Civil Appeal Nos
2040 2042 of 1987 From the Judgment and order dated 1121986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi in Appln
Registration No 4 9 and 10 of 1985 Shanti Bhushan KR Nagaraja RS Hegde and Jayant Bhushan for the Appellants
VC Mahajan CV Subba Rao A Subba Rao and TS Sundrarajan in person for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY J
In these appeals under special leave the only question that falls for consideration is whether the service rule requiring 8 years of approved service as Section officer both for the direct recruits as well as for promotees for being eligible for consideration for promotion to the Grade I Post in Central Secretariat Service is arbitrary being in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
The matrix of the case is that the appellants along with one Rajiv Kalsi made four applications under section 19 of the challenging the vires of proviso to sub rule 2 of Rule 12 of Central Secretariate Service CSS 1962 as amended by Notification No 5880 CS
I dated 29th December 1984 prescribing 8 years of approved service as Section officer as condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I Post in CSS
The appellants Miss Prabha Devi and Shri Rajiv Kalsi were recruited directly through examination held by Union Public Service Commis 151 sion in 1978 as Section officers
The appellants Shri GS Grewal and Shri Surjit Singh were recruited through examination held by Union Public Service Commission in 1980 as Section officers
These direct recruits had been appointed in substantive vacancies of Section officers in accordance with the quota reserved for direct recruits by the service rules
The inter se seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees is fixed in accordance with the quota and rota system
The appellants are seniors to the promotees in accordance with the said quota and rota Rule
The promotion to Grade I post of CSS Rules is made in accordance with the provisions of sub rule 2 of rule 12 of the said Rules
The proviso to sub rule 2 of rule 12 of CSS Rules 1962 was originally to the following effect Provided that if any person appointed to the Section officers  Grade before the prescribed date is considered for promotion to Grade I in accordance with the provisions of this sub rule all persons senior to him in that grade before the prescribed date shall also be considered notwithstanding that they may not have rendered l0 years  approved service in the grade
 According to this rule the direct recruits were eligible for consideration for promotion to Grade I in CSS even though they have not rendered 10 years  service when promotee Section officers junior to them are considered for promotion to Grade I The promotee Section officers had to render 10 years  approved service as Section officer before being considered for promotion to Grade I
This proviso to sub rule 2 of Rule 12 was substituted by the following proviso with effect from July 31 1972 Provided further that if any person appointed to the Section officers  Grade is considered for promotion to Grade I under this sub rule all persons senior to him in that grade shall also be considered notwithstanding that they may not have rendered 10 years  approved service in that grade
 The proviso to sub rule 2 of rule 12 was again substituted by the following proviso with effect from February 23 1978 Provided further that if any person appointed to the Section officers  Grade is considered for promotion to Grade I under this sub rule all persons senior to him in Section Officers  Grade who have rendered not less than six years  152 approved service in that Grade shall also be considered notwithstanding that they may not have rendered 10 years  approved service in that Grade provided that the aforesaid condition of six years  approved service shall not apply to a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes Thus according to this proviso to sub rule 2 of rule 12 a direct recruit Section officer who has rendered six years  approved service in that grade was eligible for consideration for promotion to Grade I whereas a promotee Section officer would have to render ten years  approved service in the grade of Section officer before being eligible for consideration for promotion
In 1979 the substantive part of sub rule 2 of rule 12 was amended to provide eight years  approved service in the Section officers  Grade as against ten years approved service for eligibility for promotion to Grade I of CSS
The third proviso of sub rule 2 of rule 12 was further substituted by the following proviso by Notification dated December 29 1984 Provided further that if any person appointed to the Section officers  Grade is considered for promotion to Grade I under this sub rule all persons senior to him in Section officers  Grade belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes who have rendered not less than 4 years  approved service in that grade shall also be considered for promotion
This amended rule enjoins that a directly recruited Section officer has to render 8 years  approved service in the grade of Section officer before being eligible for consideration for promotion to Grade I
The only exception made in this rule is with regard to Section officers belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who shall have to render only four years approved service in that grade in order to qualify themselves for being considered for promotion to the said Grade I
This condition of eligibility as introduced by the 1984 amendment of the third proviso of sub rule 2 of rule 12 has been questioned in the petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal which after hearing the parties dismissed the applications by a common judgment holding inter alia that neither the amendment of February 1978 nor the amendment of December 1984 made in the proviso to sub rule 2 of rule 12 of the CSS Rules 1962 is discriminatory or arbitrary or 153 unreasonable so as to be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
It has been further held that the amended rule of December 1984 is valid just and equitable and no exception can he taken to it
Aggrieved by the said order these three appeals on special leave have been preferred before this Court
Mr Shanti Bhushan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has advanced three fold submissions before this Court
The first submission is that the impugned amendment made in third proviso of sub rule 2 of rule 12 of CSS Rules purports to entrench upon the prospects of the directly recruited Section officers for being considered for promotion to Grade I in as much as they are left out of the zone of consideration while their juniors ie the promotee Section officers are eligible for being considered for promotion to Grade I
