Holding

The quota‑based rota system and the statutory Rules fixing inter‑se seniority are constitutionally valid and not ultra‑vires of Articles 14 and 16.

Summary

The petitioners, Section Officers of the Central Secretariat Service, challenged the combined seniority list and the method of fixing inter‑se seniority between directly recruited officers and promotees, alleging that Rules 12, 13(5) and Regulation 3(3) of the Fourth Schedule were ultra‑violes of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court examined the Central Secretariat Service Rules, the 1964 Promotion Regulations and the quota‑based rota system prescribed for the Service. It held that, in the absence of a special provision, seniority is lawfully determined by the prescribed quota and rota, and that the Rules and Regulations are not arbitrary nor violative of constitutional equality provisions. Consequently, the petitions seeking a recasting of the select list and omission of direct recruits were dismissed. The Court suggested a review of the Rules to reduce officer discontent.

Issues considered

The validity of Rule 12, Rule 13(5) and Regulation 3(3) of the Fourth Schedule with respect to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the method of fixing inter‑se seniority between direct recruits and promotees based on quota and rota is ultra‑vires.
Whether the combined seniority list and eligibility list for promotion to Grade I are constitutionally valid.

Legislation cited

Central Secretariat Service (Promotion to Grade I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964s. Regulation 3(3), s. Regulation 5(2)(c)
Central Secretariat Service Ruless. Rule 12, s. Rule 13, s. Rule 18
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

Central Secretariat Servicesenioritypromotionquotarotainter se seniorityRule 12Rule 13Articles 14Article 16ultra viresselection list

Judgment

286
A
H.V. PARDASANI, ETC.
v;

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1
B March 12, 1985

[P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARBNDJU. NAtH SBN & RANGANATH MISIA JJ.

Central Secretariat Serv .ce Rules - Rules 12 and 13 (5)-Ctntral
c Secretariat Service (Promotion zto Grade I and Selection Grade) Regulations
1964, Regulation 5(2}(c).

Secretariat Service-Section Officers--Promo!ion to Under Secretary-
Drawing of Select List of Section Officers-fixation of seniority between pro-
motees and direct recruits - How determined - Service scheme - Whether
D ultra -Vires Articles 14 and 16.

Constitution of India 1950, Artie/es 14 & 16

Central Secretariat Service Scheme - whether ultra vires.

E The Central Secretariat service is composed of four grades . (i) Selection
Grade (Deputy Secretary) ; (ii) Grade I (Under Secretary) ; (iii) Section
Officers' grade ; and (iv) Assistants' grade. Ruic 12(2) of the Central
Secretariat Service Rules provides that promotions to the grade of Under Secre-
tary be made from amongst members belonging to the grade of Section Officers
and Grade 'A' Officers of the Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service. Under
F role 12(4) the· Central Government framed the Central Secretariat Scrvict
(Promotion to Grade I ~nd Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964. Regulation
S (2) (c) provided that the names of officers appointed to Section Officers'
Grade before the appointed day and included in the Select List of Section
Officers at the initial Constitution ·shall be arranged in the order of their
seniority as determined before that day, Additions to this List shall be made
G by including officers appointed to the Section Officers' Grade after the appoin-
ted day through the select List for the Grade, officers appointed on the basis
of an earlier select list being placed above those officers appointed·
on the basis of a later select list. This Select List was contemplated to cover
the entire Secretariat and was, therefore, required to reflect all the select lists
of the cadre of Section Officers. In this single list of eligible Section Officers
H the names of the directly recruited Section Officers op l~e basis of the combine\\
'1
it. v. P~ASA!'J r. t!NifoL
co01petitive. examinations. and arranged in the order or merit in: such _exwnina·.-· A,,
tionS had to. be. intCfpO'tated aCcordini to the quoti_or_ vacancies· reseryed. for,
d~- recfuits at th~ time_-Of the_ir_ ~ec_ru~tment._: ~ , ,. , .. :

