ivil Appeal No 2123 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 20121988 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 1649 of 1988
WITH WRIT PETITION NO
1287 OF 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Rajinder Sachhar RK Agnihotri and SC Paul for the AppellantPetitioner
KN Bhat Vineet Kumar Lalit Bhasin and Ms Nina Gupta for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi the petitioner in SLP No 4415 of 1989 has challenged his compulsory retirement and in Writ Petition No 1287 of 1989 he has questioned the validity of the direction dated 21 July 1984 issued by the Finance Ministry Government of India
Since the questions raised in both the cases are inter looked we grant special leave in the SLP and proceed to dispose of the same along with the writ petition
The events leading to these cases may briefly be stated
In 1982 the petitioner was a Manager of the Syndicate Bank the Bank  at East Patel Nagar Branch at New Delhi
He discounted a cheque of the sum of Rs 50000 drawn on Punjab National Bank Madras after obtaining by phone prior approval of the Regional Divisional Manager of the Bank
The cheque was sent for realisation to the Punjab National Bank at Madras but it was returned unpaid
The petitioner did not take prompt action to recover the amount from the person in whose favour he discounted the cheque
He kept the cheque 580 with him even without reporting to the higher authorities
In 1983 the Assistant General Manager of the Bank called upon him to explain why the amount due under the discounted cheque has not been recovered
The petitioner in his reply explained the circumstances under which the cheque was discounted
He has stated that the credit was given to the account of one Dr N Ramakrishnan who was a Senoir Scientist in Indian Agricultural Research Institute New Delhi but the amount was withdrawn by another person called A Chandrashekhar who is an officer of the Bank
He has further stated that A Chandrashekhar has promised to pay the amount and therefore he has retained the instrument with him hoping that A Chandrashekhar would keep up his promise
On 6 July 1984 a sum of Rs5216715 was deposited with the Bank
A sum of Rs36000 towards principal sum and Rs1616715 towards interest
A suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs14000 out of the principal amount
And later on this principal amount was also recovered and credited to the Bank
However in 1985 there was a departmental inquiry against the petitioner
The Commissioner for Vigilance Inquiry from the Central Vigilance Commission conducted the inquiry
The first charge against the petitioner was that when he was functioning as Manager he discounted under his discretionary jurisdiction a cheque for Rs50000 drawn in the name of Dr N Ramakrishnan in order to accommodate A Chandrashekhar an officer of the Bank or others known to him
The second charge framed against him related to the retention of the discounted instrument with him from December 1982 till January 1984 without takingcausing to be taken any action to realise the amount due under the unpaid cheque
It was also alleged that the petitioner made available undue financial accommodation to A Chandrashekhar or others to the detriment of the interests of the Bank
He was charged with lack of the integrity honesty devotion to duty diligence and conduct unbecoming of the status of Bank Officer in contravention of Regulation No 31 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees  Conduct Regulations 1976
The inquiry was held as per the procedure prescribed by Syndicate Bank Officer Employees  Discipline  Appeal Regulations 1976 the Regulations 
On 16 October 1986 the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner
He has held that the petitioner has failed to take any effective steps for recovery of the amount paid under the discounted instrument
He has kept the instrument with himself for unduly long period without even surrendering the same to the custody of the Bank
It was 581 Only after the Additional General Manager reminded him by letter dated 15 December 1983 the petitioner assured him that he would return the cheque which he finally did on 18 January 1984
The Inquiry Officer has finally concluded that the transaction connected with the unpaid instrument was of an accommodative nature with a view to assist A Chandrashekhar by using another person as benami and it was in clear violation of the rules of the Bank
It is said and indeed not disputed that the Bank referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for advice and the Commission has recommended that the petitioner may be compulsorily retired from service by way of punishment
The disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report and affording an opportunity to the petitioner passed an order dated 7 October 1987 imposing on the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement
The petitioner appealed to the General Manager challenging the punishment
On 27 August 1988 the General Manager dismissed the appeal concurring with the findings recorded and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority
The petitioner thereupon moved the Bombay High Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution
The High Court has also dismissed the writ petition
He has now appealed to this Court
before us that the punishing authorities did not apply their mind and did not exercise their power in considering the merits of his case
