promotion as Deputy Collectors in the
Tamil Nadu Civil Service. Respondents who were Superintendents working
in the Office of the Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, F
challenged the GOMs No. 145 (Revenue) dated 29-1-1990 issued by the State
Government increasing the quota of Superintendents working in v~rious
specified offices for deputation as Tehsildars in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate
Service as they were not satisfied with the quota for which they were eligible.
The Tribunal set aside the said GO Ms and directed the appellants to review
their scheme as far as the Secretariat staff was concerned and directed them G
to evolve a different scheme which would give the staff a wider perspective
in all aspects of executive works. The Tribunal also directed all Revenue
Officers to be clubbed into one group and for the manner of deputing officers
from that group. It had also issued direction as to how such grouping could
be made. The State thought that these directions issued by the Tribunal fell H
295
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A within the domain of the policy decision of the Government and thus aggrieved
by decision of the Tribunal filed the present appeals.

Allowing the appeals, this Court

HELD: The Tribunal ought not to have directed the Government to
B change its policy. The Government has a right to frame a policy to ensure
efficiency and proper administration.and to provide suitable channels of
promotion to officers working in different departments and offices. The
appellants in their detailed affidavit before the Tribunal have given the
history of the relevant provisions and the justification for those provisions
in the interest of efficiency and proper administration. The Tribunal cannot
C substitute its own views for the views of the Government or direct a new
policy based on the Tribunal's view of how the allocation should be made. The
three groups which have been formed as far back as in 1977 for the purpose
of allocation consist of officers performing different functions and having
different prospects and different avenues of promotion.

D The allocation was made for the purpose of ensuring, first of all, that
the Superintendents in the Office of the Board of Revenue, Land Revenue
Branch got a reasonable allocation for deputation in order to improve their
efficiency; and secondly, to give the Superintendents working in other offices,
and in the Secretariat, an additional avenue of promotion. The allocation has
E also heen made on the basis of the prospects of promotion available in various
offices in the city. The allocation has been in force since 1977 and it has
stood the test of time. If the preferential treatment of one source in relation
to the other is based on the difference between the two sources, the recruitment
can be justified as legitimate classification. This applies to the present case
also. Therefore the scheme in question does not violate Article 14 or 16, nor
F it is arbitrary. The quota which should be fixed or the allocation which should
be made for the purpose of deputing officers to Tamil Nadu Revenue
Subordinate Service is basically in the domain of the executive. Unless there
is a clear violation of any provision of the Constitution, the Tribunal ought
not to have given directions for formulating a new policy and a different
G quota. 1301-F-H; 302-A-B; 301-D-E; 302-B-D)

Indian Railways Service of Mechanical Engineers Association v. Indian
Railways Traffic Service Association, [1993] Supp. 4 SCC 473 and Govinda
Dattatray Kefkar v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, [1967) 2 SCR
29, relied on.

H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 385-89 of
GOVT. OF T.N. v. S. ARUMUGHAM [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, .I.] 29T/

1992. A
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.91 of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in O.A. Nos. 3631, 3975-76/90 and C.A.
No.192of1991.

R. Mohan, M.A. Krishnamoorthy and J.B. Ravi, Rajsekaran for the B
Appellants.

Ms. Asha Jain Madan, B.P. Singh and R.A. Perumal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MRS. SUJA TA V. MANOHAR, J. These appeals arise from the order C
dated 30.4.1991 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in OA Nos. 1969,
I
3631, 3975, 3976, all of 1990 and O.A. No. 192 of 1991. All these applications
had been filed by persons who were working as Superintendents in the office
of the Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax. They Challenged
G.O.Ms. No.145 (Revenue) dated 29.1.1990 issued by the appellant-State of D
Tamil Nadu increasing the quota of Superintendents working in various
specified offices for deputation as Tehsildars in the Tamil Nadu Revenue
Subordinate Service since they were not satisfied with the quota for which
they were eligible.' The Tribunal has set aside G.0.Ms. No.145 (Revenue)
dated 29.1.1990 and has directed the appellants to review their scheme as far
as the Secretariate staff is concerned and has directed them to evolve a E
different scheme which would give the staff a wider perspective in all aspects
of executive works, which, according to the Tribunal, would be more useful
to the staff in the Secretariat working in different departments. The Tribunal
has also directed all Revenue Officers to be clubbed into one group and for
the manner of deputing officers from that group it has also given directions F
as to how such grouping could be made. The decision of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal has been challenged by the appellants before us.