- In. the writ petitio~s to' this Court, the -~~i,tioners. who. beloii~ed.'... to; the:.
cadre of Sections Officers in· the Central, Secretariat·, Service . challelii:ed the~
combined seniority list. of all the···Section. OfficCrs belonging_, to, the Service:
• and sought. a direction that_ the.select list in Grade I of the Service_ be.recast;·,
tha.t some· of- the direct· ·recruits - includCd in the eligibility·. list of Section_' ·'.
Officers should be omitted, alld that a direction- be issued to. apPoint promo·
tees to Grade I with effect from the_ date on which junior directly recruited
Section Officers have been appointed to GradC I. · ThC "vires ·or· the' -note" below
Rulo 12," Rule" ll(S)>and' Regulation "'3(3) of the FoUrtb Schedule were also'
assailed as being ultra-Vires Ariicles 14 ,. _and _16.. ·It' Wits fllithef 'Coiitended;
that - the seniority bCtween ·· the · direct_· reCruits and proriioteeS: _iri :the·irade· Or· c)
Section Officers has to be fixed on the baSis of leD.gtb oi 1 ~tvicC - ID ·the·:' glade)
and not by the process envisaged under- the Rules and Regulations.

. ,1Jie - ~poncknts '- Contested·..:: the·. petitions alleging that the · ~;~~isionr.
for fixing seniority has been made by the statutory Rules and ·that the combinedt
seniority list as also the eligibility list were in . acCordancC.; with ~the ~ statutory\.
scheme. · ., ·-... h . -:::· D
!I

_ Dis~issing ~he Writ Petitio~s! ,-l _,,- .•·_, ,,. ' t .

HELD : l. In the absence of any special prov1s1ons regul:iting:
determination of seniority, length of continuous service in any particular grade
would be the basis· for detefmining serii0rity 1 iri that· gr.ide. 1 'If'ci ·rote prescri~ E
bes a method of fixation of i"nter se seniority, the normal practice would ·!
not apply and the rule shall prevail} "[29JH i 292A] ' i" ' ,",:" l" • "I ,;1 " l

2. The scheme does not'appCat I to. be arbitrary;r," The"R;ues and the
---J-_ Regulations intended to give effect to the scheme arc not ultra vjres of either
Article 14 or-Article'.16 of the Coll.stitutiOn~. , (294A) . . ; -· .:,) . ·/ '',

•
3. The scheme constituting a Service to be manned both by direct
•,
recruits as also promotee is 1 unexceptionable •.. · Presciiption : of ·qt.iota: :bicomes
necessary to work. out s_uch schemC and 'rota is a well accepted method for
giving effect thereto. Seniority based upon rota is not open to attack. [293G]
' ... ' ' . ' ; - ; -·1· . . '. ; . ...• ~·. ~.
,, ~ - . ~ '· '-,., . ~!1 ~-: ~:~.,- .. ~
1
G
4. Under rule 13(1) dealing with recruitment to" the grade or· secti'oU' ,,'
om.Ccrs·a· ·quota' haS 1-bCen ·,fixed ·arid pfoVisiOii haS been ·madC fOi ~'Qmg ·o·ri
the'cadre both.by direct 'recnlitmCnt as also lJY: proniotion. : SeniOritY~;in.;the~~t -
cadre of Section Officers is the basis· on which selection to the higher grade .int
res~ of promotees has to be !"•de,. (292 B"~C] , , ; ,, l c: :_" ,, )
' .' . : ~ _,:.;;::) •
, 5. , Regulation "3{3)-"of" the. Fourth. Schedule provides thaL. inter se, I!
seniority or direct., recruits and pioniOtecs Shill be accOrdfu.g··tO the· Quota: Or • . •~ ·
1; "-' ·• · · • • •· ~ .. j • • - ' • ii;;: ;r ::' r:'1l
•

~88 tt 9S5i ~ s.c,R ·
substantive vacancies in the grade reserVed for ·.direct recruits·. and promotees
A ·respectively; The Rules m::i.ke detailed .provision for given effect to the quota
r. de a·nd since officers are drawn from two different sources, provision has also
been made for fixing their inter se seniority. The inter ~e seniority of the
direct recruits and promotees in each of the.:..cadres of Section Officers has not
been challenged in the instant case. · Such fixation has_ been made years back.
•
In the absence of challenge, the consequential process of. drawing up of
.select list depending upon such seniority .for promotion to Grade I (post of
B Under ·secretary) would not be open to challenge. [293H ; 294A ; DJ

6. , If there is a quota rule to implement; the question of length of
services becomes an irrelevant conside·ration. Once the quota rule fails, the
rota call no longer be enforced without causing prejudice to officers with
longer periods of service in the cadre. TP.e quota rule itself has nOt been
c• questioned in the instant case. [294F-G]°

Mervyn Coutindo & Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Ors.(19631
3 S.C.R. 600, N.K. Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [1971] 1 S.C.R.
1037, P.S• .Mahal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1984 S.C.R. 1291, A.
Janardhana [19831 2 S.C.R. 936 and P.C. Sethi v. Union of .India [1975) 3
S.C.R. 200 referred to.
D
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ. Petition .. Nos. !0618-10628 of

1983
~-
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
E
U.R. La/it and Randhir Jain, for.the Petitioners.

