Holding

The amendment is valid, non‑arbitrary, and within the rule‑making authority’s competence, and therefore does not violate Articles 14 or 16.

Summary

The petitioners, who were directly recruited Section Officers in the Central Secretariat Service, challenged a 1984 amendment to Rule 12(2) of the C.S.S. Rules that required eight years of approved service as a condition for consideration for promotion to Grade I. They argued that the rule arbitrarily excluded senior direct recruits while allowing junior promotees to be considered, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the amendment, finding it neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the eligibility criterion had any nexus to suitability for the higher post and whether the rule‑making authority was competent to prescribe it. The Court held that the uniform eight‑year service requirement is a reasonable qualification, treats all Section Officers equally, and is within the authority’s competence, thus not violative of Articles 14 or 16. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the appeals without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment prescribing eight years of approved service as eligibility for promotion to Grade I under Rule 12(2) of the Central Secretariat Service Rules is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 19
Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 16

Subjects

promotionservice ruleseligibility criteriaseniorityequalityArticles 14Article 16Central Secretariat Serviceadministrative tribunalrule‑making authority

Judgment

'f R. PRABHA DEVI & ORS.
A
v.

• GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS & ORS.

MARCH 8, 1988 B

< ,)•. IA.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.)
•

~.
- Constitution of India, 1950-Central Secretariat Service Rules--
~- Rule 12(2) as amended fixing 8 years approved service for both direct
recruits and promotees as eligibility condition-Whether arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14 and 16. c
~-
'"" Service Jurisprudence-Promotion-Rule-making authority
competent to frame rules laying down eligibility conditions-Seniority
relevant for promotion only .when eligibility criteria is fulfilled-
Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility-Mere seniority will not D
entitle a person for promotion-Seniority relevant only amongst eligible
persons.

The appellants are direct recruit Section Officers and were
appointed in substantive vacancies of Section Officers in accordance
-~ with the quota reserved for direct recruits. The inter-se seniority of the E
direct recruits and promotees is fixed in accordance with the quota and
rota system. According to the C.S.S. Rules, 1962, the substantive
vacancies of Section Officers are manned by direct recruits and promo·
tees and a quota of one-fifth of the substantive vacancies has been
reserved to be filled up by direct recruits. The remaining substantive
· ~ vacancies of Section Officers are to be filled up by appointment of F
~~"
persons included in the select list i._e. by promotion. The direct recruits
on their appointment against substantive vacancies become senior to the
promotees, as is in the present case.

The promotion of Section Officers to Grade I post ofC.S.S. Rules
is made in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 12 of the G
said Rules framed in 1962. According' to this rule the direct recruits
were eligible for promotion to Grade I in C.S.S. even though they have
not rendered 10 years service, when promotee Section Officers junior to
them are considered for promotion to Grade I. The promotee Section
Officers had to render 10 years' approved service as Section Officer
before being "considered for promotion to Grade I. This rule had been H
147
t

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.,R.

A amended from time to time, the last of which was in i 984 by way of ~·
Notification No. 5/9/80 CS. I dated 29th December, 1984 which
prescribed 8 years of approved service as Section Officer as condition of
eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post in C.S.S.
·•
This amendment was challenged before the Central Administra- ;,.

B tive Tribunal which dismissed the applications, holding that the
amended rule is valid, just and equitable and no exception can be taken
to it, and that it is not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the
--'.
Constitution.

Aggrieved by the said order three appeals have been preferred
-
c before this Court, by way of special leave. It was contended that the 1' I-

amendment purports to entrench upon the prospects of the directly
recruited Section Officers for being considered for promotion to Grade I
in as much as they are left out of the zone of consideration while their i t""

juniors i.e. the promotee Section Officers are eligible for being con-
sidered for promotion to Grade I. This condition of eligibility has no
D nexus to suitability for promotion to the post and as such is in violation
of the equality clause in Article 16 of the Constitution oflndia.