They have imposed on him the penalty of compulsory retirement in obedience to the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission which has been made binding on them by the direction dated 21 July 1984 issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division
They have blindly followed the advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission without regard to the merits of the matter and contrary to the statutory Regulations governing the departmental inquiries
The subject matter of inquiry was only regarding irregularities in the banking practice and the action complained of has not affected the interests of the Bank
The petitioner by his own efforts has recovered the money due under the discounted cheque and credited the same with interest to the Bank
The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on the alleged misdemeanour does not warrant any major penalty like the compulsory retirement
Reference was also 582 made to certain representations said to have been made by the Bank to the Central Vigilance Commission for approval to impose a lesser punishment
It is said that the Bank pleaded in the representations that the punishment of compulsory retirement advised by the Commission was too harsh
SYNDICATE BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES  DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL REGULATION 1976 These Regulation have been framed under Section 19 of the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer Undertakings Act 1970
They were framed by the Board of Directors of the Syndicate Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government
Regulation 4 prescribes penalties for acts of misconduct
Regulation 5 specifies the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties
Regulation 6 lays down procedure for imposing major penalties and Regulation 7 provides for action on the inquiry report
Regulation 7 confers power to the disciplinary authority either to agree or disagree with the findings of the inquiry authority on any article of charge
The disciplinary authority may reach its own conclusion on the material on record and impose any penalty prescribed under Regulation 4
Or if it is of the opinion that no penalty should be imposed on the delinquent officer it may pass an order exonerating the delinquent officer
Regulation 17 provides for appeals against the order imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4
The appellate authority has been given the power to pass any order of penalty or remitting the case to the disciplinary authority or to any other authority for fresh disposal
Regulation 19 provides for consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission
It states that that the Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission wherever necessary in respect of all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle
 There is no other Regulation requiring consultation with Central Vigilance Commission or providing that the advice given by the Commission is binding on the punishing authorities
The Central Vigilance Commission however appears to have framed guidelines for Banks to consult the Commission in respect of cases where major penalty is prescribed under the Regulation
Article 22 of the Central Vigilance Commission Manual reads  The Scheme of consultation with the Commission in respect of major penalty cases pertaining to such officers envisages consultation with the Commission at two stages
583 The first stage of consultation arises when initiating disciplinary proceedings while the second consultation is taken at the conclusion of the proceedings
 Article 232 of the CVC Manual Chapter 10 reads In all cases where CVC advises initiation of major penalty proceedings it also nominates simultaneously a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries to whom the inquiry should be entrusted THE DIRECTION OF THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS BANKING DIVISION On 21 July 1984 Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division has written a letter to all Banking Institution thus  Recently a case been reported where a bank has revised the punishment awarded to an officer in a disciplinary case contrary to the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission
The case has figured in the Annual Report of the CVC as a case of non consultation with the Commission and thus created an embarrassing situation
You will perhaps be aware of the Annual Reports of the CVC which contain cases where the disciplinary authorities had not accepted its recommendations or had not consulted it are laid on the Tables of both the Houses of Parliament
This may thereafter be discussed in the Parliament also
You will agree that under no circumstances the advice of the CVC should be modified except with the prior concurrence of the commission and this Ministry
I may mention here that revision of the penalty imposed on a delinquent officer as a result of an appeal filed by him before the appellate authority against the decision of the original disciplinary authority also amounts to non consultationnon acceptance of the advice of the CVC and is included in CVC s Annual Report
Kindly circulate these instructions to the concerned officers in your bank for strict compliance
The receipt of this DO letter may please be acknowledged
A copy of this DO letter is being marked to CVO in your bank separately
 584 CIRCULARS OF THE BANK On 27 July 1984 A Krishna Rao Chairman and managing Director of the Bank issued a circular to all branches of the Bank as follows  I am enclosing herewith a photostat copy of the DO letter No41384 Vig