Kapil Sibal and K.R. Nagaraja, for the Respondents.

S.N. App/ey, S.S. Jauhar, R.N. Poddar, K.M. Sharma, Randhir
F Jain, J.D. Jain and Mrs. K. Kocher, for the Intervener.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. •

I{ANGA"ATU MtSRA, J. Petitioners in the>e applications under
Article 32 of the Con<titution belong to the cadre of Section Officers
·c in the Central Secretariat Service ('Service; for short). They challenge
. the combined seniority list ·of all the Sectfon .Officers belonging to
: the Service and have asked for a direction that the select. list in
Grade I of the Service be recast. They have also asked for a further
direction that some of the direct recruits included in the eligibility
· list of Section Officers shown in Annexure P' l should be omitted
JI 'froni it and a direction should .issue from the Court to appoint
l!. v. PARDASANI v. tiN1dN (Rangdnath Misra, J.) 189
promotees to Gradd with effect from the date on which junior /A
directly recruited Section Officers have been appointed to Grade I.
They have further assailed the vires of the note below Rule 12,
r~le 13(5) and Regulation '(3) of the Fourth Schedule as, being ultra
vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to the
petitioners the seniority between the direct recruits and promotees in
the grade of Section Officers has to be fixed on the basis· of length
of service in the grade and not by the process envis~ged under the
Rules and the relevant Regulations.

The respondents have taken the stand that the ·provision for
fixing seniority has been made by the statutory Rules and the com-
bined seniority list as also the eligibility list are in accordance with
"c
the •latutory scheme.

These applications were heard along with a batch of other
writ petitions filed by Assistants belonging 10 the Service, the judg-
ment whereof is being simultaneously delivered.

It is appropriate that .we refer to the provisions of the relevant
Rules and Regulations before we proceed to examine· the submis-
sions. The composition of the Service is covered by rule 3 which
provides for four grades being :-
(i) Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary to the Government of E
India or equivalent) ;
(ii) Grade I (Under Secretary to the Government of India or
equivalent} ;
(iii) Section Officers' grade ; ·rF
/- (iv) Assistants' grade.

The first two grades have been combinedly classified as Central
Civil Service Grade 'A' while the other two have similarly been
classified together as Central Civil Service Group 'B'--, Ministerial.
In this bunch of writ applications we are concerned with the Claim "of :G
• Section Officers belonging to the third grade in the classification
seeking promotion to Grade I which is covered by the second Grade.
Rule 12 makes provision for recruitment to the Selection.Grade as
-also Grade I.. Sub-rule (2} thereof provides : "Vacancies in Grade I
shall be filled by promotion of permanent officers of th.e 'section
Officers' Grade who have rendered not less than eight years' appro- l 'H
ved service in that Grade and of permanent office,. of t~e ·Grade
ll 9851 3s.c.il.
'A'· of the Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service, who have
rendered not less than eight years' approved service in that Grade
and have worked as Section Officers for at least a period of two
years in accordance with the proviso to rule 10 and are included in
the Select List for Grade I of the ·service prepared under sub·
rule (4)." There are four provisos to this sub-rule .. The second and
third provisos which are relevant are to the following effect :

"Provided further that no person included in a later
Select List shall be eligible to be appointed to the Grade
until all officers included in an earlier Select List have
been appointed.
c
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
D six years' approved service in that Grade, shall also be
considered notwithstanding that they may not have
rendered eignt years' approved service in that Grade ;
provided that the aforesaid condition of six years' appro-
ved service shall not apply to a person belonging to the
Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribes."
E
Sub-rule (4) provides that for purposes of sub-rules (l) and (2)
a Select List for the Selection Grade and Grade I shall be prepared
and may be revised from time to time. In Note 2 to sub-rule (5) it
has been indicated that "in the case of persons included in the
Select List for the Section Officers' Grade 'approved service' for the
F purpose of this rule shall count from the lst July of the year in
which the names of the officers are included in the Select List." In
the case of the direct recruits to· the Section Officers' Grade, such
service shall count from the 1st July of the year following the year
•
of the competitive examination on the results of which they have
been recruited provided that where there is a delay of more than
G three months in the appointment of any candidate, such delay is not •
due to any fault on his part.
Since seniority in the cadre of Section Officers is relevant for
the disposal of the present applications, we have to refer to the
method of recruitment of Section Officers in sub-rule (1) of Rule 13.
JI That sub-rule prescribes : ·
-- -------------------------------------

