1967 (8) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Court rules promotion criteria change discriminatory, issues writ mandamus, dismisses contractual rights claim.

ROSHAN LAL TANDON Versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court held that the impugned notification altering promotion criteria for Train Examiners violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the impugned notification dated October 27, 1965, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.2. Whether the petitioner had a contractual right regarding the conditions of service that could not be altered to his disadvantage.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:The petitioner, Roshan Lal Tandon, challenged the Railway Board's notification dated October 27, 1965, which altered the promotion criteria for Train Examiners. The notification stipulated that vacancies in the Entry Grade of Train Examiners should be filled exclusively by promotion from artisan staff, and 80% of vacancies in Grade 'C' should be filled by Apprentice Train Examiners without undergoing any selection, while the remaining 20% should be filled by Train Examiners from Grade 'D' through selection.The petitioner argued that this notification was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Previously, promotion to Grade 'C' was based on seniority-cum-suitability, irrespective of the source of recruitment. The new notification favored Apprentice Train Examiners over those promoted from skilled artisans, thereby creating inequality.The Court held that once direct recruits and promotees are integrated into one cadre, they form one class and cannot be discriminated against for further promotion. The impugned notification was found to be discriminatory as it provided favorable treatment to Apprentice Train Examiners without undergoing selection, while the petitioner's category had to undergo a selection process. This was deemed a violation of the equality of opportunity in public employment as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16.The Court cited the precedent set in Mervyn v. Collector, where it was held that when the source of recruitment is one, the normal rule of seniority based on the date of continuous appointment should apply, and any rotational system that introduces inequality is unconstitutional.2. Contractual Right Regarding Conditions of Service:The petitioner contended that the conditions of service, particularly the promotion criteria from Grade 'D' to Grade 'C', were contractual and could not be altered to his disadvantage. He referred to the Railway Board's order dated January 25, 1958, which stipulated that promotion should be based on seniority-cum-suitability.The Court rejected this argument, stating that while the origin of government service is contractual, once appointed, the rights and obligations of a government servant are determined by statute or statutory rules, which can be unilaterally altered by the government. The relationship between the government and its employees is one of status rather than contract. Thus, the petitioner had no vested contractual right in the terms of his service that could prevent the government from altering them.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the impugned notification violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by discriminating against the petitioner in favor of Apprentice Train Examiners. A writ of mandamus was issued, commanding the respondents not to give effect to the discriminatory part of the notification. The petitioner's argument regarding the contractual nature of service conditions was dismissed. The application was allowed, but no order as to costs was made.This judgment was also applied to a parallel case, Writ Petition No. 203 of 1966, with similar facts and issues, resulting in the same conclusion and relief.