It was contended that for purposes of seniority in service the
senior will be considered for promotion before those who are junior to
them in service, and that the condition of eligibility as laid down in the
)- I
E said rule has no reference to suitability for promotion to the post and as
such it is arbitrary and so void. The system prior to the amendment
worked out satisfactorily and the direct recruit Section Officers who
were promoted to Grade I post performed their duties attached to the
_...
higher post duly and satisfactorily, and therefore the amendment is
arbitrary and inequitable, and that this amendment works out to the
F serious prejudice of the direct recruit Section Officers.

It was submitted that the effect of the amendment is to neutralise
and negative the decision of this Court in H. V. Pardasani & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors., [1985] 2 SCC 468 which held that the rules of
seniority on the basis of quota-rota basis are unexceptionable. ·
G
On behalf of the promotee Section Officers it was contended that
the inter-se seniority between direct recruit Section Officers and pro- ,I..
motee Section Officers is fixed in accordance with the quota-rota rule
and thus has no reference to the length of service. The promotee Section
Officers have not been considered for promotion in spite of their render-
H ing service as such for more than 13 years, whereas the direct recruit
R.P. DEVI v. MIN. OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING 149

i Section Officers who were appointed much later were considered amJ
promoted purely on the ground of seniority. This has created frustra-
A
~ion in the minds of the promotees and in order to obviate this, the
Gove.rnment has amended the proviso arid.· that the amendment is
neither arbitrjlry nor unjust.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court, B

HELD: 1. The rule in question which prescribes on uniform
period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust or
violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The rule making
authority' by the amendment made in, 1984, has brought in an uniform
eligibility qualification of 8 years' !lpproved service to be rendered by C
the Section Officers-both promotees and direct recruits before coming
within the zone of consideration for promotion to Grade I. Thus it
treats all Section Officers equally and there is no discrimination bet-
ween tlie Section Offieers. The directly recruited Section Officers are not
totally excluded from the zone of consideration for promotion. They
will be considered like the promotee Section Officers as soon as they D
have rendered eight years' approved service as Section Officers. The
eligibility conditions imposed has a nexus to the object sought to be
achieved, viz. enlisting experienced officers of proven merit to man the
high~r posts by way of promotion: [I58B; I56B-Di ·
2. The validity of rule providing for fixation of seniority between
E
the direct recruits and promotees in the grade of Section Officer on the
basis of quota reserved for direct recruits (i.e. 1/5 of the total substan-
tive vacancies) has already been upheld by this Court. But this does not
mean that the direct recruits whb are senior to the promotees are
entitled to be considered for promotion to a higher post even though
they do not fulfil the eligibility qualification specified in the rule framed
F
by the rule-making authority. The rule-making ·authority is competent
to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a
higher post, and it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to
the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition
and° he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post
merely on the basis of his seniority. The submission that a senior Sec-
G
tion Officer _has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post
.} when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being con-
' sidered for promotion to the higher post, is wholly nnsustainable. I155G;
156A-B; 1570-F]
H. V. Pardasani & Ors. v. Union of India, [1985] 2 SCC 468,
followed. H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

3. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular
A
cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can
be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not
entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fultils
the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant roles. A person must
be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed
B for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be
relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted
for eligibility nor can it over-ride it iu the matter of promotion to the
nl'xt higher post. [157G-H; ISSA)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 2040-2042 of 1987
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.1986 of the Central {
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in Appln. Registration No. 4, 9
and 10 of 1985

'D Shanti Bhushan, K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde and Jayant
Bhushan for the Appellants.

V.C. Mahajan, C.V. Subba Rao, A. Subba Rao and T.S.
Sundrarajan-in-person for the Respondents.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAY, J. In these appeals under special leave the only question
that falls for consideration is whether the service rule requiring 8 years
of approved service as Section Officer both for the direct recruits as

F
well as for promotees for being eligible for consideration for promo-
tion to the Grade I Post in Central Secretariat Service is arbitrary
being in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
\

r-
India.

