Supreme Court affirms Delhi High Court decision, dismissing appellant's objections on all grounds.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, rejecting the appellant's objections on all grounds. The court found that the affidavit filed on 26-6-1967 was valid, the impugned order did not constitute a reduction in rank, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16, and Rule 5 was consistent with Articles 311, 14, and 16 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the procedures and decisions involved in the case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the affidavit filed on 26-6-1967.
2. Alleged reduction in rank of the petitioner.
3. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. Validity of Rule 5 in the context of Articles 311, 14, and 16 of the Constitution.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Affidavit Filed on 26-6-1967:
The appellant contended that the Division Bench erred in allowing an affidavit to be filed on 26-6-1967 without giving the appellant an opportunity to counter it. The judgment clarified that the affidavit was permitted to address whether the post of Editor in the Publications Division had been abolished. The affidavit stated that two posts of Editors had ceased to exist due to the inclusion of new posts in the revised grade. The court found no evidence that the appellant requested an opportunity to counter the affidavit's contents or was denied such an opportunity. The affidavit did not introduce new facts but clarified the existing situation, thus the court found no merit in the first objection.

2. Alleged Reduction in Rank of the Petitioner:
The appellant argued that the impugned order constituted a reduction in rank. The court examined the communication dated 10-3-1960 and found no indication of demotion as a punishment. The court held that the procedure under Rule 5 was not a cover-up for demotion but a legitimate process for appointing the appellant to a permanent substantive capacity in a new grade. The court found no evidence of devious action against the appellant.

3. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The appellant claimed that the order violated Articles 14 and 16 by placing him in a lower grade with less emoluments compared to other employees. The court observed that the order terminated an officiating appointment and provided a fresh appointment with permanent tenure and prospects. The court noted that the appellant's position had not worsened as he moved from a temporary to a permanent service. The Selection Committee's process was applied uniformly to all candidates, and there was no evidence of bias or unfairness. The court found no violation of Articles 14 and 16.

4. Validity of Rule 5 in the Context of Articles 311, 14, and 16:
The appellant argued that Rule 5 was void as it conflicted with Articles 311, 14, and 16. Rule 5 allowed the Selection Committee to determine the suitability of departmental candidates and recommend appointments to different grades. The court noted that Rule 5 did not violate Article 311 as it did not involve demotion or reduction in rank without due process. The rule provided a fair and transparent process for the initial constitution of the new service. The court held that Rule 5 was valid and did not conflict with the constitutional provisions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, rejecting the appellant's objections on all grounds. The court found that the affidavit filed on 26-6-1967 was valid, the impugned order did not constitute a reduction in rank, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16, and Rule 5 was consistent with Articles 311, 14, and 16 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the procedures and decisions involved in the case.

---