ivil Appeal Nos
2635 38 of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 30101984 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in RP Nos
1998 2065 2085 of 1980 and 624 of 1982
SN Kacker A Subba Rao B Sudharshan Reddy Ramesh M Keshwani and K Ram Kumar for the Appellants
Chella Seetharamiah MK Ramamurthy Ms CK Sucharita K Rajendra Choudhary and K Shivraj Chowdhary for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
The appeals are by special leave and are directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in a group of representation petitions while the writ petitions are under Article 32 of the Constitution Writ Petition 72 of 1121 1987 being by promotee Deputy Tehsildars and Writ Petition 241 of 1987 being by another group of Deputy Tehsildars promoted by transfer
The background of the litigations may now be indicated
A set of rules regarding recruitment of Deputy Tehsildars was in force in the erstwhile State of Madras which continued to apply to Andhra Pradesh until in 1961 the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Subordinate Service Rules hereinafter referred to as the Special Rules  were brought into force
The cadre under the Special Rules consisted of Deputy Tehsildars only
Rule 3 provided 3
Appointment a Appointment to the category of Deputy Tehsildars in this service shall be made i by direct recruitment or ii by transfer from members of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service employed in the Revenue Department including the Office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue Revenue Settlement parties and the office of the Director of Settlements Survey and Land Records
b Substantive vacancies in the category of Deputy Tehsildars shall be filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer in the porportion of 11
Some directly recruited Deputy Tehsildars during the years 1962 and 1963 moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 1502 of 1971 disputing the seniority over them assigned to a group of promotees
They alleged that though they had completed their probation long prior to the Upper Division Clerks who were appointed by transfer as Deputy Tehsildars and had become full members of the service upon confirmation in their posts while none of the Upper Division Clerks appointed by transfer had become full members yet the directly recruited Deputy Tehsildars had been treated as junior and their claim to promotion as Tehsildars was being overlooked
A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that there was no foundation for the grievance of the directly recruited Deputy Tehsildars and that they had no cause of action within the frame of the rules
The decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld in appeal by a Division Bench
Support for that position 1122 was derived from Rule 33a of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules 1962 hereinafter referred to as the General Rules 
A special leave petition was filed before this Court against the appellate decision of the High Court
On 9th October 1980 the State Government amended Rule 4e of the Special Rules with retrospective effect from 12th of October 1961 in the manner indicated below In sub rule e of Rule 4 of the said Rules for the words The seniority of the Deputy Tehsildar shall be determined with reference to the date of allotment maintained and the ranking assigned to him by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in the merit list of that selection  the following shall be substituted namely the inter se seniority between the direct recruits to the category of Deputy Tehsildars and the promotees to the category of Deputy Tehsildars shall be determined from the date of their confirmation in the substantive vacancy in that category in the proportion of 11 as provided in sub rule b of Rule 3
 A group of promotees who are appellants in the civil appeals went before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the validity of the aforesaid amendment with particular emphasis on its retrospective application
The Tribunal referred the matter to a three Judge Bench thereof
Before the Tribunal it was canvassed on behalf of the appellants that the prevailing rule regarding seniority was in Rule 33 of the General Rules and in the absence of any provision in the special Rules the principle in Rule 33 was applicable for determining inter se seniority in the cadre of Deputy Tehsildars
The claim of the direct recruits had been negatived by the High Court and the dispute was pending decision of this Court
There was no scope for the State Government to amend the Rules in 1980 to the prejudice of the promotees
Even if Government wanted to change their policy regarding determination of inter se seniority it should have been made applicable prospectively and that the seniority already determined on the basis of Rule 33 of the General Rules should not have been disturbed
The determination of seniority on the basis of the date of confirmation worked out prejudice for the promotees
The Tribunal examined the matter at length and came to the following conclusion As a quota rule has been provided in the Special 1123 Rules relating to the recruitment of Deputy Tehsildars from two sources after recruitment there is an imperative need to integrate the aforesaid two sources
After integration necessity arises for fixing inter se seniority of persons who have come from the two different sources for facilitating promotions to the next higher posts
There being no rule of relative seniority between direct recruits and rank promotees and the General Rule 33a being incapable to bring integration Government have rightly felt to enact a rule for integration of the two sources in one cadre and fixation of inter se seniority among members drawn from the said two sources
Confirmation adopted as the formula for determination of inter se seniority is constitutionally valid
There is no question of any discrimination in laying down a rule of seniority based on the principle of confirmation
The promotee Deputy Tehsildars not having been recruited against the substantive vacancies have not acquired any vested interest so as to be protected against the impugned rule of seniority
