P.U. JOSHI AND ORS.versusTHE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

                 P.U. JOSHI AND ORS.                                            A
                          v.
     THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHMEDABAD AND ORS.

                          DECEMBER 19, 2002

       (DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.)                             B


     Service law:

       Department of Indian Audit and Accounts-Promotion-Supervisor
claiming promotion to cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer-On the ground         C
that pay-scales of Supervisors and S.Os. are identical and duties and
responsibilities ofSupervisors/S.Os.IA.A.Os. are similar-Various Tribunals
rejecting the claim ofpersons similarly placed-However, one of the Tribunals
allowing the same-Cross Appeals-Held, claimants cannot be promoted as
A.A.Os since they have not acquired the qualification of passing Section        D
Officers grade examination and got promoted to the post of Section Officers
and put in three years regular service-Tribunal which allowed the claim
erred in doing so.

      Framing/changing of rules relating to services-Statutory Tribunals/
State Government-Jurisdiction-Held, Tribunal cannot direct the Government       E
to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues
of promotion or impose its views on .the State Government.

      Various cadres of establishment in Indian Audit and Accounts
Department relating to the office of the Accountant Generals in the States
were bifurcated into AG (Accounts & Entitlement) and AG (Audit). Prior to       F
bifurcation, posts of Supervisors, Selection Grade Supervisors as well as
Section Officers and Selection Grade Section Officers existed separately.
Section Off!cers were considered senior to Supervisors and promotion to
higher posts of Accounts Officers was open to Section Officers only and not
to Supervisors. Afler bifurcation, there was no cadre of Supervisors in the     G
Audit Wing, the existing staff of Supervisors were not allowed to switch over
to the Audit office. Option was given to such of those who desired to get
reverted to Audit Offices. Appellants who were in the combined establishment.
chose to remain with A & E Office. Recommendations of Fourth Central Pay
Commission were implemented. 'Selection Grades' were abolished from all
                                                                                H
                                    573
    574                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   non-gazetted cadres in all Departments of Government of India all over the
    country, including the Department of IA & AD. Pay scales were brought on
    par in both the offices with eligibility criteria on same lines. There was no
    cadre of Supervisors in Audit stream but only the cadre of Section Officers/
    Assistant Audit Officers--<:adre of qualified hands alone existed, the criteria
B   of passing SOG Examination to get into the pay-scale of Assistant Accounts
    Officers. Then the existing Selection Grade Supervisors, who were already
    holding the higher scale of post identical to Assistant Accounts Officers cadre,
    were allowed to continue in that scale treating their pay as "personal pay" to
    them. Appellants-Supervisors in the office of A & E claimed that since pay-
    scales of Supervisors and S.Os. are identical and duties and responsibilities
C   ofSupervisors/S.OsJA.A.Os. arc similar, they should also be given promotion
    as S.G. Supervisors or Assistant Accounts Officers. Tribunal rejected the
    claim. The claim of persons similarly placed was also rejected. However,
    Tribunal at Cuttack allowed the claim of persons similarly placed. Hence the
    present cross appeals.

D         Appellants-private parties contended that their service rights are to be
    governed by the rules relating to their service as on the date of bifurcation
    on 3.1.1984 and that the rules and the service conditions cannot be altered to
    their detriment by the subsequent rules; that appellants, working as
    Supervisors, are also performing duties that are discharged by Assistant
E   Accounts Officers and they would, therefore, be entitled to the scale of pay of
    A.A.Os on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'; and that there was
    denial of promotional prospects to the category of Supervisors.

          Union of India and the Department contended that in the light of the
    statutory rules made after bifurcation governing the recruitment to the posts
F   of Assistant Accounts Officers, one should pass the Section Officers Grade
    Examination and inasmuch as appellants and persons similarly placed in other
    States have not got qualified themselves by passing SOG Examination, they
    are ineligible to be considered for promotion as A.A.Os.; that the right of
    Government to bifurcate departments and suitably restructure them in the
    interest of better administration and in order to ensure greater efficiency is
G   unquestionable and as long as appellants do not conform to the revised pattern
    and satisfy the requirement of the statutory rules governing the service
    conditions, no grievance of denial of equal opportunity or discrimination could'
    be made; that constitution, frame and reconstitution and restructuring of
    departments, creation and abolition of posts, therein are matters of policy
H   depending upon administrative exigencies and exclusively within the
                  P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL                           575
discretion of Government and as such the same could neither be challenged            A
nor Tribunal at Cuttack could substitute its views to that of the "Go,·ernment,
as to how it should be; that common seniority list of Supervisors and Section
Officers was prepared only for the limited purpose and for the period to
facilitate the grant of non-functional selection grade.

