BALAKRISHNAN Vs. COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is an Upper Division Clerk in the savings Bank Control Organisation (shortly stated SBCO) in the Posts and telegraphs Department seeks a direction from this court to the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi to grant the petitioner selection grade in the category of UDC with effect from 1968 or 1969 or earlier with all attendant benefits and privileges.

(2.) THE petitioner was working in the Audit and Accounts department, where he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 9-7-1952. He was confirmed with effect from 1-3-59. On 2-4-59, after having passed the Departmental Examination, he was promoted to officiate as UDC in a substantive and regular vacancy, in 1960, the Department had formulated certain terms and conditions under which transfers could be effected from the Audit Office to SBCO. Under these orders, 10% of the operative UDCs shall be in the selection grade as in the case then in vogue in the Audit Office. Selection grade was to be given to the UDCs based on seniority to the 10% vacancies earmarked for them. Relevant orders with regard to that have been produced along with the counter filed by respondents 1 to 5 marked as R4 and R3. In Ext. R4, which is a letter from the director General of Posts and Telegraphs addressed to the Accountant General, p&t, the terms and conditions for Absorption of surplus Audit staff in the p&t on the abolition of duplicate SB ledger cards in Branch Audit Offices are specified. THEre it is stated that 10% of the operative UDCs' posts shall be in the selection grade as is the case at present in the Audit Offices. Ext. R3, which is a subsequent circular issued from the Office of the Accountant general, P & T dated 31-3-64 also contains terms and conditions of transfer of the staff from the Accountant General's Office to the Posts and Telegraphs department. In Ext. R3, it is stated that the seniority of Upper Division clerks and Lower Division Clerks appointed as upper Division and Lower Division clerks in the Posts and Telegraphs Department will be fixed after taking into account the service rendered by them as Upper Division Clerks and Lower division Clerks in the Audit Offices and that 10% of the sanctioned strength of posts of UDCs is likely to be in the scale of Rs. 210-10-290-15-320-EB-15-380 and promotion to these posts is likely to be made on conditions similar to those obtaining in the Audit Department. THE petitioner was transferred to the SBCO in 1963. Ext. P3 is the order of transfer. It is stated therein that the transfer of the official is in the interest of public service. THE SBCO comprises of the following four distinct group of officials. (i) UDCs from Audit Offices who opted for service in the sbco, (ii) Post Office Clerks who were appointed in the SBCO on selection basis or who qualified in the merit rating test, (iii) Outsiders recruited through competitive examination, (iv) LDCs of SBCO on passing the merit rating test or on a seniority-cum-fitness basis.

(3.) I think the action taken by the respondents in the matter cannot be sustained. It has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme court that once certain officials have come into a particular category or cadre, then they cannot be treated differently in the matter of service conditions. Every UDC who has come to the new organisation must be given equal opportunity in the matter of promotion or selection to a selection grade. Where promotion is made by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, every one of them should be able to enter the list; they should have equal opportunity with others for being considered for promotion. Where this selection or promotion is purely based on seniority, the seniority in that cadre alone should be considered. There must be one common door for entry into the cadre of selection list of UDC through which every UDC could be entitled to enter. There cannot be a classification among members of the same class; one door for one group and another door for another group. Such treatment will create inequality of opportunity in the matter of promotion or selection. I need only refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankar Deodar v. State (AIR 1974 SC 259), Jogindar Nath v. Union of India (AIR 1975 SC 511), Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1889) and Mervyn Continho v. Collector of Customs, bombay (AIR 1967 SC 52 ). There can be no question of any quota being reserved to particular service or sources from which the persons have come into the UDC cadre.