This condition of eligibility has no nexus to suitability for promotion to the post and as such this is in violation of the equality clause in Article 16 of the Constitution of India
It has been submitted that any rule framed by the Government must be subject to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Seniority of the direct recruits entitles them for consideration for promotion to the higher post while their juniors ie promotee Section officers are being considered for promotion to the higher post
The purpose of the seniority in service is that the senior will be considered for promotion before those who are junior to them in the service
Of course a senior incumbent may be considered not suitable for promotion
It has been submitted that the condition of eligibility as laid down in the said rule has no reference to suitability for promotion to the post and as such it is arbitrary and so void
It has been submitted in this connection that prior to 1978 directly recruited Section officers having rendered 3 4 years of service in that grade had been promoted to Grade I and they had duly performed their duties
Some of them have rendered their service in the promoted post very efficiently and they have earned remarks such as very meritorious and outstanding from the Department
There is nothing to show that the promoted direct recruits were proved inefficient in discharging their duties and responsibilities of the higher post
Mr Shanti Bhushan furhter submitted that even in accordance with the provisions of sub rule 2 of rule 12 as amended in 1978 direct recruit Section officers after having rendered six years  approved service in the grade had been considered for promotion and were promoted to Grade I
This system worked out very satisfactorily and 154 the direct recruit Section officers who were promoted to Grade I post performed their duties attached to the higher post duly and satisfactorily
The amendment of the eligibility qualification in 1984 providing a longer period of service as SO is therefore arbitrary and inequitable
There is no rationale behind this amendment which works to the serious prejudice of the direct recruit Section officers for being considered for promotion to Grade I of the CSS Service even though the promotee Section officers junior to them are being considered for promotion
It has been secondly contended that the rule of determination of seniority on quota rota basis in the grade of Section officers having been held valid and not arbitrary by this Court in the case of HV Pardasani and ors
vs Union of India and Ors  the condition of eligibility introduced by the 1984 amendment of sub rule 2 of rule 12 is wholly unjust and arbitrary as it excludes direct recruit Section officers from the zone of consideration for promotion even though their juniors having put in eight years  approved service as Section officers are eligible for consideration for promotion
It has been submitted that the effect of the amendment is to neutralise and negative the decision of this Court which held that the rules of seniority on the basis of quota rota basis are unexceptionable
It has been lastly contended that at any rate the promotee Section officers form a very small portion of the officers promoted to the Grade I Post and as such elimination of the direct recruit Section officers from the zone of consideration for promotion will not have any appreciable effect in as much as it will not obviate the frustration of the promotee Section officers for not being promoted to the higher post
It has also been submitted that it is unjust and arbitrary to prevent the senior Section officers from being considered for promotion by enhancing the period of service from six years to eight years to be rendered in the grade of Section officer
Mr TS Sundara Rajan a promotee Section officer Respondent No 2 has submitted that the appellants who are directly recruited Section officers on the result of examination held by the Union Public Service Commission in 1978 and 1980 against substantive vacancies have become senior to the promotee Section officers on the basis of the quota reserved for direct recruits even though the promotee Section officers have rendered more than thirteen years  service as Section officers
This Fixation of seniority has no reference to the length of service
The inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotee Section officers being determined on the basis of the 155 quota the promotee Section officers even though they have been A promoted to the post of Section officers and have rendered service for a considerable period have become juniors to them in service and were not considered for promotion even
These promotee Section officers like the Respondent No 2 have not been considered for promotion in spite of their rendering service as such for more than thirteen years whereas the direct recruit Section officers who were appointed much later were considered and promoted purely on the ground of seniority
This has created frustration in the minds of the promotees
To obviate this the Government after due consideration of all aspect has by Notification dated December 29 1984 amended the proviso to sub rule 2 of rule 12 of CSS Rules prescribing an uniform eligibility of rendering eight years  approved service as Section officers by both the direct recruit Section officers and the promotee Section Officers for being considered for promotion to Grade I Under Secretary
The said amendment it has been submitted is neither arbitrary nor unjust
It has been further submitted that the promotee Section officers if given promotion will render their service duly and efficiently as has been rendered by the direct recruit Section officers promoted to Grade I
According to the CSS Rules 1962 the substantive vacancies of Section officers are manned by direct recruits and promotees and a quota of one fifth of the total substantive vacancies has been reserved to be filled up by direct recruits
The remaining substantive vacancies of Section officers are filled up by appointment of persons included in the select list ie by promotion
The inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees is determined on the basis of the quota rota rule
The direct recruits on their appointment against substantive vacancies become senior to the promotees
This Court in the case of HV Pardasani and ors
vs Union of India and Ors
