UNION OF INDIA Vs. PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as CAT) the short question that arises for consideration is if the Tribunal committed any error of law in directing the appellants to re-fix the notional seniority of Supervisors Grade A in ordnance factories, and fix their pay- scale and all benefits attached thereto as per rule on the basis that all the applicants came out successful in the selection tests for promotion to the post of Chargeman Grade II from their respective dates of examination.

(2.) In 1950 the Union of India, in the Ministry of Defence, introduced Apprenticeship Training Scheme for supervisory posts, in Ordnance Factories for efficient working and better supervision. After completion of successful apprenticeship the trainees were offered post-training employment by the Director General (D.G.) to various posts including the posts of Supervisor Grade A and Chargeman Grade II on gradation secured by them in the examination conducted by the Central Selection Board. In November, 1965 the D.G. suggested that in border line cases of apprentices graded as Supervisor Grade A it would be fair to give them another chance to appear within six months in the next examination for grading as Chargeman Grade II since they might have been graded as Supervisor Grade A due to slightly different standards of marking. The suggestion materialised in 1967 and the scheme was amended as under :

(3.) Although formal instructions were issued in 1967 the D.G. permitted some of the apprentices graded as Supervisor Grade A in the examination conducted in 1965 to appear in the next examination in 1966, in which many succeeded and were appointed as Chargeman Grade If. Some of the Supervisors Grade A who were working from before and satisfied the eligibility criteria and others who were denied similar opportunity even though they had secured 5% less in the aggregate approached this Court by way of writ petition and claimed that they too should have been given another opportunity to improve their gradation as was done in case of others. When the petitions came up for hearing this Court permitted them to be withdrawn and they approached the High Court of Delhi by way of writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the action of the appellant in denying similar opportunity to Supervisor Grade A who had appeared in the examination prior to 1965 or even thereafter and were in the field of eligibility as provided by the modified scheme was discriminatory and violative of equal guarantee under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. It consequently issued following directions :