dated 2171984 received by me from Shri Ashok Kumar joint Secretary ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division Vigilance Cell New Delhi in the above connection for strict compliance of the instructions contained therein
As the advice in vigilance cases received from Central Vigilance commission is communicated to the authorities concerned by the Chief Vigilance Officer I advise that the Chief Vigilance Officer s advice as explained in my above referred to DO letter should be complied with
Even when a revision of the penalty imposed on a delinquent officer at the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer by of Original Disciplinary Authority were to be considered as a result of an appeal filed by him before the appellatehigh authorities such revision shall be effected only after consulting the Chief Vigilance Officer
Please acknowledge receipt of this and ensure compliance of the instructions contained herein
 On 8 September 1986 PSV Mallya the succeeding Chairman and Managing Director of the bank issued another circular letter to all branches of the bank in the following terms All vigilance cases in bank are being investigated processed at Vigilance Cell at the HO under the administrative control of the Chief Vigilance Officer who is reporting directly to me
After processing of the reports is concluded the cases are referred to Central Vigilance Commission as per the existing procedure and the advice received from the commission is being communicated to the DisciplinaryAppellate Authority by the Chief Vigilance Officer
585 If the advice tendered by the Commission is not acceptedacted upon it will amount to non acceptance of the advice of the Commission and such instance will figure in the Annual Report of the Central Vigilance Commission placed before the Parliament
This apart the non acceptance of the advice in vigilance cases is likely to lead to a situation in which different types of decisions are possible to be taken in similar cases which is sure to result in a voidable complications and injustice to certain sections of the Officersemployees community
Again in such a situation ensuring uniform stantards in finalising action on vigilance cases will also become a very difficult phenomenon which is not a desirable trend and does not augur well for the healthy functioning of the vigilance machinery in the Bank
I therefore advice all Disciplinary Appellate Authorities to see that they refer as hitherto all vigilance cases to Chief Vigilance Officer and consult him on such cases and act upon his advice
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx If for any reasons the authorities concerned feel that the advice needs to be reconsidered or a departure is called for they may refer back the matter to Chief Vigilance Officer for reconsideration of the advice with the reasons for such disagreement and the Chief Vigilance Officer will see whether and to what extent such reconsideration is desirable or feasible and will tender advice again on reconsideration
If the authority concerned is still not disposed to act on the advice the disinclination on the part of the authority concerned will have to be brought to my notice and the advice given by me in respect of such cases shall be treated as final
It is also necessary that the authorities concerned should for obvious reasons keep the advice in strict confidence and see that no reference thereof is made in any of the correspondence communication whether emanating from their end
 586 The petitioner being aware of the directions of the Ministry of Finance and the circulars issued by the Bank has in his memo of appeal before the appellate authority inter alia complained that the system and procedure adopted by the Bank in dealing with vigilance cases is totally against the principles of natural justice
The Bank has no control over such cases
The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are required to carry into effect the punishment advised by the Central Vigilance commission without change
He has also pointed out that his appeal could be nothing but an empty formality as the appellate authority would be also bound by the decision of the Central Vigilance commission
The petitioner has also added post script to his appeal Memo stating thus This appeal has been filed without prejudice to my contention that this appeal is an exercise in futility as the appellate authority also is not the deciding authority and this appeal also will be decided by the CVOCVC who has already decided and whose decision is binding on you
There is in fact no effective right of appeal
 Counsel for the Bank however submits that notwithstanding the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission and the directive dated 21 July 1984 of the Ministry Finance Department of Economy Affairs Banking Division the case of the petitioner has received the fullest consideration from the disciplinary and appellate authorities
They have independently considered the material on record both on the articles of charges and also on the appropriate punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner
The orders of the authorities do not refer to the circulars of the Bank nor to the punishment proposed by the Central Vigilance Commission
It is therefore illegitimate to contend that the punishment imposed on the petitioner has been vitiated by extraneous influences
We are not even remotely impressed by the arguments of counsel for the Bank
Firstly the Bank itself seems to have felt as alleged by the petitioner and not denied by the Bank in its counter that the compulsory retirement recommended by the Central Vigilance Commission was too harsh and excessive on the petitioner in view of his excellent performance and unblemished antecedent service
