Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, S. K. Ghosh and another, were promoted from Postal Superintendents Service Class II to the time scale of Class I Service in the Indian Postal Service. Respondents 3 to 7 were direct recruits to the same time scale. On 30 January 1957, the Government fixed the inter se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits, showing the petitioners as senior to respondents 3 to 7. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted as Directors of Postal Services. Some time later, respondents 3 to 7 were also promoted as Directors, and the petitioners remained senior to them in that grade. On 5 June 1965, the Government revised the seniority in the time scale of Class I Service, placing respondents 3 to 7 senior to the petitioners. Consequently, on 17 January 1966, the seniority in the grade of Directors was also revised to reflect the same change. The petitioners challenged both orders by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Government justified the revisions, contending that the original seniority fixed on 30 January 1957 was erroneous because a relevant supplementary rule had not been given effect. The Supreme Court examined the validity of the order dated 17 January 1966 revising seniority in the grade of Directors. It found that appointment to the grade of Directors was governed by Rule 3 of the relevant recruitment rules, which provided for selection and not seniority. Moreover, the revision of seniority in the grade of Directors had no basis in any rule or applicable principle. The Court held that an order detracting from the principle of selection and altering seniority arbitrarily was violative of the guarantee of equality under Article 16 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the order dated 17 January 1966 was struck down as unconstitutional. Since this order was quashed, the petitioners would not be affected by the earlier order of 5 June 1965, and the Court found it unnecessary to decide on its validity. The petition was allowed to the extent of quashing the 1966 order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Arbitrary Revision of Seniority Violates Article 16 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 16 - The order dated 17-01-1966 revising the seniority of Directors was not based on any rule or applicable principle. The Court held it arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, and struck it down. (Paragraph numbers not specified in judgment). B) Service Law - Promotion - Appointment to Grade of Directors by Selection Not Seniority - Indian Postal Service Rules - Rule 3 of the Rules for recruitment to the grade of Directors of Postal Services provides that appointment is made by selection, not seniority. (Paragraph numbers not specified in judgment).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 17th January 1966 revising the seniority of Directors was arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, and whether it should be quashed.
Final Decision
The order dated 17-01-1966 revising seniority of Directors was struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. The court did not decide on the validity of the order dated 05-06-1965 as it became redundant after quashing the 1966 order.
Law Points
- Promotion by selection not seniority
- Arbitrary revision of seniority violates Article 16 of the Constitution
- Revision must be based on rules or applicable principles
