vil Appeal Nos
4397 98 of 1989 etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 30111988 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi in OA Nos 838 of 87 and 1502 of 1987
606 K Sibal Additional Solicitor General A Subba Rao CVS Rao and MS Ganesh for the appellants
Respondent No 1 in person
DK Garg RP Oberoi and DB Vohra for the respondents
The judgment of the Court was delivered by RM SAHAI J
Seniority in services is usually irksome
But the nature of dispute amongst officers in Class A  of Indian Defence Estates Service who were promoted from Class B  of Military and Cantonment service where they were working as Assistant Military Estates Officers AMEO and Assistant Military F states Officers Technical AMEOT is slightly unusually
That is why apart from correctness or otherwise of directions issued by the Tribunal Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi for re determining seniority one of the issues debated was if this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should interfere with orders of Tribunal if sub stantial justice has been done between parties
To this may be added yet another namely if the Union of India should have approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition not for sake of justice or injustice legality or illegality of any provision but because it may have to pay few thou sands may be few lakhs more
But first manner of appointment of two group of offi cers and rules by which they were governed from time to time may be noticed as even though initially posts of both AMEO and AMEOT were sanctioned and created by the President in 1962 and they were governed for some time by different set of rules but were brought in common stream in 1976 and were promoted in Class A  before fresh rules were enforced in 1983 and 1985 yet entire thrust of attack to justify dif ferential treatment to AMEOT was rounded on difference in method of their selection
AMEOS were included in Class II of Military Land and Cantonment Service Class I and II Rules 1951 for the first time in 1964
Relevant amendment by notification issued in 1964 was incorporated in 1951 Rules when it was amended in 1968
Amended Rule 4vc read as under Class II of the Service shall consist of Executive Officers Class II Assistant Military Estates Officers and such other posts as may by order of the Government be declared to be included in Class II cadre of the Service 607 Manner of appointment to this class was provided by Rule 5b which is extracted below b Appointment to Class II Cadre of the Service shall be made in the following manner namely 1 upto 20 of vacancies in Class II by promotion from among the serving Class III staff of the Military Lands and Cantonments Service having service and educational qualifi cations specified in sub rules c and e 2 upto 20 of vacancies by direct recruitment made by a selection from among serving employees of Cantonment Boards having service and educational qualifications specified in sub rules d and e 3 the remaining vacancies from among the candidates who qualify at the Examination and are recommended by the Com mission but who fail to secure Class I appointment in any of the Central Services Provided that i for a period of five years commencing from the 29th January 1966 30 per cent of the permanent vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment in any year shall be reserved for being filled in by the Emer gency Commissioned Officers of the Armed Forces of the Union who were commissioned on or after the 1st November 1962 and who were released at any time thereafter In 1981 service known as Military Lands and Cantonment Service Group A was constituted
75 of the substantive vacancies in this Group A  junior scale were to be filed by direct competition and 25 by promotion from a panel prepared on the basis of selection on merit in ratio 11 from amongst Cantonment Executive Officer Group B  and Assistant Military Estates Officer Service Group B who had not rendered less than 3 years regular service
AMEO Technical on the other hand were officers who were released from Engineering Service of Army after 1962
Since there was increase in work load and they were to be absorbed as well they were appointed on recommendation of UPSC Union Public Service Commission in 1964 and 1965 against posts which were created from time to time by the Military Land and Cantonments Department as is clear 608 from various orders issued in 1963 1967 and 1970 which have been extracted in the order of Tribunal to demonstrate that the Director Military Lands and Cantonment Ministry of Defence issued letters conveying the sanction of the Presi dent to the creation of various posts in the Military Lands  Cantonment Service which included Assistant Military Estates Officers Technical
Although the appointment letter issued to each officer mentioned that the post was temporary yet each was appointed on probation of two years
The word Technical appears to have been added because they were engineers
Otherwise there was neither difference in pay nor in work as the AMEOT were appointed to work as AMEO as well
AMEOT were thus qualified persons holding rank in Army
To say that they were lesser in merit than AMEO only because they had not appeared in competitive examination was being uncharitable to them
To misfortune of AMEOT they were neither included in the Class II cadre of 1951 Rules nor any other rule was applied to them
Presumably because of method of recruitment
All the same it was very unsatisfactory that posts of AMEOT were being created and selections made in pursuance of advertise ment issued by the UPSC yet they were not being provided any statutory basis
Realising this rules were framed under Article 309 in 1968 but these rules again did not provide for promotions seniority etc
However the anomoly was finally removed when officers appointed prior to 1967 or under 1968 Rules as AMEOT were included in Class II of 1951 Rules by amending Rule 3 in 1976 which read as under 3