The Bank appears to have made two representations one in 1986 and another in 1987 to the Central Vigilance Commission for taking a lenient view of the matter and to advise lesser punishment to the petitioner
Apparently those representations were not accepted by the Commission
The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority therefore have no choice in the matter
They had to impose the punishment of com 587 puslory retirement as advised by the Central Vigilance Commission
The advice was binding on the authorities in view of the said directive of the Ministry of Finance followed by two circulars issued by the successive Chief Executive of the Bank
The disciplinary and appellate authorities might not have referred to the directive of the Ministry of Finance or the Bank circulars
They might not have stated in their orders that they were bound by the punishment proposed by the Central Vililance Commission
But it is reasonably foreseeable and needs no elaboration that they could not have ignored the advice of the Commission
They could not have imposed a lesser punishment without the concurrence of the Commission
Indeed they could have ignored the advice of the Commission and imposed a lesser punishment only at their peril
The power of the punishing authorities in departmental proceedings is regulated by the statutory Regulations
Regulation 4 merely prescribes diverse punishment which may be imposed upon delinquent officers
Regulation 4 does not provide specific punishments for different misdemeanours except classifying the punishments as minor or major
Regulations leave it to the discretion of the punishing authority to select the appropriate punishment having regard to the gravity of the misconduct proved in the case
Under Regulation 17 the appellate authority may pass an order confirming enhancing reducing or completely setting aside the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority
He has also power to express his own views on the merits of the matter and impose any appropriate punishment on the delinquent officer
It is quasi judicial power and is unrestricted
But it has been completely fettered by the direction issued by the Ministry of Finance
The Bank has been told that the punishment advised by the Central Vigilance Commission in every case of disciplinary proceedings should be strictly adhered to and not to be altered without prior concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission and the Ministry of Finance
We are indeed surprised to see the impugned directive issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division
Firstly under the Regulation the Bank s consultation with Central Vigilance Commission in every case is not mandatory
Regulation 20 provides that the Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission wherever necessary in respect of all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle
Even if the Bank has made a self imposed rule to consult the Central Vigilance Commission in every disciplinary matter it does not make the Commission s advice binding on the punishing authority
In this context reference may be made to Article 588 3203 of the Constitution
The Article 320 3 like Regulation 20 with which we are concerned provides that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Commission as the case may be shall be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a civil servant including memorials or petitions relating to such matters
This Court in AN D Silva vs Union of India 1962 Suppl 1 SCR 968 has expresed the view that the Commission s function is purely advisory
It is not an appellate authority over the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority
The advice tendered by the Commission is not binding on the Government
Similarly in the present case the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on the Bank or the punishing authority
It is not obligatory upon the punishing authority to accept the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission
Secondly the Ministry of Finance Government of India has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned directive to Banking institutions
The government may regulate the Banking institutions within the power located under the banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1970
So far as we could see Section 8 is the only provision which empowers to the Government to issue directions
Section 8 reads Every corresponding new bank shall in the discharge of its function be guided by such directions in regard to matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may after consultation with the Governor of the Reserve bank give The corresponding new bank referred to in Section 8 has been defined under Section 2f of the Act to mean a banking company specified in column 1 of the First Schedule of the Act and includes the Syndicate Bank
Section 8 empowers the Government to issue direction in regard to matters of policy but there cannot be any uniform policy with regard to different disciplinary matters and much less there could be any policy in awarding punishment to the delinquent officers in different cases
The punishment to be imposed whether minor or major depends upon the nature of every case and the gravity of the misconduct proved
the authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case
They cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or of the Central Government