      Disposing of the appeals, the Court                                            B
       HELD: I. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature
of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of
qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions
and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy is
within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course,   C
to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Co'ostitution'oflndia and it
is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to
have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of
promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State.
Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the      D
rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction
the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including
avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may
need or necessitate. Likewise, t~e State by appropriate rules is entitled to
amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute
different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification,       E
bifurcation or amalgamation as well as recon.stitute and restructure the
pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time
by abolishing existing cadres/posts and Creating new cadres/posts. There is
no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions
of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service         F
for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits
                                        a
already earned, acquired or accrued at particular point of time, a Government
servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State.
                                                           (582-E-H; F; 583-A-Bl

      2.1. Aggrieved parties' grievance has no sound or valid basis in law.          G
After bifurcation, since there was· no cadre of Supervisors in Audit Offices,
question of accommodating them in Audit Offices as Supervisors did not arise.
With the implementation of the recommendations of Fourth Central Pay
Commission, 'Selection Grades' were abolished from all non-gazetted cadres.
Therefore Tribunal at Cuttack was not right in resurrecting the abolished            H
    576                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A selection grade which was found to be already non-functional, too. A Supervisor
    (unqualified) has to undertake SOG Examination to be promoted as Section
    Officer and thereafter only get promoted as A.A.0. Merely because the pay-
    scales were similarly granted to these unqualified Supervisors on par with
    Section Officers alone apparently due to alteration and restructuring in the
    set up of offices-those Supervisors, who had not even passed the SOG
B   Examination, therefore, could neither be appointed on promotion as Section
    Officers nor could claim equal status with the SOG Examination-qualified
    persons to straightaway get promoted as A.A.Os. to which the feeder category
    is only Section Officers and not Supervisors. Supervisors even earlier could
    not have been promoted to the higher post of Accounts Officers. In addition to
C   it, the other criteria of three years regular service as Section Officer before
    becoming eligible for consideration to be appointed as A.A.Os. on promotion
    also must be satisfied. Aggrieved claimants have not acquired the qualification
    of passing the SOG Examination and got promoted to the post of Section
    Officers and put in three years regular service as such, which alone
    constituted the feeder category for further promotion as A.A.Os., there is no
D   scope for according promotion to them despite the fact that there may be
    vacancies available in the A.A.Os. Therefore, Tribunal rightly rejected the
    plea based on the denial of equal opportunity and equal protection of laws of
    appellants serving in State of Gujarat 1583-B, C, D, F, G, H; 584-C, E)

         2.2. Tribunal at Cuttack committed a grave error in taking it for granted
E equality in status and grade of persons like the private parties-respondents
  on par with Section Officers with higher qualifications merely because a
  common seniority list was prepared-ignoring the fact that it was not for
  purpose of further promotion but for the limited purpose of giving only the
  benefit of non-functional selection grade. Order of Tribunal at Cuttack
F directing the promotion to them in derogation of the statutory rules under
  which they are ineligible for any such promotion is not right. It was
  impermissible for Tribunal at Cuttack to have directed to give the promotional
  monetary benefits and other benefits Oowing from such promotion when they
  will not be entitled to any such relief under the statutdry rules, which Tribunal
  itself could not, on its own, either bypass or alter or give a go-by to or direct
G the department to ignore and contravene. (584-A, B, D; E, F)
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4679-4680 of
    1996.
            From the Judgment and Order dated l()".8.1994 of the Central
H Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench passed in O.A. No. 162/89.
          P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL [DORAISWAMY RAJU, J. )577

                                            WITH                                            A
              C.A. No. 10983 of I 996.

              P.P. Midhotra, P.K. Bajaj, H.A. Raichura, S.W.A. Qadri, Mrs. Shashi
-...I   Kiran, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and C.V. Subba Rao, Narottam Vyas and B.D. Shanna,
        for the appearing parties.                                                          B
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

              D. RAJU, J. Civil Appeal No. 4679 of 1996 has been filed by the
        appellants herein, who lost in their application filed before the Central
        Administrative Tirbunal, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 162of1989, which               c
        came to be dismissed by an order dated 10.8.1994. Since their application for
        review in R.A. No. 31 of 1994 also came to be dismissed by an order dated
        12.10.1994, Civil Appeal No. 4680 of 1996'has also been filed.

              The various cadres of establishment in Indian Audit and Accounts
        Department relating to the office of the Accountant Generals in the States          D
        were bifurcated and restructured w.e.f. 1.3.1984 into (i) Accountant General
        (Accounts and Entitlement) and (ii) Accountant General (Audit). So far as the
        State of Gujarat is concerned, the combined office of the Accountant General,
        which had its main office at Ahmedabad with a Branch at Rajkot, was bifurcated
        into two separate offices, A.G. (Audit) at Ahmedabad/Rajkot and office of the
                                                                                            E
        A.G. (A & E) at Rajkot/Ahmedabad. Prior to the said bifurcation, the combined
        office, among other categories, had in the Supervisory Cadres (a) Section
        Officer (those who were promoted after passing Subordinate Accounts Services
        Examination) subsequently known as "Section Officers Grade Examination",
        (b) Supervisors (those who were promoted on seniority-cum-rejection of unfit
        basis without passing SAS/SOG Examination; and (c) Selection Grade Section          F
  \
        Officer/Selection Grade Supervisors (appointed subject to fulfillment of
        eligibility criteria-Section Officers and Supervisors were promoted to this
        category on their fulfilling the required criteria of passing the examination and
        putting in the required service). Supervisors were appointed only in cases of
        non-availability of qualified Section Officers to man the supervisory posts
                                                                                            G
        and they were subject to reversion if adequate number of Section Officers
        were available. Further, the Section Officers were considered senior to
        Supervisors and the promotion channel to the higher post of Accounts
        Officers was open to Section Officers only and not to Supervisors. After
        restructuring of the Department w.e.f. l.3.1984, so far as the A.G. (A & E)
        offices are concerned, these class of officers were categorized into (i) Section    H
    578                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Officers (SOGE qualified hands-pre-revised scale Rs. 500-900); (ii) Supervisors
    (unqualified hands-pre-revised scale Rs. 500-900; and (iii) Selection Grade
    Section Officers-Selection Grade Supervisors whose pre-revised scale was
    Rs. 775-1000. So far as A.G. Audit offices are concerned, as per the restructured
    pattern it had Section Officers-20% (SOGE qualified hands with pre-revised
    scale of Rs. 500-900) and Assistant Audit Officers-80% (higher post, SOGE
B   qualified_ hands with pre-revised scale Rs. 775-1000). Since in the newly
    constituted Audit Offices w.e.f. 1.3.984, there was no cadre of Supervisors in
    the Audit Wing, the existing staff of Supervisors were not allowed to switch
    over to the Audit Office. In view of the above, option was given to such of
    those who desired to get reverted to Audit Offices, in which case they would
C   be required to be reverted as Special Grade Auditors and then switched over
    to the Audit Offices from that cadre. Though free option was given to all the
    members of combined offices to remain either in the A & E Offices or to go
    over to the Audit Offices the appellants in the above two appeals, who were
    in the combined establishment, had chosen to remain with A & E Office.

D         While matter stood thus, when the Fourth Central Pay Commissions's
    recommendations were made and accepted by the Government of India w.e.f.
    1.1.1986 the "Selection Grade" was abolished from all non-gazetted cadre in
    all the Departments of Government of India all over India, including the
    Department of IA & AD. The orders in this regard were issued by the
E   Government oflndia on 13.9.1986 and from that date the Selection Grade was
    abolished. As a result of which, the Supervisory set up in A & E Office and
    Audit remained from 13.9.1986 as follows:-

          "A & EOffices                        Audit Office

          (i) Section Officers                (i) Section Officers
          (SOGE qualified hands)              20% (SOGE qualified hands)
          (Revised pay-scale                  (Revised pay-scale                        ,
          Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f.1.1.86)         Rs. 1640-2900w.e.f1.1.86)
          {ii) Supervisors                     Asstt. Audit Officers-

G         (Unqualified hands)                 80% {SOGE qualified hands)
          (Revised pay-scale                  (Revised pay-scale
          Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.86)        Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.86.)"

