UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSURENDRA MOHAN ARORA AND ORS.

                  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                      A
                             v.
              SURENDRA MOHAN ARORA AND ORS.

                              JULY 22, 1994

IM.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, R.M. SAHA! ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.]                         B

      Service Law-Indian Ordnance Factories Reciuitment and conditions
of Service (Class Ill) Personnel Rules 1956-Promotio11 to post of Chargeman
Grade-II-Decision taken to appoint all diploma holders worki1ig as Super-
visor 'B' as Supervisor 'A' i"espective of contpletion of one year ser-        c
vice-Promotion to Chargeman Grade-II to be i11 accordance with
Reciuitmellt Rules 011/y-Judgement of Tribunal to treat all initial appoint-
mellts as havi11g been made to post of Supervisor, Grade 'A '-Entitlement to
be considered for promotion to post of Chargeman Grade-II on basis of two
years experience as Supervisor Grade 'A '-Validity of
                                                                               D
       During the period 1962 to 1966, a number of diploma holders and
science graduates were appointed in the various Ordnance factories. On
6.11.62, a circular was issued that all diploma holders who were appointed
as Supervisor 'B', on completion of one year service in the grade, will be
entitled to be promoted as Supervisor 'A'. After completion of two years       E
of service, they will be eligible for promotion to the grade post of Char-
geman Grade· II. Another circular was issued on 11.3.63 in which a decision
was taken to appoint all diploma holders working as Supervisor 'B', as
Supervisor 'A' irrespective of completion of one year service as Supervisor
'B'. It was also decided that in future promotion of Su!Jervlsor Grade 'N
to Chargeman Grade-II and further promotion will be effected in accord·        F
ance with the Recruitment Rules only.

      By the impugned judgment dated 15.5.89, the Tribunal directed to
treat all initial appointments irrespective of the fact whether the can·
didates are diploma holders or Science Graduate as having been made to         G
the post of Supervisor, Grade 'A'. On the basis of two years experience as
Supervisor 'A', it was directed that the candidates shall be entitled to
promotion to the post of Chargeman Grade-II on the recommendation of
a reviewed D.P.C. Hence this appeal.

      Allowing the appeals, this court                                         H
                                    79
    80                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         HELD : 1.1. The Tribunal failed to note that several applicants
    before it had joined after January 1980 as Supervisor Grade-II, there was
    such post of Supervisor 'A' at the time of their appointment in 1982-83. As
    a matter of fact the post of Supervisor 'A' has been merged with the post
    of Chargeman Grade- II w.e.f. January 1980. Therefore, promotion to this
    post could be made only after a period of three years. However there could
B   not be an automatic promotion on the completion of minimum service as
    prescribed in. the circulars of ordnance factories, but the promotion would
    be made in a,ccordance with the recruitment rules. [82-D-E; 81-F)

          Pa/urn Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of India, [1989) 2 SCC 541,
C relied on.

          1.2. Concerning science graduates, the executive orders did not cover
    them. Therefore, there is hardly an:r. scope for granting relief. (82-F]

          CIVIL ~PPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4858-59
D   of 1994.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.89 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. Nos. 198 & 471 of 1987.

         Mrs. K. Amreshwari, Ms. Ameeka Singh and C.V. Subba Rao for the
E   Appellants. '

          V. Subramanian, P.1. Jose and V.J. Francis for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F         MOHAN J. Leave granted.

          During the period of 1962 to 1966, a number of diploma holders and
    science graduates were appointed in the various Ordnance factories. The
    service conditions of those were governed by Indian Ordnance Factories
G   Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Class Ill) Personnel Rules 1956.
    On 6.11.62, a circular was issued that all diploma holders who were
    appointed as Supervisors 'B', on completion of one year service in the
    grade, will be entitled to be promoted as Supervisor 'A'. After satisfactory
    completion of two years of service, they will be eligible for promotion to
    the grade post of Chargeman Grade-II. Another circular was issued on
H   11.3.63 in which the decision was taken. to appoint all diploma holders
                   U.0.1. v. S.M. ARORA [MOHAN, J.]                     81

working as Supervisor 'B', as Supervisor 'A' irrespective of completion of A
one year service as Supervisor 'B'. The fresh recruits from 11.3.63 were also
appointed straigthway as Supervisor Grade 'A' by circulars dated 28.12.65
and 21.1.66. It was decided that in future promotion of Supervisor Grade
'A' to Chargeman Grade-II and further promotion will be effected in
accordance with the Recruitment Rules only after completion of three B
years' service as Supervisor Grade 'A'.