Those who have been deputed as Tehsildars become eligible for further
promotion as Deputy Collector in the Tamil Nadu Civil Service. The post of
Tehsildar is governed by the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules. G
Recruitment to this post is from two sources--{ I) by promotion from Deputy
Tehsildars in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service or (2) by deputation
from amongst Section Officers in the Secretariat and the Superintendents in
the office of the Board of Revenue (Land Revenue), Board of Revenue (Food
Production), Board of Revenue Settlement of Estates, the Commissioner of
Civil Supplies, the Director of Service Settlements, the Director of Harijan and H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Tribal Welfare, the Director of Backward Classes, the Director of Rehabilitation,
the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, the Director of Urban Land '
Ceiling and Urban Land Tax and the Board of Revenue (Land Reforms), who
had rendered satisfactory service as such for two years and who are otherwise
qualified for appointment as Tehsildar. The Board of Revenue was abolished
with effect from 1.12.1980 by reason oflhe Tamil Nadu Board of Revenue
B (Abolition) Act of 1980. Prior to its abolition the Board of Revenue comprised
the following branches:-

(1) Land Revenue including excise;

(2) Commercial Taxes;
c (3) Food production;

(4) Settlement of Estates;

(5) Transport;
'
D (6) Agricultural income-tax;

(7) Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax; and

(8) Land reforms.

The Land Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue enjoyed a pre-
E eminent position because the Land Revenue branch was in overall control of
the entire Revenue Department, while the other branches had specific functions
and, therefore, had a limited field of activity. After the abolition of the Board
of Revenue the Land Revenue branch has been replaced by the office of the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The
other branches also have become separate. Some sections are headed by
F Commissioners, such as, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, the
Commissioner of Land Administration and so on. The branch of Urban Land
Ceiling and Urban Land Tax has been replaced by the Directorate of Urban
Land Ceiling and Land Tax. J
G Under G.O.Ms. No. 276 (Revenue) dated 31.1.1950 the appellants decided
that the Superintendents of the Secretariat and the Superintendents of the
Board of Revenue who were qualified for appointment as Tehsildars in the
Madras Revenue Subordinate Service under the existing rules shall, instead
of being appointed to the Madras Revenue Subordinate Service as was then
being done, be deputed to undergo training in the districts for a total period
H of three years in the Madras Revenue Subordinate Service, namely, six months
GOVT. OF T.N. v. S. ARUMUGHAM [SUJA TA V. MANOHAR, J.] 299

as Deputy Tehsildars, 1iix months as Stationary Sub-Magistrate and two years A
as Tehsildars. They should then be reverted to the Secretariat or the Board
of Revenue, as the case may ·be, and be considered for inclusion in the
Deputy Collectors' list. The G.O.Ms. further stated that in order to safeguard
the prospects of the men in the mofussil the deputation of the city-men
working in these offices should be restricted to 3 or 4 a year. The number was B
subsequently restricted to 3 per year. Under G.O.Ms. No. 1154 (Revenue)
dated 16.4.1959 the number of Superintendents to be so deputed as Tehsildars
was increased from 3 to 6 per year. By another G.O.Ms. No. 2584 (Revenue)
··• dated 4.9.1959 the Government reserved two posts out of six for the Revenue
Secretariat on the ground that the training of Superintendents of the Revenue
Secretariate in the Madras Revenue Subordinate Service will increase the C
standard of efficiency in the Revenue Secretariat which is concerned with
most of the subjects that are dealt with by Tehsildar/Deputy Tehsildar in the
district.

By G.O.Ms. No. 2982 (Revenue) dated 28.10. !'968 the number to be sent
on deputation was once again increased from 6 to 8. It was further decided D
that as a convention, 2 vacancies shall be reserved for the Board of Revenue,

..1..
.... Land Revenue branch. By this G.O.Ms. Superintendents in the Food Production
branch, Board of Revenue and Superintendents in the Directorate of Harijan
Welfare were also included to accommodate a wider zone of selection. In the
Board's proceedings dated 22.2.1975 one post was reserved for the E
Superintendents of the Food Production branch in the Board of Revenue.

In G.O.Ms.426 (Revenue) dated 24.2.1975 it was mentioned that the
facility of inclusion in this list is available to the staff employed in the office
of the Board of Revenue specifying the different branches which were so
eligible. For the first time, the staff of the urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land F
Taxes branch was also included.

Under G.0.Ms.No. 299 (Revenue) dated I 0.2.1977 some more offices
were brought within the purview of the scheme. The total number of
deputationists, was increased. to I 0 and the allocation was as follows:-

3- Departments of the Secretariat; G
3- Board of Revenue (Land Revenue)

4- Other City Offices.

This G.O.Ms. sets out in detail the reasons for such allocation. It also sets
out that there will be difficulties in preparing a common list of Superintendents H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A in the order of seniority amongst different Section Officers of the Secretariat ...
and the Superintendents of other offices and, therefore, they have prescribed -
the quota. It is necessary to note that under this G.0.Ms. in 1977 itself the
Land Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue was given a specific
allocation of three posts while the other City offices were, between them,
B given an allocation of 4 posts.