         As part of the Scheme of implementation of the Fourth Central Pay
    Commission's recommendations and bringing the pay-scale of cadres of A &
H   E Offices and Audit Office at par with each other the Government of India




                                                                                        c:
  P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTA~T GENERAL [DORAISWAMY RAJU, J. ]579

  issued orders of upgradation of posts of Section Officers in A & E Offices       A
  w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and accordingly the office of the Comptroller and Auditor
  General oflndia, New Delhi, by its proceedings dated 17.8.1987 upgraded 80%
  of posts of Section Officers into Assistants Accounts Officers cadre w .e.f
   1.4.1987. In consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
  and in exercise ofpo~ers conferred under Article 148 of the Constitution of
· India, the President oflndia made the IA & AD (Assistant Accounts Officers)      B
  Recruitment Rules, 1989 applicable w.e.f. 1.4.1987, as a consequence of which
  the set up of the Supervisory Cadre for A & E Offices w.e.f. 1.4.1987 stood
  as follows:-

       "(i) Section Officers - 20%             Pay-scale Rs. 1640-2900.
       (SOGE qualified hands)
                                                                                   c
       (ii) Asstt. Accounts Officers-80%       Pay-scale Rs. 2000-3200
       (SOGE qualified hands-having 3
       years regular service in the grade)
       (iii) Supervisors                       Pay-scale Rs. 1640-2900
       (unqualified hands to the extent                                            D
       (i) & (ii)
       are not app Iicab le)"
        Since the pay-scales were to be brought on par in both the offices with
 eligibility criteria on the same lines and inasmuch as there was no cadre of
 Supervisors in Audit Steam but only the cadres of Section Officers/Assistant      E
 Audit Officer-cadre of qualified hands alone existed, the criteria of passing
 SOG Examination to get into the pay-scale of Assistant Accounts Officer (i.e.,
 Rs. 2000-3000 in the revised pay-scales) and for promotion to Assistant
 Accounts Officers was prescribed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of
 India in terms of the directions issued by the Government of India under their    p
 letter dated 12.6.1987. As and when the selection grade was abolished w.e.f.
 1.1.1986, then the existing Selection Grade Supervisors, who were already
 holding the higher scale of post identical to Assistant Accounts Officers
 cadre, were allowed to continue in that scale treating their pay as "personal
 pay" to them. The grievance of the appellants, who are Supervisors in the
 office of A & E, had been that since pay-scale of Supervisors and S.Os. are       G
 identical and duties and respohsibilities of Supervisors/S.Os/A.A.Os. are
 similar, they should also be given promotion to (i) S.G. Supervisors posts in
 the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 or (ii) promotion to Assistant Accounts Officers
 in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200. In staking such claims, according to the
 Department, the appellants ignored the fact that the selection grade posts no     H
    580                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A longer exist in any Department all over India w.e.f. 1.1.1986 when the revised
  pay-scales came into force and no exception could be made in respect of IA
  & AD Department alone and that in the absence of any scheme for promotion
  of Supervisors to the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officers, the only course
  open to the appellants was to take SOG Ex1I11ination to get promoted as
B Section Officer and thereafter as Assistant Accounts Officers on fulfiliment
  of the required eligibility criteria in terms of the .Recruitment Rules, as per
  which any one to become eligible to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer
  should pass the Section Officers Grade Examination and possess three years
  service in the grade and that, therefore, the Supervisors, who have not even
  passed the Section Officers Grade Examination, are not eligible for consideration
C for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officers for being placed in the scale
  of pay of A.A.Os.

          The claim of the aP,pellants, based on denial of equality of opportunity
    and equal protection, was rejected by the Tribunal, both in the order dated
    10.8.1994 and subsequently in the order 12.10.1994. It may be incidentally
D   pointed out at this stage that similar claims were projected by persons similarly
    place~ before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in O.A.
    No. 561/HP/89 and 0.A. No. 1017/HP/91 and the said Tribunal also by its
    decision dated 9.9.1993 rejected a similar challenge. Yet another claim projected
    before the Central· Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in
E   Registration 0.A. No. 1502/88 and this Bench of the Central Administrative
    Tribunal also rejected the claim of the applicants therein.

