K S VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in a dispute centered round seniority of Government employees in the Gujarat Subordinate Secretariat Service.

(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the two contentions raised in this appeal are the following :

(3.) The main contention advanced by Mr. Tarkunde in the appeal is that the rule regarding seniority is retrospective in operation and takes away the vested right of the appellants to prospects of promotions. In support of his submission he has relied upon three decisions of this Court, namely, Mervyn v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1966 (3) SCR 600: AIR 1967 SC 52, Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, 1968 (1) SCR 185: AIR 1967 SC 1889 and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, 1974 (1) SCR 771 : AIR 1974 SC 1, Each one of these is a decision of the Constitution Bench. We do not find that on facts any of these cases has any support to offer for the point in dispute Mervyn's case was that of Appraisers of the Customs Department and challenge was to the validity of the rotational system in fixing the seniority of Principal Appraisers. The Court struck down the method used by Government in fixing the seniority of Principal Appraisers, on a finding that there was denial of equality of opportunity. The dispute in this case is different from what came in Mervyn case for determination. This will be apparent when we presently deal with what exactly is the problem in the matter before us. Roshan Lai's case dealt with recruitment into one cadre from two sources. Even when recruitment from the two sources merged into one cadre, favourable treatment was given to recruits from one source regarding further promotion. The Court found this to be violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This again is not relevant for resolving the dispute in hand. Triloki Nath's case was dealing with the Engineering Service of Jammu & Kashmir. There was direct recruitment of degree-holders in civil engineering as also by transfer of degree or diploma-holders who had served, as Supervisors for a period of not less than 5 years for recruitment to cadre of Assistant Engineers. The relevant rule provided that recruitment to the post of Executive Engineers and above was to be made by promotion only and Assistant Engineers who possessed a degree in engineering alone were eligible for such promotion. This rule, therefore, disqualified diploma-holders for being promoted as Executive Engineers and they challenged the constitutionality of the rule by contending that it was discriminatory. The Court found that even after there was one cadre for the promotional post therefrom, a higher qualification could be prescribed and those out of the common cadre who satisfied that requirement could be made eligible for promotion.