This allocation was revised by G.O.Ms. No.145 (Revenue) dated 29.1.1990
which is under challenge before us. The reason why a fresh G.O.Ms. was
required to be issued was that the Government decided to increase the
number of posts from 10 to 16 for the City list because of the overall expansion
C in the posts of Tehsildars. This G.O.Ms. retains th~ classification which was ·
in existence right from 1977 under the G.O.Ms. of 10.2.1977. But in the
departments of the Sectetariat the original allocation of 3 posts has been
increased now to 5 posts. In the erstwhile Board of Revenue (Land Revenue
branch) which originally had 3 posts under the G.O.Ms. of I 977 these posts
have now been increased to 5. In view of the abolition of the Board of
D Revenue these 5 posts have gone to the office of the Special Commissioner
and Commissioner of Land Revenue Administration which has replaced the
Land Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue. The other'city offices have
now been allotted 6 seats instead of 4 seats.
In the.ir affidavit which was filed by the appellants before the Tamil
E Nadu Administrative Tribunal the appellants have explained in detail the ratio
of such allocation. They have pointed out that the Special Commissioner and
the Commissioner of Land Revenue Administration, occupies a special place
in this programme because it is this Department (originally the Land Revenue
branch of the Board. of Revenue) which handles the overall control of the
entire Revenue Department. Training as Deputy Tehsildars/Tehsildars is of
F special relevance for the efficient functioning of this Department. The appellants
have also pointed out that the avenues for promotion in the office of the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Larid Revenue Administration
are more limited thari the avenues of promotion in all other departments. In
" their affidavit they have set out in detail the avenues of promotion available
G in each of the offices which are governed by the scheme in order to substantiate
this submission.

The contention of the Superintendents working in the Directorate of
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax appears to be that they also originally
formed a part of the Board of Revenue and, therefore, they should not be
H clubbed with the other city offices under this G.O.Ms. They should be
GOVT. OF T.N. v. S. ARUMUGHAM [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 301
. )\ clubbed with the Superintendents in the office of the Special Commissioner A
and Commissioner of Land Revenue Administration. They are forgetting that
even under the G.O.Ms. of 1977 separate allocation of 3 seats was only for
the Land Revenue Branch of the Board of Revenue and not for all the
branches of the Board of Revenue. In 1977 they had been clubbed along with
other city offices for the allocation of seats. Ifthe reasoning of the respondents B
is to be accepted the other offices which also formed a part of the original
Board of Revenue would also have to be similarly treated. There is no
justification at all for any grievance in this connection because right from the
beginning of the scheme, it has been clearly provided that the original Land
Revenue branch of the Board of Revenue which is now replaced by the
Special Commissioner and the Commissioner Land Revenue Administration, C
had a special nexus with the functioning of the office of the Tehsildar/Deputy
Tehsildar; and the training they would obtain on deputation would be directly
relevant for the purpose of improving their efficiency in the parent department.
It is also clear that at no point of time there was any allocation made in
proportion to the number of Superintendents in any office. The allocation was
made for the purpose of ensuring, first of all, that the Superintendents in the D
office of the Board of Revenue, Land Revenue branch got a reasonable
allocation for deputation in order to improve their efficiency; and secondly
to give to Superintendents working in other offices, and in the Secretariate,
an additional avenue of promotion. The allocation has also been made on the
basis of the prospects of promotion available in various offices in the city. E
The allocation has been in force since 1977 and it has stood the test of time.

The Tribunal itself came to the conclusion that combining all the
departments and having a common. seniority list was neither justified nor
feasible. But it has given directions for a different kind of allocation and a
different scheme. These directions pertain to policy matters. The Tribunal F
ought not to have directed the Government to change its policy. The
Government has a right to frame a policy to ensure efficiency and proper
administration and to provide suitable channels of promotion to officers
working in different departments and offices. In Indian Railway Service of
Mechanical Engineers Association and Ors. v. Indian Railway Traffic Service G
Association and Anr., (1993] Supp. 4 SCC 473, this Court reiterated that the
correctness of a policy should not be questioned by the Tribunal. The
appellants in their affidavit before the Tribunal have given in detail the history
of these provisions and the justification for these provisions in the interests
of efficiency and proper administration. The Tribunal cannot substitute its
own views for the views of the Government or direct a new policy based on H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the Tribunal's view of how the allocation should be made. The three groups ".
which have been formed as far back as in 1977 for the purposes of allocation
consist of officers performing different functions and having different prospects
and different avenues of promotion. They cannot be equated for the purpose .
of Article 14 or 16. In the case of Gov ind Datta tray Kelkar & Ors. v. Chief
B Controller of Imports & Exports & Ors., (1967] 2 SCR 29, this Court held that
the concept of equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only
when promotees are drawn from the same source. If the preferential treatment
of one source in relation to the other is based on the difference between the
two sources, the recruitment can be justified as legitimate classification. This
reasoning directly applies in the present case. Therefore, the scheme does not
C violate Article 14 or 16, nor is it arbitrary. The quota which should be fixed
or the allocation which should be made for the purpose of deputing officers
to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service is basically in the domain of
the executive. Unless there is a clear violation of any provision of the
Constitution, the Tribunal ought not to have given directions for formulating
a new policy and a different quota.
D
The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the
applications filed before the Tribunal are dismissed. The appeals are allowed
accordingly with costs.

R.K.S. Appeals allowed.

J'