A JANARDHANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant A. Janardhana filed Writ Petition No. 4293 of 1979 questioning the validity and legality of the revised seniority list Ex. 'D' circulated with the letter dated June 14, 1974 to which the revised seniority list Ex. 'C' was annexed and as a consequence to cancel the panel of promotion dated January 13, 1975, drawn-up in respect of 102 officers. A mandamus was sought directing the respondents to give effect to the 1963. Seniority List drawn-up on the principle of length of service continuous officiation as set out in the notification memorandum dated March 11, 1965. A cognate Writ Petition No. 4273 of 1979, by one Manjunatha was also heard and disposed of by the Court along with the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) The factual matrix in juxtaposition with the relevant rules may be set out in details because the very narration of chronology of events would illumine the contours of controversy.

(3.) Appellant joined service as Supervisor in the year '53 in what is styled as Military Engineering Services ('MES' for short). He came to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) in 1962. In the seniority-list of 'AEE' drawn up in the year 1963 the appellant was shown at Serial No. 357. In the revised seniority list dated June 14, 1974, impugned in the petition, the appellant did not find a place because consistent with the quota rule on the basis of which the impugned revised seniority list of 1974 was prepared, the appellant was surplus and could not find his herth in the seniority list. It is necessary to note an intervening event. One Bachan Singh and Anr., the two promotees to the post of 'AEE' in the years 1958 and 1959 respectively, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging the appointment of several direct recruits to 'MES' on the ground that their appointment was contrary to and in violation of the rules of recruitment and they were not validly appointed and, therefore, could not become members of the service. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi and the matter was carried in appeal to this Court. The decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bachan Singh v. Union of India, (1972) 3 SCR 898, was interpreted by the first respondent to mean that the direct recruitment, not by competitive examination but by interview and viva voce test, was valid and such appointments being in consonance with the rules, the confirmation of said direct recruits was within the quota of direct recruits in permanent vacancies and was hence valid. The first respondent understood the decision to mean that there was a quota for recruitment in the cadre of 'AEE' in 'MES' Class I of 9 direct recruits to 1 promotee (9:1) since 1951, and the quota must lead to rota for confirmation and proceeded to redraw the seniority list in 1974 with the starting result in respect of the appellant and several persons similarly situated as hereinabove set out. The appellant in his writ petition questioned, the criteria adopted for preparing revised seniority list of June 1974, on diverse grounds based on the ratio of the decision in Bachan Singh's case. Criteria may be extracted from the memoranda covering the seniority list dated June 14, 1974: