K C VASUDEVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ petition, challenging the order of the Central Government a few years after the order was made was allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the opposite party has come up to this Court in appeal by special leave. A brief narration of the conspectus of facts may be necessary to highlight the issue that arises and appreciate the direction we propose to give.

(2.) In 1949 the Govt. of India constituted the Central Gaushala Development Board with the object of co-ordinating the activities of gaushalas. A few years later (in 1952), the Board was replaced by the Central Council of Gosamvardhana (in short, C. C. G). This was an 'autonomous' body but completely under the administrative control of the Central Government. The staff recruited by the Council was not on the basis of qualifications prescribed for servants in Government departments. Nevertheless, they continued in service for several years until in 1969, the Central Government decided to dissolve the C. C. G. With effect from the 1st of December, 1969 the Central Council was dissolved and its work entrusted to State and Central Government agencies. Although the Central Government took over a considerable part of the work of the C. C. G., the staff employed by the Central Council could not be left in the lurch. They bad no employer and so the Central Government considered what should be done to provide for the personnel formerly employed by the C. C. G. Many of them were absorbed by the Central Government. But the terms and conditions of service so far as these absorbed employees were concerned were considered at a meeting held in the office of the Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry in the concerned Ministry of the Government of India. It was decided that the members of the staff of the Central Council should be given credit for service rendered in the Central Council since many of the schemes were transferred to the Department of Animal Husbandry. The appointments to the Cental Govt. of these former employees of the C. C. G. were, therefore, fresh appointments. Nor was it a case of the Central Govt having taken over, by any legal process, the Central Council of Gosamvardhana. Thus, the employees of the C. C G. were new entrants into Government service. However, they were given credit for former service in the C. C. G., having regard to the similarity of functions and because the experience gained under the C. C., G. was valuable. When these new appointments were made, the regular employees in the Department of Agriculture of the Central Government found that their seniority was disturbed and the fresh appointees from outside claimed to be senior to them and promotion posts which they naturally expected to get were lost or about to be lost. The order giving credit for service under the C. C. G. dated 17th April, 1970 was challenged before the High Court successfully. The grievance made was that seniority, with effect from the date of their appointment to their respective posts in the Schemes of the C. C. G., was illegal and arbitrary since they were not in Government service at all but under a totally different autonomous agency. The High Court was impressed with this circumstance and allowed the Writ Petition.

(3.) Before us, counsel for the appellants, Shri Bhargava, has urged that there was no irrationality or arbitrariness about the action taken by the Central Government in giving seniority "with effect from the date of their appointment to the respective posts in the schemes of the Council". The objectives of the C. C. G. were substantially similar to those of the Directorate of Extension of the Agriculture Ministry. Moreover, similar treatment had been accorded on former occasions when employees from the I. C. A. R. and other institutions were taken over by the Central Government. There is some plausibility in this submission. But Shri Girish Chandra contended before us that many of the employees in the C. C. G. were recruited on an ad hoc basis without reference to qualifications and without any regard to proper election criteria. Such persons could not even have been considered for recruitment by the Central Government. Moreover, even if there were special circumstances which justified giving weightage for their experience in the C. C. G., the Central Government should have exercised its power of relaxation by application of its mind to the facts present. Nothing of the sort was done, with the result that some of the respondents before us, who have been acting as Superintendents for a long period of years, find themselves threatened by the new induction of the C. C. G. employees. There is force in this submission.