supra considered the question of the validity of rule providing for fixation of seniority between the direct recruits and promotees in the grade of Section officer on the basis of quota reserved for direct recruits and held that the prescription of quota becomes necessary to work out a scheme constituting a service manned by both the direct recruits as well as promotees
Such a scheme is unexceptionable and seniority based upon the rota is also not open to attack
The scheme does not appear to be arbitrary and the rules and regulations to give effect to the scheme are not ultra vires either Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution
Therefore the inter se seniority of direct recruit and promotee Section officers on the basis of 156 quota rota rules has been held to be valid
This does not mean that the A direct recruits who are senior to the promotees are entitled to be considered for promotion to a higher post even though they do not fulfil the eligibility qualification specified in the rule framed by the rule making authority
The rule making authority by the amendment made in 1984 has brought in an uniform eligibility qualification of eight years  approved service to be rendered by the Section officers both promotees and direct recruits before coming within the Zone of consideration for promotion to Grade I
Thus it treats all Section officers equally and there is no discrimination between the Section officers
It has been submitted that this rule is arbitrary and unreasonable as it prescribes a certain minimum service in a lower post for promotion to a higher post on the ground that it has no nexus to suitability for holding the higher post
This submission in our considered opinion cannot be sustained in as much as experience over certain number of years in service and also due performance of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Section officer is very relevant and as such prescribing such an eligibility qualification has nexus to the suitability for the promoted post
The directly recruited Section officers are not totally excluded from the zone of consideration for promotion
They will be considered like the promotee Section officer as soon as they have rendered eight years  approved service as Section officer
The Tribunal has held that The qualifications for any post are prescribed having regard to the nature of the post and the duties and responsibilities attached to it
For due discharge of duties attached to a post academic excellence alone may not be sufficient
Factors like experience over certain number of years in service and holding a post of a certain level are relevant
That gives them the opportunity to deal with several files handle different situations tackle varied problems extract work from subordinates of varying capabilities and serve under superiors with differing styles of functioning
They acquire knowledge of men and matters and the necessary acumen to deal with issues arising from time to time
Academic brilliance and excellent performance at the competitive examinations by themselves cannot wholly substitute experience
They can only supplement
However brilliant a person may be he needs experience such as can be gathered only by discharging the duties and responsibilities attached to a post
If recruitment to a post is by way of promotion the minimum 157 number of years one should serve in the lower post would have to be prescribed
Valuable experience gained in service better equips a person to shoulder higher responsibilities and man the superior post
Period spent in discharge of duties of a post has nexus to
the object of enlisting experienced officers of proven merit with consistent good record over sufficiently long period to man the higher posts by way of promotion
 The 1984 amendment of the rules providing an eligibility condition of rendering eight years  approved service as section officer for coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to Grade I Post of CSS is not at all arbitrary and unreasonable as it prescribes a minimum period of eight years  of service as Section officer both for direct recruits and promotees as a condition of eligibility for consideration for promotion to the higher post
This rule is therefore not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
The rule making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post
When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority
The amended rule in question has specified a period of eight years  approved service in the grade of Section officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of CSS
This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section officers as well as the promotee Section officers
The submission that a senior Section officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post Grade I is wholly unsustainable
The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule making authority
This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion
When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment
Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules
A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the 158 post before he can be considered for promotion
Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible
Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can over ride it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post
The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution
It has been rightly held by the Tribunal When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed unless a person possesses that qualification he cannot be considered eligible for appointment
There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion
Seniority by itself does not outweight experience
 It has also been observed In any event the appropriate Rule making Authority is the best judge in this regard
The Rule making Authority is certainly competent to amend the Rule and extend the period from 6 years to 8 years so as to make the direct recruits more experienced and suitable for the higher post
That is a matter for the Rule making Authority the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of the Rule making Authority
No Court or Tribunal can substitute its own view in a matter such as this
Such a Rule framed by a competent Authority cannot be struck down unless it is shown to be violative of any Fundamental Right guaranteed to a citizen under the Constitution
 We do not find any infirmity in the above findings arrived at by the Tribunal
In the premises aforesaid we hold that the third proviso to sub rule 2 of Rule 12 of Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962 as amended by Notification No 5880 CS