Their inter se seniority in the class of temporary Duputy Tehsildars against the nonsubstantive posts evidently determined under General Rule 33a remains unaffected by the impugned seniority rule
Thus the said rule does not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
It is free from any vice what so ever and cannot therefore be assailed
The General Rule 33a is incapable of determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotee Deputy Tehsildars despite the fact that the promotees belonging to the latter class are approved probationers and their recruitments are regular to the category of Deputy Tehsildars
Since their posts are outside the permanent cadre they cannot bring their seniority in the category of Deputy Tehsildars into the permanent cadre and press it against the direct recruits who are members of the permanent cadre from the beginning
The seniority between them after judgment and the direct recruits shall be determined on the basis of the impugned rule of seniority which according to us is a valid enactment
The Government shall now proceed to determine the seniority accordingly
 These directions of the Tribunal are assailed in appeal before this Court
1124 Writ Petition No 72 of 1987 is by 17 promotees during the period 1966 to 1971 while Writ Petition No 241 of 1987 is by 21 Deputy Tehsildars promoted by transfer from the posts of Upper Division Clerks also during the same period
The cadre does not have a prescribed strength and temporary appointments seem to have become the rule as the history of the service shows
Even though the ratio of 11 is prescribed in regard to the substantive vacancies direct recruitments were made only in the years 1963 1964 1965 and 1966 and for a decade to follow there was no direct recruitment
When demand for more hands in the category of Deputy Tehsildars became pressing supernumerary posts were created from time to time and such posts were filled up by promotion
Rule 33a of the General Rules dealing with seniority as far as relevant provides The seniority of a person in service class category or grade shall unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service class category or grade     Relying upon this provision seniority was being determined of promotees without taking into account the fact that there had been intervening reversions to the lower posts from which promotion to the post of deputy Tehsildar had been granted
The legal position is well settled that the State is entitled to prescribe the manner of computing inter se seniority and in the absence of such prescription length of service is the basis
A series of recent decision of this Court has made that position certain
Rule 33 of the General Rules contains prescription regarding seniority and has different provisions to meet varying situations
Sub rule a which provides that seniority of a person is to be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service has obviously been mis interpreted on account of the presence of the words unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment 
It could not be the intention of Rule 33a to compute seniority from the date of first appointment even though it was not a continuous one
For instance a person is appointed to the post of Deputy Tehsildar on promotion on 1st of January 1970 and is reverted to the lower post not by way of punishment but on account of exigencies of service or otherwise on 31st of March 1970
He is again promoted to that post on 1st January 1980 and continues 1125 to hold that promotional post
Another person is promoted to the post of Deputy Tehsildar on 1st April 1970 and continues to hold that post without break
If the interpretation adopted by the State Government of Rule 33a is accepted it would mean that the first person on account of having been first appointed on an earlier date to the promotional post would rank senior to the second person
This obviously could not have been the intention of the rule
It is appropriate to interpret that rule to mean that the date of first appointment is intended to refer to continuous appointment only and the words unless he has been reduced to a lower rank by way of punishment  are really redundant
We are aware of the fact that this rule has been widely applied for determining inter se seniority and in case challenge to fixation of inter se seniority is permitted to be raised on what we have stated above limitless litigation would crop up
We would therefore make it clear that the interpretation which we now give of this rule shall have prospective application and unless there be any litigation already pending challenging the interpretation of this rule no new litigation would be permitted on that score
We have already pointed out that the law is that it is open to the State to provide a rule for determining inter se seniority
Rule 4e of the Special Rules before amendment in 1980 had provided that the seniority of Deputy Tehsildars would be determined with reference to the date of allotment maintained and ranking assigned by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commmission in the merit list of the particular selection
That obviously was confined to inter se seniority of direct recruits and did not cover inter se seniority between recruits of the two sources
Therefore the General Rules had been relied upon
In 1980 by the impugned amendment to Rule 4e of the Special Rules the State Government prescribed the manner of providing inter se seniority among the recruits of the two categories
The amended rule provided the date of confirmation in the substantive vacancy as the basis
Rule 3b fixed the reservation of direct recruits with reference to substantive vacancies at 50 and Rule 4e therefore made provision with reference to the seniority in the substantive vacancies with reference to the date of confirmation
The amendment in terms is within the competency of the State Government and is not open to challenge
This is a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and as settled by this Court in exercise of that power the rule can be given retrospective operation
The impugned amendment has been given retrospective operation from 12th October 1961