The matrix of the case is that the appellants along with one Rajiv
Kalsi made four applications under section 19 of the Administrative
G Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the vires of proviso to sub-rule 2 of
Rule 12 of Central Secretariate Service (C.S.S.), ''1962 ai!amended by
Notification No. 5/8/80-CS. I dated 29th December, 1984 prescribing
8 years of approved service as Section Officer as condition of eligibility
for being considered for promotion to 'Grade-I Post in C.S.S. The
appellants, Miss Prabha Devi and Shri Rajiv Kalsi were recruited
H directly-through examination held by Union Public Service Commis-
R.P. DEVI v. MIN. OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING [RAY, J.[ 151

Y sion in 1978 as Section Officers. The appellants Shri G.S. Grewal and A
Shri Surjit Singh were recruited through examination held by Union
Public Service Commission in 1980 as Section Officers. These direct
recruits had been appointed in substantive· vacancies of Section Offi-
cers in accordance with the quota reserved for direct recruits by the
service rules. The inter se seniority of the direct recruits and the prom-
<
otees is fixed in accordance with the quota and rota system. The appel- B
)- lants are seniors to the promotees in accordance with the said quota
and rota Rule. The promotion to Grade I post of C.S.S. Rules is made
in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 12 of the said
Rules. The proviso to sub-rule 2 of rule 12 of C.S.S. Rules, 1962 was
originally to the following effect:

"Provided that if any person appointed to the Section t
\ Officers' Grade before the prescribed date is considered
for promotion to Grade I in accordance with the provisions
of this sub-rule, all persons senior to him in tha.t grade
before the prescribed date shall also be considered notwith-
standing that they may not have rendered 10 years' appro- D
ved service in the grade."

According to this rule the direct recruits were eligible for consid-
eration for promotion to Grade I in C.S.S. even though they have not
rendered 10 years' service when promotee Section Officers junior to
them are considered for promotion to Grade I. The promotee· Section E
Officers had to render 10 years'· approved service as Section Officer
before being considered for promotion to Grade I. This proviso to
sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 was substituted by the following proviso with
effect from July 31, 1972:

"Provided further that if any person appointed to the Sec- F
tion Officers' Grade is considered for promotion to Grade I
under this sub-rule, all persons senior to him in that grade
shall also be considered notwithstanding that they may not
have rendered 10 years' approved service in that grade."

The proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 12 was again substituted by G
the following proviso with effect from February 23, 1978:

"Provided further that if any person appointed to the Sec-
tion 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 six years' H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

approved service in that Grade, shall also be considered
A
notwithstanding that they may not have rendered 10 years'
approved service in that Grade; provided that the aforesaid
condition of six years' approved service shall not apply to a
person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled
Tribes."
B
Thus according to this proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 12 a direct
reqruit Section Officer who has rendered six years' approved service in
that grade was eligible for consideration for promotion to Grade I
whereas a promotee Section Officer would have to render ten years'
approved service in the grade of Section Officer before being eligible
for consideration for promotion. In 1979 the substantive part of sub--
c rule (2) of rule 12 was amended to provide eight years' approved
service in the Section Officers' Grade as against ten years approved -1
\
sei;vice for eligibility for promotion to Grade I of C.S.S. The third
proviso of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 was further substituted by the follow-
ing proviso by Notification dated December 29, 1984:
D
"Provided further that if any person appointed to the Sec-
tion Officers' Grade is considered for promotion to Grade I
under this sub-rule, all persons senior to him in Section
Officers' Grade, belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the
Scheduled Tribes who have rendered not less than 4 years' '>--
E approved service in that grade, shall also be considered for
promotion.''

This amended rule enjoins that a directly recruited Section Of-
ficer has to render 8 years' approved service in the grade of Section
Officer before being eligible for consideration for promotion to Grade '),__
F I. The only exception made in this rule is with regard to Section Offic-
ers belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who shall
have to render only four years approved service in that grade in order
to qualify themselves for being considered for promotion to the said
Grade I.