Ii. t. PAllADASANI '- imtoN (Aanganath Misra, i.) ~9i .
"One)ixth ·of the· substantive vacancies in the Section '· .· AJ,
·Officers' Grade in any cadre shall be filed by direct', .
recruitment on the results of the competitive examina- .. , ... ',
lions held bY .the Commission for this purpose from time "· ..
to time.· . The ,remaining .vacancies shall be filled by the . l
· ~ubstantive appointment of persons included in the . Select , .. ·,
.. List for the Section Officers' Grade in that cadre .••:•

S~b-rule (5) of rule 13 prc~ibes :
"For the purpose ~f sub-rules (I) and (2) ·a Select List ro·r .
• the Section Officers' Grade shall be prepared and· maybe ' .
· ·revised from time to time. · The procedure for preparing ; · · C)
11
and revising the ·select List' shall : be as set out in 'the·'·'. '
Fourth Schedule....

Rule 18(3)(c) dealing with seniority provides : ·
. ' , ",, .. -: ';' - _·

-( "The relative seniority of direct recruits to a Grade and , · ,
• persons substantively appointed to the Grade. from the : · ,
Select List for the Grade shall be regulated in accordance , .•• , •· ·
'with· the provisions made in . this behalf in the Fourth
. SChedule.'' ',' -' ... , "",I l r 'J; ·~ ·,

.· .. - ~ ·,: _::l;'~:: ... 1:~.~;;
Regulation 2 dealing with the mafntenanc~ of Select Lis~ require_s; 0 ,.
\ . . . ~

"Additions to the Select· List for the Section Officers'., :. ,: "· i
'Grade in any cadre shall be made in such .numbers as the, . , .. ,
.. cadre authority may determine from time to. ti ms keeping ."
....J, in view the existing and anticipated vacancies so as to
ensure that one person each by rotation is induded from
' out of the categories of persons spei:ified below •.• " i F
. ' •'.•

Regulation 3 deals with seniority and clause (3) thereof says : · ...
·,;Direct rei:ruits to a grade· and p:rsons. substantively· .
· appointed to th_e. Grade · from the 7 Select List for the ·
"Grade shail be assigned seniority inter se according to the
quotas of substantive vacancies in the Garde reserved G'
for direct recruitment and the appointment of per.ans
• • ~luded in the Select List, respectively.':.
'~ere is no dispute that in the absence of.any special provision
regulating' determination of seniority. length of continuous service '
in ·any particular grade would be the basis for determining' seniority.
H~ss1 3s.t:.it
..... in that grade. The legal position is equally settled that jf a rule
prescribes !l method of fixation of inrer se seniority, the. normal
practice would not apply and the rule shall prevail, obviously
.
subject to its constitutionality. There is no dispute.. that .under
rule 13(1) dealing with recruitment to the grade of Section Officers
a quota has been fixed and provision has been made_ for mann_ing of
B the cadre both by direct recruitment as also by promotion. •At the
time when the Service was constituted in 1962 the quota of direct J

recruits had been fixed at I/4th, and after five years from the appoiii''.
ted dayit was made I/3rd. Later it has been reduced to !/6th. The
manning of the Section Officers' -Grade, therefore, has to.be by
c direct recruitment to the extent of !/6th and by prolilo_tion 'out of
the Select List to the extent of the remaining 5, 6th.

The Select List referred to in sub-rule (I) of rule 13 is drawn
np by following the procedure specified in Regulation 2_ of. the.
Fourth Schedule which provides that additions to the Select List fot
J) the Section Officers' Grade in any cadre shall be made keeping in
view the existing and anticipated vacancies so as to ensure tha_t one
person each by rotation is included from out of the category of
persons, namely, (a) officers of the Assistants' Grade belonging to that
cadre who have rendered not less than eight years' approved service in •
that grade and are within the range of seniority in order of their
senfority "subject to the rejection of the nnfit, the range of seniority
being defined inrule 2(00), and (b) persons selected on the basis of
the result of the limited departmental competitive examination held
by the Commission, from time io time, in the order of their merit.

Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the grade
of Section Officers is fixed in accordance with the provisions
contained in Regulation 3(3) of the Fourth Schedule. The require-
ment of the Regulation is that inter se seniority of the direct recruits.,
and persons. substantively appointed to the grade from _the select '
list should be determined in accordance with the quota on the basis
of substantive vacancies in the grade reserved for the two categories
G •
of officers.

As already indicated, seniority in the cadre of Section: Officers
is the basis on which selection to the higher grade in respect or .
promotees has to be made. If the petitioners are not able to _establ_ish .
H that the determination of their seniority is wrong and they hav~ j
H. v. PARbASANl ~. UNION (Aangahath Misra, f)
been prejudiced by such adverse' determination. their ultimate c'1a]m :A
to promotion would indeed not succeed. , ,

Promotion to the grade of Under Secretary is made from
amongst the members belonging to the grade of Section Officers and
rule 12 is the relevant rule. In exercise of powers under rule 12(4),
the Central Government has framed the Central Secretarfat Service
(Promotion to Grade I and -Selection Grade) Regulations,· 1964.
Regulation 5(2)(c) provides : ''Officers other than those included in
clauses (a) and (bl shall be arranged in the inanner specified below :
(i) The names of officers appointed to the Section Officers' Grade
before the appointed day and included in the Select Lists of Section
Officers at the initial constitution under paragraph I of the Fourth
Schedule to the Rules shall be arranged in the order of tlieir senio~ity
as determined before that day. Additions to this list shall be made
by including officers appointed to the Section Officers' Grade after
the appointed day through the Select List for the Grade, Officers
appointed on the basis of an earlier select list being placed above
those appointed on the basis of a later select list. The order of
"
D'
names shall be in the same order as in all the Secretariat Select Lists
. issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms."
This Select List is contemplated to cover the entire Secretariat and is,
therefor required to reflect all the select lists of the cadres of Sec-
tion Officers. Jn this single list of eligible Section Officers the names
of the directly recruited Section Officers on the basis of the combined
competitive examinations and arranged in the order of merit in such
examinations as the scheme provides have to be interpolated accor-
ding to the quota of vaca,cies reserved for direct recruits at the time
.J".()f their recruitment. ' ,
--F
In our judgment in the connected writ pellt:on Nos. 9323-9333 of
1982 delivered today, we have already held that the scheme constitu-
, '
. ting a Service to be manned both by direct recruits as also pro-
. motees is unexceptionable. Prescription of quota becomes ~ecessary
_ to _work out such scheme and rota is a well accepted method for
. giving effect thereto. Senicirity based upon rota, therefore, is also
not open to attack. ·
Regulation 3(3) of the Fourth Schedule provides that inter se
seniority' of direct recruits and promotees shall be according to the
quota of substantive vacancies in the grade reserved, for direct recruits
and promotees respectively. The Rules make detailed provfaion for
giving effect to the quota rule and since officers are drawn from two
294 . SU!iRilMil COT.iRf REPORTS t19ss1 3s.c.il.
A different sources, provision bas also been made for fixing their inter se
seniority. The scheme does not appear to be arbitrary and we are,
therefore, of the view that the Rules and the Regulations intended to
give effect to the scheme are not ultra vires of either Article 14 or
Article 16 of the Constitution. We may reiterate that the petitimiers
have not questioned the quota rule itself and if they had, for the
B reasons we have indicated both here and in the judgment of the
• connected matters, the objection would have been of no avail.

Considerable argument was advanced in support of the peti·
tioners' stand that in giving effect to the scheme prejudice has been -f'
caused to the petitioners. It is appropriate to take note here of the · -~
c fact that the inter se seniority of the direct recruits and promotees in
each of the cadres of Section Officers has not been challenged before
us. Such fixation has been made years back. In the absence of
challenge to such fixation, the consequential process of drawing ·up
of select list depending upon such seniority for promotion to Grade I
{post of Under Secretary) would not be open to challenge. The
scheme contemplates drawing up of a combined list from out of the
cadres of Section Officers and to entertain a challenge at this stage
would naturally affect the respective' seniority lists in the cadres and
would involve many officers who have not been made parties to this
proceeding. This Court has taken the view in many decided
cases that if there is a quota rule to implement, the question Of
'
E
length of services becomes ari irrelevant consideration (see Mervyn
Couttndo & Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Ors. : (1) N.K.
Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Gujarat.& Ors. ; ( 2) and P.S. Mahal &
.Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (3) A number of decisions were cited
on behalf of the petitioners, a reference to all of which we have_;,._
F made in the connected judgment. As pointed out by us therein, both -...
the cases of A. Jaoardhana (4) and P.S. Mahal this Court proceeded ..
on the footing that there had been a break-down in the enforcement
of the quota rule. Once the quota rule fails, the rota can no longer
be enforced without causing prejudice to officers with longer periodi
of service in the cadre. We do not think that the ratio of those
cases can be applied in t~e case before us where there is no material
------------
(1) [19631 3 S.C.R. 600.
(2) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 103n
(3) [A.I.R.l 1984 S.C. 1291.
H
(4) [1983] 2 S.C.R. 936.
I!. v. l'Al\DASANI v, \INION (Ranganath Misra, J.) 295·

