1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2001 1. Mrs. Thelma Godinho, Upper Division Clerk, Collectorate of South Goa, Margao, Goa. 2. Shri Anil Sardessai, Upper Division Clerk, Collectorate of South Goa, Margao, Goa. .... Petitioners. V/s 1. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, having officer at Secretariat, Panaji-Goa. 2. Smt. Argentina Fernandes, Office of the Mamlatdar of Mormugao-Goa. 3. Smt. Rajani S. Rane, Office of the Deputy Collector/S.D.O. Salcete, Margao-Goa. 4. Shri Agnelo Fernandes, Office of the Collector of South Goa, Margao-Goa. 5. Maria Filomena D'Costa, Office of the Collector of South Goa, Margao-Goa. 6. Smt. Lacy Fernandes, Office of the Deputy Collector, Quepem-Goa. 7. Smt. Maria F. D'Silva, Office of the Collector of south Goa, Margao-Goa. 8. Smt. Vera Gonsalves, Office of the Collector of South Goa, Margao-Goa. 2 9. Smt. Rita M. D'Silva, Office of the Dy. Collector/S.D.O., Mormugao-Goa. 10. Smt. Dionizia Rebello, Office of the Dy. Collector/S.D.O., Mormugao-Goa. 11. Smt. Sandya Amonkar, Office of the Mamlatdar of Quepem, Goa. 12. Smt. Clementina Pereira, Office of the Collector of South Goa, Margao-Goa. (All Junior Stenographers .... Respondents Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Govt. Advocate for the Respondent no.1. CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, N.A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE :26th MARCH, 2008 JUDGMENT :(Per : N.A. BRITTO, J.) Challenge in this petition, filed by the UDCs (upper divisional clerks) on behalf of selves and other UDCs working in the Collectorate of South Goa, is to the “G.D.D. Group 'C' & 'D' Non-Gazetted and Non-Ministerial common posts (outside the Secretariat) Recruitment Rules, 1986,” on the ground that they are arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional as they do not provide realistic promotional avenues to the said UDCs. Their main grievance appears to be against the Junior Stenographers (respondents nos. 2 to 12), who according to the petitioners have two channels of promotions and 3 as such it is they who gobble up all the posts of the Head Clerks. 2. We have heard Shri Sonak, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, the learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of respondent no.1. 3. The Government (respondent no.1) has filed an affidavit and in the said affidavit, it is set out that the said Rules were published by notification dated 20/05/1986 on Official Gazette dated 19/06/1986. The Government has further set out that the said Rules are applicable to all cadres of employees in all the Departments outside the Secretariat and are not restricted only to the Collectorate of South Goa District and in case they are interfered with, it will unsettle the settled position and, therefore, no relief ought to be granted to the petitioners. As per the Government, the said Rules are not unreasonable or arbitrary as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners. It is stated that a post can be filled by promotion from different sources and even as per the said Rules, Senior Stenographer is one of the cadres for promotion to the post of common cadre of Superintendent (outside the Secretariat). Similarly, the Head Clerks are also eligible for promotion to the posts of Superintendent outside the Secretariat cadre, which is one of the feeder posts for promotion to the Goa Civil Service and, therefore, there is no foundation or basis for the petitioners to contend that Junior Stenographer 4 cannot be a feeder post for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. The Government has also set out that the scale of pay of a Junior Stenographer is on par with that of an UDC and the Senior Stenographer is on par with the Head Clerk. It is also stated that considering the eligibility conditions, which has been set out in detail in the affidavit, a LDC (lower divisional clerk), cannot be equated to Junior Stenographer as Junior Stenographers are required to have a speed of 100 words per minute in shorthand which is not a requirement for LDCs. It is also stated that there are no senior Stenographers in every Department and as such Junior Stenographers in such Departments do not have any promotional avenues. Along with the reply, the Government has produced a chart which shows that the said Rules are applicable to 62 Departments, outside the Secretariat, and out of which 42 Departments do not have the post of Senior Stenographer, 19 Departments have only one post of Senior Stenographer and one Department has two posts of Senior Stenographers. As far as the petitioners' Department is concerned, the said chart shows that the cadre consists of 54 LDCs, 52 UDCs, 13 Junior Stenographers, one Senior Stenographer and 10 Head Clerks. The Government has also stated that the Government was conscious of