From the judgment of the Tribunal we find that the authority of the State Government to make a rule for future application was not seriously 1126 disputed but what was assailed was the retrospectivity given to the amendment
Indisputably many of the promotees on the basis of seniority already assigned to them have been holding posts of Tehsildars Deputy Collectors and Special Grade Deputy Collectors
Many have retired from service having enjoyed those promotional benefits
Promotions between 1961 and 1971 on the basis of the seniority assigned under Rule 33a of the General Rules is under challenge
That period is a distant one from now varying between 17 to 27 years
To allow the amendment to have retrospective operation is bound to create problems
The State Government while amending the rule should have taken into consideration the practical problems which would arise as a consequence of retrospectivity
It should have taken into account the far reaching adverse effect which the rule if given such retrospective effect would bring about in regard to services of scores of employees and the disquiet it would result in by disturbing settled situations
We are therefore not of the view that the rules should be given retrospective effect from 1961
It would however be wholly justified and appropriate to give the rules prospective operation by fixing 9th October 1980 as the date from which it should take effect
We accordingly direct that Rule 4e as amended on 9th October 1980 shall not have any retrospective effect and would operate prospectively
Though Rule 3b fixes the ratio as 11 in respect of substantive vacancies the recruitment has not been regular and systematic
We have come across several instances where the State Government do not take steps to give effect to their own rules and therefore though there is one mode of prescription in action a different situation is brought about
Rules have binding effect and they bind the State and the citizens alike once they are in force
In order that law may regulate conduct the State has to feel bound by its own laws and by willingly abiding by the law exhibit an ideal situation for the citizens to emulate
We disapprove of the callous conduct of the State and direct that the rule shall henceforth be followed scrupulously by effecting recruitment at regular intervals according to the scheme of the rule
The State shall within four months from today compute the substantive vacancies in the cadre and determine the quota of direct recruits to the rank of Deputy Tehsildars and after working out the vacancies available to be filled by the direct recruitment on the basis of 50 per cent of the total number fill up the same by making direct recruitment within a period of four months thereafter
Once that is done and regular recruitment is effected the impasse which has now been created would not continue
1127 The State is directed to draw up the seniority list on the basis of rule 4e on or before 31st December 1988
We have given a long time to eliminate the scope for making for an application for extension
The Civil Appeals are dismissed
The Writ Petitions shall have also the same fate except to the extent that Rule 4e as amended shall have prospective application
In the Civil Appeals we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout
There would be no order for costs in the Writ Petitions
GN Appeals and Petitions dismissed


Summary:
 The appellant firm imported special purpose complex machine and claimed that it was classifiable under item 844548 of the tariff schedule and duty was payable at the rate of 40 per cent
The Assistant Collector took the view that the imported machine was not manufacturing carburettors and was discharging an individual function of plugging holes in the carburettor body with the help of lead shots and that the appropriate entry was 84591 of the Customs Tariff and duty was payable at the rate of 60 per cent
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order by preferring an appeal to the Collector Appeals who took the view that the imported machine by plugging holes on the carburettor body with the help of lead shots was clearly a machine which was fully conforming to the description of a machine for treating metals inasmuch as it was treating the carburettor body and preparing it for being rivetted and therefore it was conforming to the description of a machine tool as given under heading 844548 of the Customs Tariff and allowed the appeal
On further appeal the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the function of the imported machine was to plug the holes of carburettor body that none of its functions can be considered to be treating metal within the meaning of sub heading 2 of Tariff Heading 8459 that classification as machine tool under Tariff Heading 844548 has to be ruled out and that the machine does not fall under any of the Heading of Chapter 84 of the 38 Tariff Schedule
It accordingly reversed the appellate decision of the Collector of Customs Appeals
In the appeal under section 130 E of the to this Court on the question whether the imported special purpose complex machine has to be charged to customs duty under item 84591 as claimed by the Revenue or under 844548 of the tariff schedule as maintained by the appellant
Allowing the Appeal  HELD l Entry 8459 of Schedule I is a residuary one and indisputably if any other entry applies application of this entry is ruled out
40F G 2
Machine tools in general remain classified under entry 8445 even if specialised for a particular industry Machine tools include slotting machines drilling and boring machines tapping machines reaming machines and rivetting machines
41D E Tool Engineers Handbook Mc Graw Hills Mc Graw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms referred to
The machine in the instant case is indeed a multi purpose one and keeping its performance in view the machine has to be held as a machine tool working on metal and should legitimately find its way into entry 844548
Once it is so identified it does not get into the residuary entry 8459
The Collector has reached the correct conclusion
The order of the Tribunal is vacated and that of the Collector is restored
41F G