1981 (9) TMI 293 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds State's Seniority Criteria for ASTOs & STIs

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition. It held that the State Government ensured ... - Issues Involved:1. Denial of 'fair and equitable treatment' under sub-section (5) of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.2. Determination of relative seniority and equation of posts between Assistant Sales Tax Officers (ASTOs) from Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad and Sales Tax Inspectors (STIs) from Bombay.3. Right to promotion to the posts of Sales Tax Officers (STOs) Grade III.4. Validity of executive orders altering conditions of service without framing rules under Article 309 of the Constitution.5. Integration of services and the role of the Central Government in the process.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of 'Fair and Equitable Treatment' under sub-section (5) of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956:The main question for consideration was whether there was a denial of 'fair and equitable treatment' in the matter of determining relative seniority and equation of posts between ASTOs from Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad and STIs from Bombay. The High Court had struck down various resolutions and orders passed by the State Government, which were in compliance with the directives of the Central Government under sub-section (5) of section 115 of the Act. The Supreme Court found that the State Government acted with the best of intentions, ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all parties involved.2. Determination of Relative Seniority and Equation of Posts:The High Court's judgment was challenged on the basis that it incorrectly equated ASTOs from Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad with STIs from Bombay. The Supreme Court noted that ASTOs from Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad were superior in terms of pay scale, duties, and responsibilities compared to STIs from Bombay. The Central Government, in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee, directed that ASTOs should be continued in an isolated category and their seniority fixed above STIs. The Supreme Court upheld this directive, stating that the principles settled at the Chief Secretaries Conference were properly taken into account.3. Right to Promotion to the Posts of STOs Grade III:Promotions to the post of STO Grade III were initially regulated under different departmental examination rules applicable to the former States of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, and Hyderabad. The State Government later unified these rules, requiring ASTOs from Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad to pass the Bombay Departmental Examination for promotion. However, on representations made by the ex-Hyderabad and ex-Madhya Pradesh ASTOs, the State Government reverted to the original rules, allowing promotions without passing the Bombay examination. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in these decisions, as they were in conformity with the recruitment rules of the former States.4. Validity of Executive Orders Altering Conditions of Service:The High Court had held that the State Government could not alter the conditions of service by executive orders without framing rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the executive orders merely rectified past mistakes and did not constitute a change in conditions of service. The orders ensured that ASTOs from Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad were not subjected to the Bombay Departmental Examination, which was not part of their original conditions of service.5. Integration of Services and the Role of the Central Government:The integration of services was to be carried out in accordance with the principles settled at the Chief Secretaries Conference, which had statutory force. The Central Government, as the final authority, had the power to direct the integration process and determine the equation of posts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Central Government's directives, issued in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee, were binding and could not be challenged in court. The State Government's actions were found to be in compliance with these directives, ensuring fair and equitable treatment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Bombay and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents. The Court held that the State Government acted appropriately in ensuring fair and equitable treatment in the integration of services and the determination of relative seniority and promotion criteria. The directives of the Central Government were upheld, and the changes made by the State Government were found to be in conformity with the established principles and recruitment rules.