       This requirement was questioned by many persons in writ petitions
before the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh urging that on
completion of two years' service as Supervisor 'A' they should be automat-
ically promoted as Chargeman Grade-II. Those writ petitions came to be        C
dismissed both by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well by the High
Court of Allahabad.

      Special leave petitions were preferred and leave was granted on
2.2.81. A subsequent batch of writ petitions filed by the diploma holders     D
came to be filed from science graduates in the High Court for treating them
at par with the diploma holders. That was allowed and it was held that they
should be deemed to have been appointed as Snpervisor Grade 'A' from
the date of their initial appointments. On 30th June 1987, the Central
Administrative Tribunal in the matter of one B.H. Ananthamurthy & Ors.
directed that the science graduates be treated as Supervisor 'A' from the     E
date of their initial appointment and their notional seniority be revised.
They shall be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of
Chargeman Grade-II on completion of two years' satisfactory service as
Supervisor 'A' retrospectively. Subsequent to this, there are other judg-
ments including a judgment of this Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah and         p
Others v. Union of India & Another, [1989) 2 SCC 541 where it is held that
there could not be automatic promotion on completion of the minimum
service as prescribed in the circular of the Ordnance Factory but the
promotion would be made in accordance with. the recruitment rules.

      This Court had occasion to comment on the correctness of the view       G
taken by the Tribunal inAnanthamuTthy's case. When the Madras Tribunal
rendered a decision relying on the judgment of the Tribunal of Jabalpur
Bench dated 30th June 1987, this Court set aside the judgment on 6.9.89.
Thereafter when similar matters were agitated before the Madras Tribunal
they were dismissed.                                                          fi
    82                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          Notwithstanding all this by the impugned judgment dated 15.5.89, the
    Tribunal had directed that the appointment be treated the initial appoint-
    ment of diploma holders and science graduates as having been made to the
    p·ost of Supervisor Grade 'A' in spite of their recruitment to Supervisor
    Grade-II. On the basis of two years' experience of Supervisor 'A', it was
    directed that the respondent shall be entitled to promotion to the post of
B   Chargeman Grade-II on the recommendation of a reviewed D.P.C. which
    may be constituted and further promotions on the recommendation of a
    reviewed D.P.C. from the requisite dates when they were due to be
    considered for promotion on the basis of departmental rules or executive
    instructions.
c
           Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has come to be preferred. The
    first point that is urged on behalf of the appellants is that the Tribunal has
    wrongly assumed although this Court had given certain directions in regard
    to the case of diploma holders.

D         The Tribunal failed to note that several applicants before it had
    joined after January 1980 as Supervisor Grade-II, there was such post of
                                                                      a
    Supervisor 'A' at the time of their appointment in 1982- 83. As matter of
    fact the post of Supervisor 'A' has been merged with the post of Char-
    geman Grade II with effect from January 1980. Therefore, promotion to
E   this post could be made only after a period of three years.

          In view' of the judgment of this Court in Pa/urn Ramakrishnaiah
    (supra), the impugned judgment cannot be supported in law.

          Concerning science graduates, the executive orders did not cover
    them. Therefore, there is hardly any scope for granting relief. The Tribunal
F   has chosen to rely on the ruling of this Ccurt in Pa/urn Ramakrishnaiah
    (supra). Where, therefore, the principles, as laid down by this Court, best
    applied. No exceptions could be taken to the same.

          Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Executive
G Instructions dated 6.11.62 dealt with the question of granting promotions
    to the then Supervisor Grade 'A' who were recruited in this wake of
    Chinese Aggression. The said benefit that was given by the circular, have
    since been withdrawn in January 1966 and, therefore, whether the said
    circular gave any benefits to the diploma holders or science graduates,
    were not relevant, and in any case, all the answering respondents are
H   Diploma holders.
                    U.0.1. v. S.M. ARORA [MOHAN, J.]                         83

      Respondents are seniors who were recruited first as Supervisor               A
Grade 'B' and they were redesignated as Supervisor Grade 'A' by virtue of
the circular dated 11.3.63, and also as ruled by Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the judgment dated 16.4.79. The Government redesignated the
answering respondents and granted then notional seniority of supervisor
Grade 'A' with effect from the dates of their initial appointments. All the        B
answering respondents have been promoted to the next higher post of
Chargeman Grade II in the normal course of rule and not on the basis of
the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 2.2.81.

