Initial constitution of a new service may validly involve selection and lower grading without punitive reduction in rank.

A selection made under rules for the initial constitution of a newly created service does not amount to a punitive reduction in rank unless the order itself discloses such demotion. The later affidavit did not require fresh rebuttal because it merely clarified that the original temporary post had ceased to exist independently. Equal treatment objections under Articles 14 and 16 failed where all departmental candidates were subjected to the same lawful selection process and no unfairness was shown. Rule 5 of the Central Information Service Rules, 1959 was upheld as a valid scheme for constituting the service and as not conflicting with Articles 311, 14 or 16.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the filing of the later affidavit before the appellate court vitiated the decision for want of opportunity to meet its contents. (ii) Whether the impugned order amounted, on its face, to a reduction in rank. (iii) Whether the impugned order offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (iv) Whether Rule 5 of the Central Information Service Rules, 1959 was void for conflict with Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the filing of the later affidavit before the appellate court vitiated the decision for want of opportunity to meet its contents.

Analysis: The affidavit did not introduce a new controversy requiring fresh factual rebuttal. The core question turned on the construction of the rules and the legal effect of the reconstitution of the service, and the additional material only clarified the position that the original temporary post had ceased to have an independent existence.

Conclusion: The objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order amounted, on its face, to a reduction in rank.

Analysis: The order showed an appointment made under the procedure for the initial constitution of a newly created service. It did not disclose any punitive demotion, and the alleged reduction in rank could not be inferred without going behind the order itself.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not amount, on its face, to a reduction in rank.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned order offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Analysis: All departmental candidates were subjected to the same selection procedure under the rules. The appellant was not shown to have been treated unfairly or unequally, and his position was not shown to have worsened on the whole, since the temporary tenure hazard disappeared and he obtained a permanent place in the new service.

Conclusion: No violation of Articles 14 and 16 was made out.

Issue (iv): Whether Rule 5 of the Central Information Service Rules, 1959 was void for conflict with Articles 311, 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Rule 5 provided for selection of departmental candidates for the initial constitution of the service and permitted recommendation to a lower grade where vacancies were insufficient. The rule operated as a scheme for constituting a new service and did not, by itself, effect a punishment or compulsory reduction attracting Article 311. It also did not create an unconstitutional classification or arbitrariness.

Conclusion: Rule 5 was valid and did not conflict with Articles 311, 14 and 16.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reconstitution of the service and to the appellant's placement under the impugned order was repelled, and the Union's stand was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A selection and appointment made under a rule for the initial constitution of a newly created service does not amount to reduction in rank or attract Article 311 unless the order itself discloses a punitive demotion; equality and service-protection challenges fail where all candidates are subjected to the same lawful selection process and no unfairness is shown.

---