G This condition of eligibility as introduced by the 1984 amend-
ment of the third proviso of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 has been questioned
in the petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal which after
hearing the parties dismissed the applications·by a common judgment
holding inter alia that neither the amendment of February, 1978 nor
the amendment of December, 1984 made in the proviso to sub-rule (2)
H of rule 12 of the C.S.S. Rules, 1962 is discriminatory or arbitrary or
R.P. DEVI v. MIN. OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING [RAY, J.] 153

r unreasonable so as to be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. It has been further held that the amended
A

rule of D·ecember, 1984 is valid, just and equitable and no exception
can be taken to it.

Aggrieved by the said order these three appeals on special leave
, have been preferred before this Court. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned B
,>---- counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has ~dvanced three-fold
submissions. before this Court. The first submission is that the
impugned amendment made in third proviso of sub-rule (2) of rule 12
of C.S.S. Rules purports to entrench upon the prospects of the directly
recruited Section Officers for being considered for promotion to
Grade I in as much as they are left out of the zone of consideration
while their juniors i.e. the promotee Section Officers are eligible for
c
being considered for promotion to Grade I. This condition of eligibi-
lity has no nexus to suitability for promotion to the post and as such
this is in violation of the equality clause in Article 16 of the Constitu-
tion of India. It has been submitted that any rule framed by the
Government must be subject to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed D
by the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Seniority of the
direct recruits entitles them for consideration for promotion to the
higher post while their juniors i.e.
promotee Section Officers are being
considered for promotion to the higher post. The purpose of the seni-
--1 \
ority in service is that the senior will be considered for promotion
before those who are junior to them in the service. Of course, a senior E
incumbent may be considered not suitable for promotion. It has been
submitted that the condition of eligibility as laid down in the said rule
has no reference to suitability for promotion to the post and.as such it
is arbitrary and so void. It has been submitted in. this conn¢ction that
prior to 1978 directly recruited Section Officers having rendered 3-4
years of service in that grade had been promoted to Grade I and they F
had duly performed their duties. Some of them have rendered their
service in the promoted post very efficiently and they have earned
remarks such as "very meritorious and outstanding" from the Depart-
ment. There is nothing·to show that the promoted direct recruits were
proved inefficient in discharging their duties and responsibilities of the
higher post. G
,....,
I
Mr. Shanti Bhushan furhter submitted that even in accordance
with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 as amended in 1978 direct
recruiLSection Officers after having rendered six years' approved
service in the, grade had been considered for promotion and were
promoted to Grade I. This system worked out very satisfactorily and H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

the di'rect recruit Section Officers who were promoted to Grade I post
A
performed th·eir duties attached to the higher post duly and satisfac-
torily. The amendment of the eligibility qualification in 1984 providing
a longer period of service as S.O. is, therefore, arbitrary and inequit-
able. There is no rationale behind this amendment which works to the
serious prejudice of the direct recruit Section Officers for being con-
B sidered for promotion to Grade I of the C.S.S. Service even though the
promotee Section Officers junior to them are being considered for
promotion.

It has been secondly contended that the rule of determination of
seniority on quota-rota basis in the grade of Section Officers having
been held valid and not arbitrary by this Court in the. case of H. V.
c Pardasani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1985) 2 SCC 468, the
condition of eligibility introduced by the 1984 amendment of sub-rule
(2) of rule 12 is wholly unjust and arbitrary as it excludes direct recruit
Section Officers from the zone of consideration for promotion even
though their juniors having put in eight years' approved service as
D Section Officers are eligible for consideration for promotion. It has
been submitted that the effect of the amendment is to neutralise and
negative the decision of this Court which held that the rules of senio-
rity on the basis of quota-rota basis are unexceptionable. It has been
lastly contended that at any rate the promotee Section Officers form a
very small portion of the officers promoted to the Grade I Post and as
E such elimination of the direct recruit Section Officers from the zone of
consideration for promotion will not have any appreciable effect in as
much as it will not obviate the frustration of the promotee Section
Officers for not being promoted to the higher post. It has also been
submitted that it is unjust and arbitrary to prevent the senior Section
Officers from being considered for promotion by enhancing the period
F of service from six years to eight years to be rendered in the grade of
Section Officer.