No third party like the Central Vigilance Commission or the Central Government could dictate the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how they should exercise 589 their power and what punishment they should impose on the delinquent officer
See De Smith s Judicial Review of Administrative Action Fourth Edition p 309
The impugned directive of the Ministry of Finance is therefore wholly without jurisdiction and plainly contrary to the statutory Regulations governing disciplinary matters
For the foregoing reasons we allow the appeal and the writ petition quashing the directive issued by the Finance Ministry Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division dated 21 July 1984
We also issue a direction to the Chairman of the Syndicate Bank to withdraw the circular letters dated 27 July 1984 and 8 September 1986
We further set aside the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority with a direction to the former to dispose of the petitioner s case in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made
The petitioner is entitled to costs which we quantify in both the cases at Rs 15000 which shall be paid by the Central Government
GN Appeal and petition allowed


Summary:
The appellants as well as the respondents are members of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service while the appellants are the promotees the respondents have been appointed direct to that service
This is their second round of litigation in this Court concerning their inter se seniority in the service
The Higher Judicial Service was initially governed by statutory rules called the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules 1953
Recruitment to the service under the said rules was from sources by promotion and by direct recruitment
This Court in Chandra Mohan vs State of Uttar Pradesh struck down the 1953 Rules in so far as the said Rules provided for direct recruitment of the service
As a consequence there was no direct recruitment to the service till 1975 76 and the service consisted of only promotees with the designation of Civil and Sessions Judges
On May 8 1974 the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service abolition of Cadre of the Civil and Sessions Judges Rules 1974 came into force
Under Rules 2 and 3 of the 1974 Rules the existing cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges stood abolished and a new cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges came into existence the Civil and Sessions Judges holding permanent or temporary posts in the Service were re designated as Additional District and Sessions Judges with effect from the date when the 1974 Rules came into force
On that date 271 officers were working as Additional District and Sessions Judges against 235 posts 153 permanent and 82 temporary in the service
The Service was reconstituted and given a fresh look by the rules framed under Article 309 read with Article 233 of the Constitution of India called the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules 1975 which came into force on April 5 1975
On that date 263 officers were 425 working as Additional District and Sessions Judges against 236 posts in the service
Recruitment to the service under the 1975 Rules is from three sources and is based on quota as provided therein
The three sources of recruitment are i direct recruitment from the Bar ii Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Sewa and iii Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Judicial Magistrates
In the first round of litigation PK Dixit and other promotee officers filed two writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution Challenging the seniority assigned to them under the 1975 Rules
This Court by its judgment dated October 8 1987 in PK Dixit vs State of UP  partly allowed the writ petitions and directed the High Court to frame the seniority list afresh keeping in view the observations made in that judgment
In pursuance to the directions of this Court in Dixit case a five Judge committee of the High Court finalised the seniority list on August 25 1988
The High Court accepted the contention of direct recruits and gave 153 permanent posts existing on May 10 1974 plus 31 posts which became permanent subsequently to the promotees
Consequently out of the 263 Additional District and Sessions Judges who were holding the posts on April 5 1975 only 84 153  31 were taken to be the existing members of the Service and the remaining officers were asked to enter the service through the promotion quota under the 1975 rules
In the second round the promotees have filed writ petition challenging the final seniority list
PK Dixit and others petitioners in the original Dixit case have filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking clarification of the said judgment
The direct recruits have filed writ petition under Article 32 impugning the final seniority list issued by the High Court
Before this Court the promotees the direct recruits as well as the High Court have sought support from Dixit case on the basis of their own interpretation of that judgment
The promotees claim that on April 5 1975 when the 1975 rules came into force all the 236 posts in the Service had already been consumed by the existing members of the service who were working as Additional District and Sessions Judges till that date the recruitment to the service was only by way of promotion and as such there was no question of allocating any post to the direct recruits who had not yet been born in the service
