State-wide equality in promotion requires a common field of consideration; divisional vacancy-based selection to a higher cadre is unconstitutional.

A rule that merely reduced promotional chances did not by itself vary conditions of service or require Central Government approval, but a proviso giving preference to directly recruited Mamlatdars was invalid because it created an unjustified classification within the same class of officers. Promotion to the State cadre of Deputy Collectors through separate divisional select lists was unconstitutional, as it denied eligible Mamlatdars a common State-wide field of consideration and made advancement depend on local vacancy timing rather than uniform comparative assessment of merit and seniority. The challenge based on earlier seniority resolutions and the recruitment framework failed, but the discriminatory promotion system was struck down and promotions and seniority had to be readjusted on a constitutionally valid basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay, laches, or availability of an alternative remedy; (ii) whether the Rules of 30 July 1959 varied the petitioners' conditions of service without the previous approval of the Central Government and whether the second proviso to Rule 1 was valid; (iii) whether promotion to the State cadre of Deputy Collectors on the basis of divisional select lists violated the guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment; (iv) whether the challenge based on the earlier seniority resolutions and the recruitment framework for Mamlatdars/Tehsildars succeeded.

Issue (i): Whether the petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay, laches, or availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The delay objection failed because the promotions and the impugned procedure were continuing in nature and had remained provisional. No vested rights had crystallised in favour of others so as to bar constitutional relief on the ground of delay. The suggested alternative remedy by review was also not an adequate remedy, as the petitioners were not parties to the earlier proceedings and their present challenge was substantially distinct.

Conclusion: The objection was rejected in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the Rules of 30 July 1959 varied the petitioners' conditions of service without the previous approval of the Central Government and whether the second proviso to Rule 1 was valid.

Analysis: A rule that merely reduces chances of promotion does not by itself vary a condition of service. The reduction in promotional opportunity caused by the new recruitment structure did not attract the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. However, the preferential reservation in favour of directly recruited Mamlatdars created an invidious distinction within a single class of Mamlatdars performing the same duties under the same pay structure, and that classification lacked constitutional justification.

Conclusion: The Rules were not invalid for want of Central Government approval, but the second proviso to Rule 1 was invalid as being contrary to Article 16.

Issue (iii): Whether promotion to the State cadre of Deputy Collectors on the basis of divisional select lists violated the guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment.

Analysis: The cadre of Deputy Collectors was a State cadre, yet promotion to it was made divisional-wise through separate select lists and vacancy-driven opportunities within each division. That system denied every eligible Mamlatdar an equal chance to compete for promotion across the State as a whole, because entry into the higher cadre depended on the fortuity of vacancy timing in a particular division rather than a common State-wide assessment of merit and seniority. The combined seniority arrangement at the stage of confirmation did not cure the constitutional defect at the stage of promotion.

Conclusion: The promotion procedure was unconstitutional and invalid under Article 16.

Issue (iv): Whether the challenge based on the earlier seniority resolutions and the recruitment framework for Mamlatdars/Tehsildars succeeded.

Analysis: The inter se seniority of the allocated Mamlatdars/Tehsildars as on 1 November 1956 was governed by the specific absorption and seniority rules framed for the reorganised State, not by the earlier or later Government Resolutions relied upon by the petitioners. The seniority-based challenge therefore did not furnish a sustainable basis for relief. Nonetheless, the constitutional invalidity of the promotion mechanism and the discriminatory proviso remained decisive on the broader relief sought.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded on the core constitutional challenge: the discriminatory promotion structure to the State cadre of Deputy Collectors was struck down, and the State was required to readjust promotions and seniority on a constitutionally valid basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a higher State cadre is filled through promotion, equality of opportunity requires a common State-wide field of consideration for all eligible members of the feeder cadre, and a divisional promotion system that makes advancement depend on local vacancies rather than a uniform comparative assessment is unconstitutional.

---