I dated 29th December 1984 is not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
The judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby affirmed and the appeals are dismissed without costs
GN Appeals dismissed


Summary:
 On 21st July 1981 the Respondent Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board issued a notification exercising power under section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948
By this notification the Board unilaterally altered the conditions of supply of electricity to high tension power consumers
This notification stated that the industries will be supplied the power for the contracted demands between 1501 KVA to 5000 KVA at 33 KV whereas industries whose contracted demand is above 5000 KVA shall avail supply at 132 KV or 220 KV
To comply with this requirement high tension consumers will either have to replace the existing transformers and high tension control gears or to instal transformers with control gears to step down supply from the now proposed voltage to the existing voltage and these modifications have to be made by the industries concerned within a period of 6 months from the date of this notification
It was further provided that after the lapse of six months if the consumers have not made arrangements for receiving the supply at the proposed voltage and continue to receive supply at the voltage at which they were receiving on the date of the notification they will have to pay additional surcharge ranging between 25 to 13 on their power bills
The appellants which were consumers of high tension power challenged the validity of this notification by way of filling writ petitions before the High Court
A Single Judge allowed the writ petitions
In appeal a Division Bench took the view that section 49 of the Act coupled with section 18c of the same Act empower the electricity board to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of supply and set aside the judgement of the Single Judge
Hence these appeals by Special 160 Leave against the Judgment of the Division Bench
The main controversy was whether the board had power unilaterally to alter the conditions of supply of electricity
Dismissing the appeals this Court  HELD The contention of the appellants that under section 49 the respondent board had no authority unilaterally to alter the conditions of supply cannot be accepted
Sub clause 1 of section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948 clearly provides that the board could lay down conditions of supply and for purposes of such supply it may also frame uniform tariffs
Sub clause t therefore clearly authorises the Board to lay down the conditions of supply and have to fix uniform tariffs is provided for in sub clause 2
If there is any doubt sub clause 4 makes it clear that in exercise of powers under this section Board could fix the conditions of supply and also fix the tariffs
l68B C 167B C The Division Bench relied on provisions contained in Section 18c
It is no doubt true that under these provisions the Board exercises control in relation to generation distribution and utilisation of electricity and the learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that although specified power is not there under Section 18c but it is wide enough to authorise the board to alter the conditions of supply
It is no doubt true that section 18c confers power of control on the board but in our opinion the specific power under section 49 Clause t is clear enough wherein board has been authorised to lay down conditions of supply
168C E The contention that the policy of the Board to change over of supply of power at a high voltage which involves heavy expenditure will fall within the scope of sections 28 and 29 and therefore it could not be done without following the procedure indicated in these provisions has no substance
A perusal of sections 28 and 29 of the Act indicates that it is altogether a different function rather than what is being done by the Board in exercise of the powers under Section 49 Clause 1171G As regards the imposition of the higher tariff on failure to receive the supply at the voltage indicated in the notification from the date specified therein or not will be open to the Board for consideration and the parties may approach the Board and it will be open to the Board in the facts and circumstances of each case not to levy the surcharge indicated in the notification during a particular period and in so doing the board will take into consideration the facts and circumstances of each particular case 172A B 161 The contention that the loss incurred in respect of smaller consumers is recovered from the present appellants the high tension consumer has no substance
The transmission loss no doubt is on account of low voltage when it travels Long distance as it is related to distance but the quantum of loss also is proportional to the quantum of power that travels through the transmission lines and it could not be disputed that the power that has to travel to meet the requirements of small agricultural consumers is negligible as compared to the quantum of power that is supplied to these high tension consumers
170H 171A B The contention that under section 18AI read alongwith section 18A23 of the Electricity Supply Act it is the duty of the board to establish and maintain sub stations and main transmissions lines and it is not open to the board to transfer this responsibility to the consumers by requiring them to make their own arrangements to step down electricity after taking it at a high voltage has no substance
Section 2 sub clause 7 of the Act defines the main transmission lines but all this in sub clause 7 of section 2 refere to is about transmission of electricity from a generating station to another generating station or to sub station
Apparently it refers to all the lines and equipments required to be installed from the generating station to the distributing sub station
Apparently both being that of the Board itself it has to maintain it and on this basis it could not be contended that if the consumer has to receive powers at a high voltage and if he wants to utilise it at a low voltage it is not his responsibility to instal equipments for stepping down the power from high voltage to low voltage
171C E Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Kalyan Borough Municipality  Anr   Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd  Anr
 vs Orissa State Electricity Board and Anr
  and Jagadamba Paper Industries Pvt
 Ltd Etc
vs Haryana State Electricity Board  Ors
Etc 1984 I SCR 165 referred to