         While that be the position, similar claims projected by some of the
  aggrieved persons before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Cuttack
  in the State-ofOrissa, in O.A. No. 144/81 came to be allowed on the ground
F that ~ince the directions issued by the Government envisaged a common
  seniority list of Section Officers and Supervisors performing identical nature
  of duties, there was no justification to thereafter discriminate them for purposes
  of promotion or pay-scales and consequently directed the Department to
  grant promotion considering their seniority inter se if they are otherwise
  suitable on the date on which they are entitled to be promoted with further
G directions relating to their entitlement to promotional monetary benefits and
  other benefits flowing from such promotions setting out also a time limit
  within which such orders have to be implemented. It is against this judgment
  of the Cunack Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal that Civil Appeal
  No. 10983of1996 came to be filed, by the Union of India and the Department
H concerned.
  P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL [DORAISWAMY RAJU, J. ]581

       Heard the learned counsel on either side. The stand on behalf of the            A
appellant-private parties is that their service rights are to be governed by the
rules relating to their service as on the date of bifurcation on I .3 .1984 and that
the rules and the service conditions cannot be altered to their detriment by
the subsequent rules. It is also contended that the appellants, working as
Supervisors are also performing duties that are discharged by the Assistant            B
Accounts Officers and they would, therefore, be entitled to the scale of pay
of Rs. 2000-3200 of A.A.Os. (earlier SG Supervisors) on the principle of equal
pay for equal work•. The denial of promotional prospects to the category of
Supervisors, like the appellants, is also,.'. challenged on the ground of
arbitrariness and hostile discrimination. Lastly, it was contended that before
bifurcation though it was assured that the pay structure for the Accounts and          C
Entitlement offices would be the same as the one before bifurcation and the
existing promotional prospects and selection grade will be applicable mutatis
mut.andis, it was not actually adhered to after bifurcation and for this reason
also, _relief as prayed for ought to be granted. Inspiration was sought to be
drawn, based on the reasoning of the Cuttack Bench of the CAT, which order
 is the subject-matter of challenge in the appeal filed by the Union of India          D
 and others.

       Per contra, on behalf of the Union of India and the Department concerned,
it is contended that in the light of the statutory rules made after bifurcation,
governing the recruitment to the posts of Assistant Accounts Officers, one             E
should pass the Section Officers Grade Examination and possess three years
experience in the grade as Section Officers and inasmuch as the appellants
and persons similarly placed in other States have not got qualified themselves
by passing the SOG Examination, they are ineligible to be considered for
promotion as A.A.Os. It is also contended that in the teeth of the rules made
under Article 148 of the Constitution of India by the President of India in            F
consultation with the CAG oflndia duly published on 11.3.1989 effective from
1.4.1987, no reliance can be placed on administrative instructions issued by
the Authority of CAG to assert any claim of rights in derogation of the
statutory rules. The appellants and persons similarly placed, who opted to
remain in the Accounts and Entitlement stream, had to conform to the relevant          G
rules applicable· and that even as per the instruciions relied upon by the
appellants themselves, they could not assert successfully their claims. It is
contended further for the respondent-Department that the right of the
Government to bifurcate departments and suitably restructure them in the
interests of better administration and in order to ensure ·greater efficiency is
unquestionable and as long as the appellants do not conform to the revised             H
    582                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A pattern and satisfy the requirement of the statutory rules governing the
    service conditions, no grievance of denial of equal opportunity or
    discrimination coold be made, for and on behalf of the appellants. So far as
    the promotional prospects are concerned, it is contended that even
    Supervisors, whose pay-scale is identical to Section Officers having more
    than three years of regular service in the cadre of Supervisors, cannot
B   automatically claim for being promoted as A.A.Os. and it is only when they
    qualify in the SGO Examination they become eligible for consideration and
    promotion. In challenging the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the CAT, it
    is strenuously contended that constitution, frame and reconstitution and
    restructuring of departments, creation and abolition of posts therein are
C   matters of policy depending upon administrative exigencies and exclusively
    within the discretion of the Government and as such the same could neither
    be challenged nor the Tribunal could substitute its views to that of the
    Government, as to how it should be. As to the reasoning based upon the
    common seniority list, it is contended for the Department that such common
    seniority list of Supervisors and Section Officers was prepared only for the
D   limited purpQse and for the period to facilitate the grant of non-functional
    selection grade and that inasmuch as Supervisors do not really belong to the·
    category of Section Officers.