The Service shall be constituted by officers appointed i in accordance with these rules ii in accordance with the Military Lands and Cantonments Service Assistant Military Estates Officers Technical Recruitment Rules 1968 and iii in consultation with the Commission as Assistant Military Estates Officer Technical prior to the 1st January 1967
 Thus from this date officers appointed as AMEOT either under the 1968 Rules or prior to it became members of Mili tary Lands and Cantonment Service MLC to whom 1951 Rules applied
On that there is no dispute
But what about 1964 to 1976 Should they be 609 deemed to have served under no rules as claimed by AMEOS and strangely even by Union or they were governed by Central Civil Services TemporaryRules 1965 CCS Rules
And if so what was its effect on their promotion and seniority
For this one of the appointment letter issued to AMEOT contain ing terms and conditions is extracted below MEMORANDUM Subject Recruitment to the post of Assistant Military Estate Officer Technical MilitaryLands  Cantonments Service
On the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission the President is pleaded to offer Shri Mahandra Pal Singh a temporary post of Assistant Military Estate Officer Technical in the Military Lands  Cantonment Serv ice Under Ministry of Defence
xxx xxx xxx The terms and conditions of appointment are as follows i The post is temporary
In the event of its becoming permanent his claim for permanent absorption will be Consid ered in accordance with the rules in force
ii He will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment which may be extended at the discre tion of the competent authority
Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority will render him liable to discharge from service or reversion to his parent department in case he is holding a permanent posts
XXX XXX XXX iv The appointment may be terminated at any time on one month s notice given by either side viz the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reasons or by reverting the individual to his parent department in case he is holding a lien
The appointing authority howev er reserves the right of terminating the services of the appointee forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated 610 period of notice by making payment to him of a sum equi 
valent to the pay and allowance for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof
v He will be subject to conditions of service as applica ble to temporary civilian Government servants paid from Defence Services Estimates in accordance with the orders issued by Govt
of India from time to time
He will be subject to Field Service Liability Rule 1957
 What stands out Clearly from it is that they were appointed in Military Lands and Cantonment Service MLC under Minis try of Defence
That is clear from the order creating the posts from time to time
Letter dated 27th April 1963 is extracted below To The Director Military Lands  Cantts
New Delhi
Subject Establishment of the New Eastern Command Sanction of Staff
Sir Consequent on the establishment of the New Eastern Command and re organisation of the existing Eastern Command into Central Command I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the creation of the following posts in the Military Lands and Cantts
Services 1
Director Military Lands  Cannts
Asstt
Director ML  C 1 3
Military Estates Officer Bihar  Orissa 1 4
Asstt
Estates Officer Technical Class II 2 Therefore it is too late to claim that they were not ap pointed to Military Land and Cantonment Service under Minis try of Defence
Was their status effected or nature of employment altered because 611 Central Civil Service Temporary service 1965 Rules applied to them
These rules applied to service under the Govern ment of India in the Ministry of Defence  paid out of the Defence Service Estimates 
Purpose of the rule was not to create a cadre or grade of temporary employees but to provide statutory basis to employees of different depart ments mentioned in it and accord them a quasi permanent status if they fulfilled the requirements mentioned in Rule 3
Seniority promotion etc
were to be governed by the rules under which the temporary employee was appointed
Therefore seniority of an employee and its determination depended on service in the cadre to which he belonged or to which he was appointed
That the AMEOT were appointed to MLC service cannot be disputed
Nor it can be disputed that they were appointed to posts which were created by the President and its sanction was conveyed by the Director of MLC
The only shortcoming was that there was no declaration that these posts were included in Class II Cadre
That also stood removed in 1976
Since it included every AMEOT whether appointed under 1968 Rules or even prior to it all those AMEOT who were appointed in 1964 or 1965 also become member of service to whom 1951 Rules applied
Automatic consequence of it was that seniori ty of AMEOT was to be determined under Rule 11 of 1951 Rules on length of regular service in the cadre
That is what the tribunal held
And rightly
Whether service rendered by the respondents between 1964 to 1976 was regular or it could be deemed to be regular as held by the Tribunal is different
Assuming the Tribunal committed error in applying 1951 Rules to service of AMEOT prior to 1976 does it call for any interference Is the order not just and fair Effect of Tribunal s order is that it cured the injustice perpetrated due to absence of exercise of power by the Government under Rule 4vc of 1951 Rules as it stood amended since 1964
Substantial justice being one of the guidelines for exercise of power by this Court the order is not liable to interfer ence
What is baffling is filing of the SLP by Union Govern ment
Not because of any injustice to AMEO as that has been taken care of by Tribunal by protecting all those who are working but because if it works out seniority of AMEOT from back date it may have to pay substantial amount and creation of superanuary posts may further entail cost