      Thus, it is submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal does not call
for any inteference.                                                               C

      Since both the sides rely on Pa/urn Ramakrishnaiah's case (supra), it
is worthwhile to extract the relevant portion of the decision :-

            "It cannot be disputed that the Director General of Ordnance           D
        Factories who had issued the circular dated November 6, 1962 had
        the power to issued the subsequent circular dated January 20, 1966
        also. In view of the legal position pointed out above the aforesaid
        circular could not be treated to be one affecting adversely any
        condition of service of the Supervisors 'A'. Its only effect was that
        the chance of. promotion which had been accelerated by the                 E
        circular dated November 6, 1962 was deferred and made depend-
        ent on selection according to Rules. Apparently, after the coming
        into force of the order dated December 28, 1965 and the circular
        dated January 20, 1966 promotions could not be made just on
        completion of two years' satisfactory.service under the earlier circular   F
        dated November 6, 1962 the same having been superseded by the
        later circular. It is further obvious that in the view of the matter
        Supervisors 'A' who had been promoted before the coming into
        force of the order dated December 28, 1965 and the circular dated
        January 20, 1966 could not, therefore, constitute the basis for an
        argument that those Supervisors 'A' whose cases came up for                G
        consideration for promotion thereafter and who were promoted in
        due course in accordance with the rules were discriminated
        against. They apparently did not fall in the same category."

                                                         (emphasis supplied)       H
    84                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        The Tribunal has inter alia given three directions :

          (i)To treat the respondents' initial appointments' irrespective of the
    fact whether they are Diploma Holders or Science Graduate as having
    been m~de to the post of Supervisor, Grade-A;

B         (ii) On the basis of two years' experience as Supervisor Grade-A,
    they shall be entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of Char-
    geman Grade II;

           (iii) To revise the relevant seniority lists and finalise them after
C   inviting objections, if any, in the cadres of Supervisor 'A', Chargeman
    Grade II and Assistant Foreman.

          The effect of Pa/urn's case (supra) is that there could not be an
    automatic promotion on the completion of minimum service as prescribed
    in the circulars of ordnance factories, but the promotion would be made
D   in accordance with the recruitment rules. This Court also held in the said
    case, in addition to the above extract, as follows :

                "It is thus apparent that an executive instmction could make a
            provision only with regard to a mauer which was not ·covered by the
           · Rules and that such executive instmction could not override any
E           provision of the Rule. Notwithstanding the issue of instruction dated
            November 6, 1962 therefore, the procedure for making promotion
            as laid down in Rule 8 of the Rules had to be followed. Since Rule ·
            8 in the instant case prescribed a procedure for making promotion
             ihe said procedure could not be abrogated by the executive in-
F           struction dated. November 6, 1962 was that Supervisors 'A' on
             completion of two years' satisfactory service could be promoted by
            following the procedure contemplated by Rule 8. This circular had
            indeed the effect of accelerating the chance of promotion. The
             right to promotion on the other hand was to be governed by the
             Rules. This right was conferred by Rule 7 which inter alia provides
G           that subject to the exception contained in Rule 11, vacancies in the
             posts enumerated therein will normally be filled by promotion of
             employees in the grade immediatedly below in accordance with
             the provisions of Rule 8. The requirements of Rule 8 in brief have
             already been indicated above. Rule 12 provides that no appoint·
H           ·ment to the posts to which these Rules apply shall be made
                    U.O.I. v. S.M.ARORA[MOHAN,J.]                        85

        otherwise than, as specified in these Rules. This right of promotion   A
        as provided by the Rules was neither affected nor could be affected
        by the circular. The order dated December 28, 1965 which
        provided a minimum period cf service of three years in the lower
        grade for promotion to the next higher grade and the circular dated
        January 20, 1966 which provided that promotions in future will be      B
        effected in accordance with the normal rules and not merely on
        completion of two years' satisfactory continuous service had the
        effect of doing away with the accelerated chance of promotion and
        relegating Supervisors 'A' in the matter of promotion to the normal
        position as it obtained under the Rules.' (Emphasis supplied).

      Therefore, we are unable to see as to how, in the light of this
                                                                               c
judgment, the impugned order of the Tribunal could be sustained. It may
be relevant to note that similar applications were filed before the Madras
Bench and they came to be dismissed. In. the result, we hold that the order
to Tribunal cannot be supported and is liable to be set-aside. It is accord-
ingly set-aside. The Civil Appeals will stand allowed. There shall be no       D
order as to costs.

A.G.                                                      Appeals allowed.