to support the contention that the vacancies have not been filled up \
by following the prescribed quota,

In course of arguments, the petitioners' counsel contended by
relying on the feature that a bpnch of direct recruits has been placed
above a group of promotees by operation of the quota rule and that ·
the fixation of seniority was arbitrary. It was pointed out by the B
learned ·Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of
India and Mr. Shanti Bhushan appearing for other respondents that
the submission was misconceived. In this list of eligible officers,
names of many who had already retired or had been promoted to
other grades had not been shown. The working chart placed before c-·
us reflected the actual position. On a reference to the chart, we are
satisfied that the quota rule .has been implemented while drawing up
the eligibility list in accordance with Regulation 5(2) (c) (i) and (ii).
It was.further explained.that certain names which were not found in
the eligibility list of 1982 appear in the list for the following year on
account of the fact that on the completion of six years of service
such ·names have been brought in as those officers became qualified
for inclusion.
The next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was
• against note No. 2 app~aring under rule 12 (5) which is to this
effect : E
"In case of persons included in the Select List for the Sec-
tion Officers' Grade 'approved service' for the purpose of
this rule shall count from the !st July of the year in which
the names of the officers are included in the Select List, in
the case of direct recruits to the Section Officers' Grade, p
such service shall count from the !st July of the year
'following the year of the competitive examination on the
results of which they have been recruited provided that
where there is a delay of more than three months in the
appointment of any candidate, such delay is not due to any
fault on his part." G
This note initially appeared to be somewhat arbitrary but after
hearing counsel at length we are inclined to agree with the submis-
sion advanced on behalf of the Union of India that in the process of
direct recruitment, there is considerable delay and though the com-
petitive examination is held in one particular year, by the time the H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19851 3 s.c.tt.

s~lected officer comes to join the post, more than a .year is lost.
Therefore, a rational view has been taken of the situation and for the
computation of length of service the particular. provision has been
m.ade. This in our view is really not open to challenge as an arbitrary
provision. We may reiterat that a very intricate process is involved in
giving effect to the scheme and in harmonising the claims of the
B. officers belonging to the different cadres. Mathematical precision can-
. not be expected in a matter like this and adoption of a test of. such
accuracy with a view to ascertaining whether Articles 14 and/or 16
of the Constitution are violated would not be appropriate.

Challenge to the scheme in rule 18 in the matter of fixation of ---~
C: · seniority had been advanced in the case of P.C. Sethi v. Union of
India, (1) and was negatived by this Court. J.
Delay and !aches were advanced as contentions on behalf of the
Central Government for rejecting the petitions. We do not think it
is necessary to go into that question as we have already taken that
into consideration while dea1ing with other contentions, It is, how-
ever; relevant to point out that of the 11 petitioners as many as 9 had
got into the cadre of Assistants as direct recruits 11nd they bad them-
selves got ·advantage over promotees who had put in a longer period
of ~ervice in such· cadre. They should not now grudge a similar •
advantage being obtained by some other direct recruits in the higher
E.;. cadre. After all as we have already said, in a case of this type a
broader perspective has to be maintained and examination cannot be
permitted to be as strict as petitioners have asked us to adopt. ,

In view of wh1t we .have said, each of these petitions must be
dismissed but we think it appn°priate to suggest to the Central
Government to streamline the -scheme by a review of the Rules and
Regulations so that the rancour and heartburning in the officers may
be reduced to the inevitable minimum in the matter of implementa-
tio11, Parties are directe\I to bear tpeir QWP Qosts, ·

. '

A.P.J. fetition diw•lssetJ.
'... '" ' · •• j

-~-....;_-~-----~
{If' ll97~p S,c;.R, 201 1