Mr. T.S. Sundara Rajan, a promotee Section Officer, Respon-
dent No. 2 has submitted that the appellants who are directly recruited
Section Officers on the result of examination held by the Union Public
G Service Commission in 1978 and 1980 against substantive vacancies,
have become senior to the promotee Section Officers on the basis of
the quota reserved for direct recruits even though the promotee
Section Officers have rendered more than thirteen years' service as
Section Officers. This Fixation of seniority has no reference to the
length of service. The inter se seniority between the direct recruits and
H the promotee Section Officers being determined on the basis of the
R.P. DEVI v. MIN. OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING [RAY, J.[ 155
y quota, the promotee Section Officers even though they have been
A
promoted to the post of Section Officers and have rendered service for
a considerable period have become juniors to them in service and were
not considered for promotion even. These promotee Section Officers
like the Respondent No. 2 have not been considered for promotion in
spite of their rendering service as such for more than thirteen years
whereas the direct recruit Section Officers who were appointed much B
I
i. later were considered and promoted purely on the ground of seniority· I
This has created frustration in the minds of the promotees. To obviate .

- this the Government after due consideration of all aspect has by
Notification dated December 29, 1984 amended the proviso to sub-
rule (2) of rule 12 of C.S.S. Rules prescribing an uniform eligibility of
rendering eight years' approved service as Section Officers by both the
direct recruit Section Officers and the Promotee Section Officers for C
being considered for promotion to Grade I (Under Secretary). The
said amendment, it has been submitted, is neither arbitrary nor unjust.
It has been further submitted that the promotee Section Officers if
given promotion will render their service duly and efficiently as has
been rendered by the direct recruit Section Officers promoted to D
Grade I.

According to the C.S.S. Rules, 1962, the substantive vacancies
of Section Officers are manned by direct recruits and promotees and a
-( quota of one-fiftb of the total substantive vacancies has been reserved
' to be filled up by direct recruits. The remaining substantive vacancies E
of Section Officers are filled up by appointment of persons included in
the select list i.e. by promotion. The inter se seniority between the
direct recruits and promotees is determined on the basis of the quota-
rota rule. The direct recruits on their appointment against substantive
. vacancies become senior to the promotees.
F
This Co11rt in the case of H. V. Pardasani and Ors. v. Union of
\ India and Ors. (supra) considered the question of the validity of rule
providing for fixation of seniority between the direct recruits and
promotees in the grade of Section Officer on the basis of quota
reserved for direct recruits and held that the prescription of quota
becomes necessary to work out a scheme constituting a service manned G
by both the direct recruits as well as promotees. Such a scheme is
unexceptionable and seniority based upon the rota is alsci not open to
attack. The scheme does not appear to be arbitrary and the rules and
regulations to give effect to the scheme are not ultra vires either Arti-
cle 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the inter se senio-
rity of direct recruit and promotee Section Officers on the· basis of H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A quota-rota rules has been held to be valid. This does not mean that the
direct recruits who are senior to the promotees are entitled to be
considered for promotion to a higher post even though they do not
fulfil the eligibility qualification specified in the rule framed by the
rule-making authority. The rule-making authority by the amendment
made in 1984 has brought in an uniform eligibility qualification of eight
B years' approved service to be rendered by the Section Officers- both
promotees and direct recruits before coming within the zone of consi-
deration for promotion to Grade I. Thus it treats all Section Officers
equally and there is no discrimination between the Section Officers. It
has been submitted that this rule is arbitrary and unreasonable as it -
prescribes a certain minimum service in a lower post for promotion to
a higher post on the ground that it has no nexus to suitability for
c holding the higher post. This submission in our considered opinion,
cannot be sustained in as much as experience over certain number of
years in service and also due performance of the duties and responsi-
bilities attached to the post of Section Officer is very relevant and as
such prescribing such an eligibility qualification has nexus to the suita-
0 bility for the promoted post. The directly recruited Section Officers
are not totally excluded from the zone of consideration for promotion.
They will be considered like the promotee Section Officer as soon as
they have rendered eight years' approved service as Section Officer.
The Tribunal has held that:

E "The qualifications for any post are prescribed having
regard to the nature of the post and the duties and res-
ponsibilities attached to it. For due ·discharge of duties
attached to a post, academic excellence alone may not be
sufficient. Factors like experience over certain number of
years in service and holding a post of a certain level are
F relevant. That gives them the opportunity to deal with
several files, handle different situations, tackle varied
problems, extract work from subordinates of varying
capabilities and serve under superiors with differing styles
of functioning. They acquire knowledge of men and
matters and the necessary acumen to deal with issues
G arising from time to time. Academic brilliance and excel-
lent performance at the competitive examinations by
themselves cannot wholly substitute experience. They can
only supplement. However brilliant a person may be, he
needs experience such as can be gathered only by discharg-
ing the duties and responsibilities attached to a post. If
H recruitment to a post is by way of promotion, the minimum
R.P. DEVI v. MIN. OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING [RAY, J:[ 157

number of years one should serve in the lower post would A
have to be prescribed. Valuable experience gained in
service, better equips a person to shoulder higher res-
ponsibilities and man the superior post ..Period spent in
discharge of duties of a post has nexus to" the object of
enlisting experienced officers of proven merit with consis-
tent good record over sufficiently long. period to man the B
higher posts by way of promotion."

The 1984 amendment of the rules providing an eligibilify condi-
tion of rendering eight years', approved service as Section Officer for
C011)ing within the zone of consideration for promotion to Grade I Post
of C.S.S. is not at alLarbitrary and unreasonable as it prescribes a
I minimum period of eight years' of service as Section Officer both for
c
.~· direct recruits and promotees as a condition of eligibility for considera-
tion for promotion to the higher post. This rule is, therefore, not
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules faying D
down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When su.ch
an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot
be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not
required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be
considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his
seniority. The amended rule in question has specified a.period of eight E
years' approved service in the grade of Section Officer as a condition
of eligibility for being consider~d for promotion to Grade I post of
C.S.S. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section
Officers as well as the promotee Section Officers. The submissfon that
a senior Section Officer has a right to be considered for promotion to
Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condi- F
tion are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade I, is
wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for
entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence
of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfil-
led by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to
be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications G
for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the ·
same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for ap-
pointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a publi~
servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility
condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible
for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be
y
relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted
for eligibility nor it can over-ride it in the matter of promotion to the
next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform
period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust
violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly
B held by the Tribunal:

"When certain length of service in a particular cadre can
validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person
possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligi-
ble for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a
c senior in service would automatically be eligible for promo-
tion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh! experience." "'"'
It has also been observed:

"In any event, the appropriate Rule making Authority is
D the best judge in this regard. The Rule making Authority is
certainly competent to amend the Rule and extend the
period from 6 years to 8 years so as to make the direct
recruits more experienced and suitable for the higher post.
That is a matter for the Rule making Authority; the Tri-
bunal cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of the Rule
E making Authority. No Court or Tribunal can substitute its
own view in a matter such as this. Such a Rule framed by a
competent Authority cannot be struck down unless it is
shown to be violative of any Fundamental Right guaran-
teed to a citizen under the Constitution."
F We do not find any infirmity in the above findings arrived at by
the Tribunal.

In the premises aforesaid we hold that the third proviso to sub-
rule 2 of Rule 12 of Central Secretariate Service Rules, 1962 as
amended by Notification No. 5/8/8~S. I. dated 29th December,
G 1984 is not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The
judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby
affirmed and the appeals are dismissed without costs. >-
G.N.
Appeals dismissed.