G S LAMBA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) WE are back to square one. The same rigmarole of unending disputes as to inter se seniority between promotees, direct recruits and recruits as per the result of the limited competitive examination with quota-rota as the guiding star for determining inter se seniority are put in the lap of the court. 608

(3.) PETITIONERS came to be promoted between 1976-1979 from grade IV to integrated grade II and III. The government of India published a seniority list of officers in the integrated grade II and III of the general cadre of INDIAN FOREIGN SERVICE 'B' as on 25/06/1979. PETITIONERS contend that the seniority list is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed equality of opportunity in the matter of public service inasmuch as direct recruits who came into service long after the departmental promotees were regularly promoted to the aforementioned grade have been assigned seniority over the earlier promoted departmental promotees. 609 Before objections taken by the petitioners to the seniority list were dealt with the central government in supersession of seniority list dated 25/06/1979 published another seniority list of the officers in integrated grade II and III of INDIAN FOREIGN SERVICE 'B' as on 30/06/1983. PETITIONERS contend that the seniority list dated 30/06/1983 suffers from the same vice and is all the more objectionable inasmuch, as it leaves blank spaces for future recruits either as direct recruits or by limited departmental examination and who are yet to come into service to be placed over promotees like the petitioners who have already been in service for a long time. The petitioners contend that the impugned seniority list appears to have been drawn up on the principle of quota-rota and that in the facts of this case and the relevant rules it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. PETITIONERS also assert that if Rule 25 ( 1) (ii) is not construed harmoniously with Rule 21 of the 1964 Rules, Rule 25 (1) (ii) would be violative of the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 16. To be precise, the contention is that where there is recruitment to a cadre from more than one source and the recruitment has to conform to the quota prescribed for each source, simultaneously inter-linking the inter se seniority in respect of recruits entering service from different sources to the quota for each source, if the quota reserved for any source is not filled in for a long time and the vacancies allotted to the source are carried forward and the later day recruits from that source are given deemed seniority over the earlier recruits from the other sources, it has the pernicious tendency to give an undeserved advantage to a later recruit over the earlier recruit and it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16. Kit is held that Rule 25 (1) (ii) has precedence over Rule 21, then Rule 25(1) (ii) is unconstitutional inasmuch as failure to recruit enough number of persons to the extent of the quota reserved for the source in a reasonable time, in the absence of any power to carry forward vacancies available to that source, the rota rule of seniority would be discriminatory in character and lead to denial of equality in the matter of appointment to public service. It was submitted in such a situation the rota rule would break down under the weight of massive departure from the quota rule, and the seniority rule being inextricably intertwined with the quota rule if given effect to would be unjust, unfair and iniquitous and would be violative of Article 14.