SOHAN LAL TANEJA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against .the decision of the learned single Judge by which he rejected the challenge to the vires of the Delhi Administration .Subordinate Ministerial/Executive Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter to be called the 1967 Rules) published on 10-2-1967. The Delhi Administration like any other State Administration has large number of services under it. Each service was governed by its own respective rules. One of the departments to which the appellants belong is the Directorate of Social Welfare. The appellants I to 14 are Probation Officers Grade II/Case Workers. Appellants 15 to 17 are working as Inspectors, 'Deputy Superintendents, Supervisors-cum-Probation Officers, Grade I and appellant No. 18 & 19 are working as Superintendent Institution and Superintendent training-cum-Probation Centre at the time when the writ petition was filed.

(2.) The Directorate of Social Welfare has its own service rules for recruitment to the posts in the said department. Earlier to 1967 there were no unified cadre of employees of Delhi Administration and persons were recruited to different services under different set of recruitment rules governing those services. However on 10th February, 1967 the Administrator, Delhi, in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution framed 1967 Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules lays down that on and from the date of commencement of these rules there were to be constituted two Central Civil Services to- be known as the Subordinate Ministerial Service and the Subordinate Executive Service of Delhi Administration. The service was to have four grades namely Grade I, Grade II, Grade III and Grade IV. By Rule 4 the authorised strength of 4 grades of service in each cadre was as provided in Schedule, 1. Rule 5 further provide that the Chief Secretarymay at the commencement, of these Rules appoint to the service any person who on such commencement or at the time of temporary addition to posts holds any of the posts specified in Schedule II or a temporary posts so added in a regular manner in accordance with the method of recruitment prior to the constitution of service, subject to the availability of duty posts in the grade on the recommendation of selection board constituted for the purpose. We may note that though .1967 Rules have also constituted Subordinate Ministerial Service, the vires of that not the subject matter of this appeal because .so-far as the ministerial posts in the Directorate of Social Welfare is concerned namely Deputy Superintendents, Upper Division Clerks, Steno-typist etc. have' been held to be ministerial service and have, been included in 'the Subordinate Ministerial Service. We. are only concerned with the vires of Subordinate Executive Service. A reference to Schedule 1 & 2 of 1967 Rules .will show that the posts which had been included in the new service and the personnel out of which those posts can be filled at the initial constitution and later on are to the various posts like the Civil Supplies Officer, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Tehsildar, Assistant-Employment Officer, Assistant Labour Officer in Grade I and Senior Inspector. Assistant Manager, emporium. Industrial 'Inspector .and Panchayat Inspector in Grade II. It is not necessary to mention all the posts because the arguments have been addressed on a broader aspect. The grievance in short put forth by Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant is that- the qualifications and nature of duties performed by a member of those who have now been included in Schedule 1 & 2 are identically the same as those held by the appellants' and, therefore there is no rational or conceivably logical reason not to have included the posts held.by the. appellants also in Schedule 1 & 2. The respondents have sought justification in excluding the posts held by the appellants from 1967 Rules by pleading that these are technical posts' and require special aptitude and qualifications and that it would not have been conducive to the service if those posts were also included because every-person who bad been included in 1967 could not have been asked to work on ' the posts held by the appellants 'and, therefore, the principle of inter change ability, which was the reason for constituting a new service would have been defeated.The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the Directorate 'of Social Welfare is a technical department and its officers have to perform manifold duties such. as child welfare, Juvenile delinquency, women welfare, social and moral hygiene, beggar problem and the nature of their duties required them to have special knowledge, training, and experience; he has on a comparison of qualifications prescribed for the various posts mentioned in Schedule I to the 1967 Rules -and the qualifications prescribed for posts of the Directorate of Social Welfare taken the view that they are different, the later posts being specialised ones and that a merger of the Directorate of Social Welfare within the fold of; . the Executive Service constituted under impugned 1967. Rules. would not be conducive to the interest of that service.He, therefore, found no violation of the equality clause 'under Article 14 & 16 as was urged by the appellants and thereupon dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) Mr Gupta the learned counsel for the appellant in the forefront challenged the finding of the learned single Judge that the qualifications or. the nature of "duties performed in the posts held by the appellants and by those included in the unified service included in Schedule I to the 1967 Rules .are so different as to justify the exclusion. of the posts of the appellants from 1967 Rules. In this connection he special drew our attendon to the comparative study of nature of .duties and qualifications of different posts, as against .the posts held by the appellant as given in annexure F. to the petition. Mr. Gupta emphasised the inclusion of some of the posts in the Labour Department like Assistant Labour Officer .and Welfare Officer and compared them to the posts of Superintendent and Planning Officer in the Directorate of Social Welfare, and the fact that all these posts require a common qualification, .namely degree in social science. Certain other posts like Panchayat Officer, Assistant Employment Officer which also require 'the educational qualifications of a Degree of recognised Univesity in Economics or. Commerce are also highlighted. Of course so far as the work qualification is concerned they are different in the sense that the person who is to be recruited in social welfare department has to have experience of work in social work