         We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both
E parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts,
  cadres categories their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and
  other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to
  be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the
  exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject of course, to the
  limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not
F for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a
  particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion
  or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is
  well open and within the competency of the State to 'change the rules relating
  to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the
G qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including
  avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may
  need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to
  amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute
  different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification,
  bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern
H and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by
                                                                                       r
  P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL [DORAISWAMY RAJU, J. )583

abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no       A
right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions
of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service
for all purposes and except of ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits
already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government
servant.has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter
and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.              B
       So far as the grievances of the appellants and private parties-respondents
in the above cases are concerned, they have no sound or valid basis in law.
Before even bifurcation on 1.3 .1984, the posts of Supervisors, Selection Grade
Supervisors as well as Section Officers and Selection Grade Section Officers C
existed separately. Section Officers were considered senior to Supervisors and
promotion to higher posts of Accounts Officers was open to Section Officers,
only and not to Supervisors. After bifurcation, since there was no cadre of
Supervisors iii the Audit Offices, the question of accommodating them in the
Audit Offices as Supervisors did not arise. With the implementation of the
recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, 'Selection Grades' D
were abolished from all non-gazetted cadres in all Departments of Government
of India all over the country, including the Department of IA & AD. As
 observed by the Bench of the CAT at Cuttack which held in favour of the
 private parties or some other ground, it will be too late in the day to put the
 clock back by claiming to resurrect the abolished selection grade which was E
 found to be already non-functional too. As noticed supra, the supervisory
cadre for A & E offices w.e.f. I.4.1987 came to consist of (a) Section Officer-
20% (SOGE qualified hands); (b) Assistant Accounts Officers-80% (SOGE
qualified hands with further experience of three years regular service in the
 grade) and (c) Supervisors (unqualified hands-to the extent whenever clauses
(a) and (b) were not available only. As noticed earlier, a Supervisor (unqualified) F
 has to undertake SOG Examination to be promoted as Section Officers and
 thereafter only get promoted as A.A.0. Merely because the pay-scales were
 similarly granted to these unqualified Supervisors on par with Section Officers
 alone apparently due to alteration and restructuring in the set up of offices-
 those Supervisors, who had not even passed the SOG Examination, therefore, G
 could neither be appointed on promotion as Section Officers nor could claim
 equal status with the SOG Examination qualified persons to straightaway get
 promoted as A.A.Os., to which the feeder category is only Section Officers
  and not Supervisors. It is necessary to notice here that Supervisors even
 earlier could not have been promoted to the higher post of Accounts Officers.
  In addition to it, the other criteria of three years regular service as Section H
    584                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Officer, before becoming eligible for consideration to be appointed as A.A.Os.
    on promotion also must be satisfied. The Cuttack Bench of the c.AT, which
    decided the matter and which decision is challenged by the Department in
    Civil Appeal No. I0983 of 1996, committed a grave error in taking it for granted
    equality in status and grade of persons like the private parties-respondents
    on par with Section Officers with higher qualifications merely because a
B   common seniority list was prepared-ignoring the fact that it was not for
    purposes of further promotion but for the limited purpose of giving only the
    benefit of non-functional selection grade.

           Consequently, as long as the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 4679-4680
C of 1996 and respondents in Civil Appeal No. 10983of1996 have not acquired
    the qualification of passing the SOG Examination and got promoted to the
    post of Section Officers and put in three years regular service as such, which
    alone constituted the feeder category for further promotion as A.A.Os., there
    is no scope for according promotion to them despite the fact that there may
    be vacancies available in the A.A.Os. The Tribunal, which passed the order,
D   which is the subject-matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No. I0983 of 1996,
    was not right in directing the promotion to them in derogation of the statutory
    rules under which they are ineligible for any such promotion.

          The plea based on the denial of equal opportunity and equal protection
    of laws has rightly been rejected in the light of the principle laid down by this
E   Court in the decisions noticed by the Bench of the Tribunal, which rendered
    the decision in respect of the appellants, who serve in the State of Gujarat.
    L,ikewise, it was impennissible for the Bench of the Tribunal at Cuttack to have
    further directed to give the promotional monetary benefits and other benefits
    flowing from such promotion when·they will not be entitled to any such relief
F   under the statutory rules, which the Tribunal itself could not, on its own,
    either bypass or alter or give a go-by to or direct the department to ignore
    and contravene.

           For all the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal Nos. 4679-4680 of 1996
    shall stand dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 10983of1996 filed by the Union of
G   India and others shall stand allowed and consequently the order passed in
    O.A. No. 144 of 1991 shall stand set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

    N.J.                                                       Appeals di'smissed.