426 On the other hand the direct recruits contend that this court interpreting the second proviso to Rule 82 of the 1975 rules in Dixit case had held that the promotees as on May 10 1974 are entitled to all the permanent posts available on that date plus 31 temporary posts and apart from that they cannot lay claim exclusively to the posts created thereafter
In this connection it was contended that temporary posts could not form part of the cadre of the Service and service rendered in or against a temporary post was outside the pale of the 1975 rules and could not be counted for seniority and as much the continuous officiation immediately prior to the date of confirmation provided in the first proviso to rule 261a of the 1975 rules could only be the officiation against a permanent post
Allowing the Writ Petition and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition quashing the seniority list and directing the High Court to prepare fresh seniority list this Court HELD 1 The interpretation given by the High Court to the second proviso to rule 82 of the 1975 Rules is not correct
The proviso was not applicable to the Service as reconstituted under the 1974 Rules consisting of Additional District and Sessions Judges
Proviso 2 was enacted to meet a particular situation
The proviso was meant to deal with a situation which might have arisen in the event there had been more posts and less number of officers to occupy the said posts on the reconstitution of the Service under the 1974 Rules
But since the number of officers working in the service as on May 10 1974 and April 5 1975 was much more than the posts available in the service the situation envisaged by the proviso did not arise
The second proviso to rule 82 of the 1975 rules could not operate and since it was intended to meet one time eventuality it has become redundant
440D 441C 2 The Service as constituted under the 1974 Rules continued to operate till April 5 1975 when the 1975 rules were enforced
On April 5 1975 the Service comprised of 236 posts 229 permanent plus 7 temporary There were 263 officers working in the service on that date
The 236 posts comprising the service on April 5 1975 have to be assigned and given to the 236 officers out of 263 who were working as Additional District and Sessions Judges and they are to be treated as existing member of the service as no April 5 1975
It is further axiomatic that the 236 officers including those holding temporary posts would en bloc rank senior to all those who were appointed to the service after April 5 1975 under the 1975 rules
439H 440C 427 3 The Additional District and Sessions Judges had not only the right to be appointed to the service but they were so appointed by the operation of 1974 rules
The second proviso to Rule 82 even though retrospective could not have taken away the vested rights of the officers who had already become members of the service
This could not be the intention of the farmers of the 1975 rules
441D 4 The substantive vacancy has not been defined under the 1975 rules but there can also be a substantive vacancy in a temporary post which is part of the cadre
All temporary posts created under rule 44 of the 1975 rules are additions to the permanent strength of the cadre and as such form part of the cadre
442F 5 Appointments under rule 22 of the 1975 Rules can be made to a permanent post as well as to a temporary post
So long as the temporary post has an independent existence and is a part of the cadre strength the appointment
442G 6 Recruitment to the service under the 1975 rules is from three sources and is based on quota as provided therein
The cadre consists of permanent as well as temporary posts
The seniority of the direct recruit is to be determined from the date of his joining the service and that of promotee on the basis of continuous officiationservice from the date when a Vacancy whether permanent or temporary becomes available in his quota
With these characteristics of the service it is obligatory that there should be equality of opportunity to enter the service for all the three sources of recruitment
If the recruitment rule gives unjustifiable preference to one source of recruitment the seniority rule is bound to become unworkable
444E F 7 When temporary posts under rule 44 of the 1975 rules are created as addition to the cadre there is no justification in not applying the quota rule to the temporary posts in the service and confining appointments to said posts in the service to the two sources of promotees
448E AK Subraman vs Union of India referred to
8 There is no justification whatsoever in having rules 223 and 224 of the 1975 rules which deprive one of the sources of recruitment the benefit of appointment to the temporary posts
The rules on the face 428 of it are discriminatory
There is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by framing these rules
448G H 9 Rules 223 and 224 of the 1975 rules are discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and are accordingly struck down
However the appointments already made under these rules 223 and 224 shall not be invalidated on this ground
Further while selecting candidates under rule 18 the Committee shall prepare a merit list of candidates twice the number of vacancies and the said list shall remain operative till the next recruitment
Further the appointments under rules 221 and 222 of the Rules shall be made to permanent as well as temporary posts from all the three sources in accordance with the quota provided under the 1975 rules
449H 450B 10 The findings and observations in Dixit case to the extent those are contrary to this judgment shall be deemed to have been over ruled
449C