while a person in Labour Department is required to have experience in the Labour Welfare work. Special mention is made by Mr. Gupta to the inclusion of posts of Naib. Tehsildar in the grade of 150 300 in Schedule II to 1967 Rules resulting in his being eligible for being promoted to the post of an Executive in Grade I in the .pay-scale of 350 575 and thus being eligible to hold even the post of Assistant Employment Officer Class II or a Grade I Assistant Sales Tax Officer or a Grade I Inspector Weights and Measures.This is emphasised by Mr. Gupta to urge that if a person with the qualifications of a Naib Tehsildar is considered fit and proper for promotion to the posts included in 1967 Rules what justification is there that the appellants who are having a Graduate degree (the Same requirement for recruitment to the post of Assistant Employment Officer or Assistant Sales Tax Officer) should not have been included in the service. This, it is claimed, makes available to the persons holding posts under 1967 Rules much larger avenues of promotion and opportunities in the higher posts under Delhi Administration than to the appellants, which action is said to be discriminatory and denial of equal opportunity guaranteed under the Constitution. Apart from the original affidavit in "return filed by the. respondents a further detailed affidavit was filed in reply to the Appellants' rejoinder by Mrs. Reva Nayyar, the then Under Secretary (Services) to justify the constitution of a new service and the exclusion of the posts held by the appellents This new cadre was said to have been constituted on similar lines as Indian Administrative Service and PCS Cadres so that officers appointed to the cadre can be posted against posts included in the cadre. The reason why the posts in Directorate of Social Welfare had not been included was said to be that they had specialised qualifications which could not fit in .with the general scheme of constitution with the Subordinate service, and that the posts held by the appellants if included in the cadre would be. difficult 'to be manned by the other cadre officers and the whole purpose of a.unified service would be defeated. It was also denied that the appellants did not have adequate chances of promotions- or that their chances of promotion are less than the officials included in the cadre. A statement seeking to justify' the promotions obtained by the appellants at various points of time were also attached with the retuna affidavit The-question, of grouping various posts on the executive side of different grades of subordinate service were said to have been. considered thoroughly and it was only after matured thinking by Delhi Administration that the Cadre was constituted. A. list was given of other departments which had also not been included in the 1967 service. A reference to R-6- attached with the said affidavit will. show that large number of -posts like Soil Conservation Assistant Development Department in which requirement is adegree of agriculture of Assistant Supervisor Fisheries for "which the qualification is only a matriculate or a Compilation Assistant or computer for which the qualification is degree in economics or mathematics or Statistical Inspector, that is as many as 20 types of posts mentioned therein have not been included.'in the unified service 'under the 1967 Rules. Though the appellants in the first instance emphasise the similarity arid identity of work performed by them and by those included in the 1967 Service.but in substance the real complaint is that if various posts like Assistant Sales.Tax Officer Labour Welfare Officer, Weights arid Measure Inspector and Naib Tehsildar who broadly are expected to be doing different kinds of jobs can be included in the unified service, there is no rational reason to exclude the appellants because, tics nature of their work is not so distinct or specialised or technical that it could not be performed by other members of unified service. In our view the extreme stand taken by both the appellant and the respondents is unacceptable. The plea of the appellants that there is no difference between the work performed by the appellants and of those posts which have been included in the Schedule under 1967 Rules is obviously without any merit because we cannot accept that the kind of work done by a person like a social welfare officer in the Directorate of Social Welfare is the same kind of work as done by an. Assistant Sales Tax Officer or an Inspector, Weights & Measures or a Panchayat Officer. There is apparently no similarity of ,work.0f course in the sense of a possession of common educational qualification, a minimum of common sense and knowledge of administrative procedures, may be common features' but then these are traits which would be common attributes of almost all the services anywhere.. 'The argument of equating these posts of the appellants with the posts included in the 1967 Rules is based on too enuous and shaky foundation. Similarly the contention of the respondents that the work performed by the appellants is so different from those posts which have been included in Schedule I is partially correct, it may be acceptable only to the extent .that there is a difference of nature of duties performed on these posts. But from that the further jump that inclusion of posts in Schedule I of 1967 Rules can be justified solely by a community of interest or qualification and nature of duties inter se as distinctly as -against the posts held by the appellants is also similarly a tenuous contention. If notwithstanding the differences in the nature of duties performed by an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Naib Tahsildar and Labour Welfare Officer, these posts can be combined into one service, it is not prima facie an impermissible and an absurd suggestion urged by the appellants that for similar reason the posts held by appellants, could also have been included in the unified service Under 1967 Rules. But we must hasten to add that though it may not be correct to say that the work of the posts, say like the Assistant Labour Welfare Officer and the Research Assistant could possibly be done by the appellants and vice versa it does not automatically make the classification unreasonable and arbitrary because as is well settled "The State is legitimately empowered to frame rules of classification for securing the requisite standard of efficiency in services and the classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete. In applying the wide language of Arts. 14 and 16 to concrete cases a doctrinaire approach should beavoided and the matter considered in a practical way, of course without whittling down the equality clauses". See (1970 SLR 755) Gangs Ram V. Union of India (1).