Justice is alert to differences and sensitive to discrimination
It cannot be measured in terms of money
A government of a welfare state has gruelling task of being fair and just and so justice 612 oriented in its approach and outlook
Mere rectification of its mistakes or omissions by Courts and Tribunals should not prompt parties or it to approach this Court by Special Leave merely for taking a chance or to protect some vested inter est except for sake of justice or for laying down law for benefit of Court and its guidance
Neither was in this case
Injustice to respondents is apparent as admittedly these officers were promoted in Class A  in 1978 and are working since then uninterruptedly yet when review DPC were held in pursuance of the judgment given by Allahabad High Court and seniority list was published in 1987 they were ignored as they were working as ad hoc resulting in pushing up AMEOS who were junior to them
AMEOs were granted seniority from the date of appointment in MLC service whereas similar benefit was denied to AMEOT as they were working as ad hoc
To remove this irritant Tribunal directed that they shall be deemed to be holding regular posts
Officers working since 1964 without any flaw could not be treated as ad hoc
In any case once review DPCs were held it was incumbent on it to include these persons and if necessary to evaluate their services or get it evaluated by appropriate authority regu larise them and then determine seniority
But in ignoring them in 1987 even when they had become member of MLC service was arbitrary and unjustified
Two other objections one about delay and other about nonjoinder raised again by Union Govt may be examined
As regards former suffice it to say that the occasion to ap proach Tribunal arose when seniority of respondents was disturbed and panels recommended in 1972 and 1979 were redrawn in 1987 and seniority were refixed in Group B  with effect from March 1968
Therefore objection of claim being slate or belated cannot be accepted
Nor there is any sub stance in defect due to non joinder of parties
Objection stands answered by the ratio in Col DD Joshi  Others vs Union of India  Others   where it was held that it was not necessary to implead all parties if chal lenge was to validity of rule
As regards Ranga Reddy  Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh relied on behalf of the appellant in support of the submis sion that the order passed by the Tribunal was vitiated in the absence of interested parties cannot be accepted as some of those officers who were directly affected or were immedi ately likely to be effected got themselves impleaded before the Tribunal
Therefore the defect if any stood removed
Moreover the Tribunal protected interests of all 613 these persons who were working at present by directing that they shall not be disturbed
Non impleadment of these who may be effected in future could not render the petition vulnerable
In the result both the appeals fail and are dismissed
The respondents shall be entitled to costs from Union of India
Y Lal Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Appointments to various posts in School of Budhist Philosophy Leh were governed by the Rules framed by the Board of management in the year 1973
According to the said rules the qualifications prescribed for the post of Princi pal as also for the Administrative Officer were identical
In March 1973 one ML Mattoo Respondent No 1 who at that time was working as the Administrative Officer of the School was given the additional charge of the post of Prin cipal
Thereafter the Board of management at its meeting held on 2281978 decided that qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal should be revised so as to make it obligatory for the Principal to have a thorough academic knowledge of Buddhist Philosophy the primary object of the institution being research and propagation of Budhist phi losophy
A selection committee was constituted by the Board of management to appoint a suitable person as Principal of the school and one Tashi Paljor was appointed as Principal
Being aggrieved by the said appointment Respondent No 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that he was removed from the additional charge without affording him an opportunity of being heard and further that he was not considered by the selection committee
The High Court re jected the first contention but allowed the writ petition on the ground that he was not considered for the post of Prin cipal and thus his right under Article 16 was infringed
Thereupon the management advertised the post of Principal to be filed by direct recruitment on the basis of the revised qualifications
Respondent Mattoo challenged the advertise ment by means of a writ petition on the ground that the revised qualifications were not validly prescribed and as such the post of Principal could only be filled in on the basis of the pre revised qualifications
He based his con tention on the concession made by the counsel for the man agement when his earlier petition was heard that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications
According to him the rules have not been amended
The High Court accepted the contention of Mattoo 516 and allowed the writ petition quashed the impugned adver tisement and directed the management not to make appointment on the basis of the advertisement in question
Hence this appeal by the Board of management of the school
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD The Board of management is fully competent to alter or amend the rules in any manner and at any time
521E The qualificationsexperience for the post of Principal were validly revised by amending the rules in August 1978
The advertisement issued on January 5 1982 was in accord ance with the Rules and the High Court was not justified in quashing the same
522B Since respondent No 1 does not possess the revised qualifications he is not eligible to be considered for the said post
521F