1985 (3) TMI 311 - SC - Indian Laws

Court quashes seniority lists, orders new lists within 3 months, allows promotions despite quota deviations.

G.S. LAMBA & ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the seniority lists dated June 25, 1979, and June 30, 1983, for violating Articles 14 and 16. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Inter-se seniority between promotees, direct recruits, and recruits from limited competitive examinations.2. Validity and implementation of the quota-rota rule.3. Constitutionality of Rule 25(1)(ii) in relation to Rule 21 of the 1964 Rules.4. Adherence to and deviation from the prescribed quota.5. Impact of non-implementation of the quota rule on seniority.6. Validity of seniority lists dated June 25, 1979, and June 30, 1983.7. Power to relax quota rules under Rule 29(a).Detailed Analysis:1. Inter-se Seniority Between Promotees, Direct Recruits, and Recruits from Limited Competitive Examinations:The dispute revolves around the determination of inter-se seniority among promotees, direct recruits, and those recruited through limited competitive examinations in the Indian Foreign Service Branch 'B' (IFS 'B'). The service was constituted by a memorandum dated July 16, 1956, and governed by the Indian Foreign Service Branch 'B' (Recruitment, Cadre, Seniority, and Promotion) Rules, 1964 ('1964 Rules'). The petitioners, promoted between 1976-1979, challenged the seniority lists published on June 25, 1979, and June 30, 1983, arguing that they were unconstitutional and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.2. Validity and Implementation of the Quota-Rota Rule:The seniority lists were drawn based on the quota-rota rule, which assigns seniority according to the quotas of substantive vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and appointments from the select list. The petitioners contended that this principle was unjust as it allowed later recruits to be placed over earlier promotees, leading to a violation of constitutionally guaranteed equality of opportunity.3. Constitutionality of Rule 25(1)(ii) in Relation to Rule 21 of the 1964 Rules:The petitioners argued that if Rule 25(1)(ii) is not harmoniously construed with Rule 21, it would be unconstitutional. Rule 21(4) states that persons promoted or recruited earlier shall be senior to those promoted or recruited later. The Court held that Rule 21(4) and Rule 25(1)(ii) can be harmoniously read, with Rule 21(4) applying to situations where recruitment or selection is at intervals, and Rule 25(1)(ii) applying when recruitment from all sources occurs almost simultaneously.4. Adherence to and Deviation from the Prescribed Quota:The Court noted that recruitment from three sources (direct recruitment, limited competitive examination, and promotion) was not done according to the prescribed quota. There was no direct recruitment in several years, and limited competitive examinations were not held consistently. This led to a large-scale departure from the quota rule, making it unjust to give effect to the rota rule of seniority.5. Impact of Non-Implementation of the Quota Rule on Seniority:The Court observed that the non-implementation of the quota rule for years led to disparities between similarly circumstanced individuals, denying them equal treatment. The seniority lists kept vacancies open for future recruits, allowing them to be placed over existing promotees, which was deemed unjust and inequitable.6. Validity of Seniority Lists Dated June 25, 1979, and June 30, 1983:The Court quashed the seniority lists dated June 25, 1979, and June 30, 1983, as they were drawn up in violation of Articles 14 and 16. The lists kept placements vacant for future recruits, leading to an inequitable situation where later recruits would be senior to those already in service.7. Power to Relax Quota Rules Under Rule 29(a):The Court held that the Government of India had the power to relax any of the provisions of the 1964 Rules under Rule 29(a). It inferred that the repeated departure from the quota rule was done in exercise of this power, making the promotions of the petitioners regular and legal. The Court also noted that failure to consult the Union Public Service Commission, as required by the proviso to Rule 29(a), would not invalidate the exercise of power.Conclusion:The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned seniority lists were quashed. The Court directed the Government to draw up fresh seniority lists within three months, ensuring they align with the observations made in the judgment. All promotions granted since the filing of the petitions were subject to readjustment in accordance with the judgment.