the fact that some employees were stagnated for a number of years and, therefore, the Government introduced Time Bound Promotional Scale (TBPS) to Group 'C' and D'' employees from 1/06/1989, according to which the employees who put in at least 12 years of service in the existing post on the basis of the 5 recommendation of the D.P.C. are held eligible for the pay scale of the next higher post in the respective cadre to be given only once in the entire service. LDCs after putting 12 years of service become eligible for T.B.P.S. which is equivalent to the scale of UDC and in case an incumbent continues in service for another 12 years, he becomes eligible for the next higher T.B.P.S. i.e. of the Head Clerk and thus it is ensured that they get at least two higher pay scales during the period of their service. 4. As per the petitioners there are about 50 UDCs in their Department i.e. Collectorate of South Goa and as per the list submitted by them, the UDCs at the seniority position 1 to 13 have put in over 30 years of service and are beneficiaries of one promotion i.e. from LDC to UDC; the UDCs at seniority position 14 to 25 have put in over 20 years of service being beneficiaries of only one promotion i.e. from LDC to UDC; and UDCs at the seniority position 26 to 38 have put in over 15 years of service, again being the beneficiaries of only one promotion, and, the UDCs at serial no. 39 to 49 have put in between 10 and 13 years of service. 5. The Junior Stenographers (respondents nos. 2 to 12) have joined issue and have confirmed the figure of employees given by the Government, and, have contended that if avenue of promotion for the Junior Stenographers is restricted to Senior Stenographer only, in that case it will be always 6 impracticable to get promotional avenue to the Junior Stenographers and they will stagnate and will have to work as Junior Stenographers till attaining the age of superannuation as the ratio would be 13:1. Similarly, if the same promotional avenue is given to UDCs, the ratio will be 52:10 and there will be total disparity and discrimination to Junior Stenographers. They have also contended that besides doing the work of Junior Stenographers they were entrusted with various other duties of administrative nature. They have further contended that an UDC cannot do the work of the Stenographer whereas the Stenographer can do the work of Stenographer as well as administrative work done by an UDC and in fact the same has also been entrusted to them. 6. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that any promotional avenues must be realistic and to ensure that the Government is required to frame Rules in such a manner that at least two promotions are assured in one's career, and, in support of the said submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Raghunath Prasad Singh V/s. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, government of Bihar & Ors. (1998 (Supp) SCC 519) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Anr. V/s. K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr. (1989 (4) SCC 635). 7. In Raghunath Prasad Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed that; 7 Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. The Apex Court therefore directed the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months by appropriate amendments to the Rules. It is pertinent to note that the said directions came to be given in the light of the facts of that case. The appellant therein was a member of wireless wing which was separated on 6/05/1970 and which was earlier part of a combined police force cadre in the State of Bihar and as there were no promotional avenues at all and the appellant wanted to switch over to the general cadre of the police force and in that context that the aforesaid observations came to be made and the said directions came to be issued. The Supreme Court also stated that in case the direction was not complied with, within two months, the police personnel in wireless organization be given option to revert to the general cadre. 8. In the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (supra), the Apex court observed that; He was however, left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years. This is indeed a sad commentary on the appellant's management. It is often said and indeed, adroity, an organisation public or private does not 'hire a hand' but engages 8 or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. “The organisaiton that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors.” There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions. The appellant appears to have overlooked this basic requirement of management so far as respondent 1 was concerned till NR & AS was introduced. 9. Here again, the said observations came to be made by the Apex Court in a case of a person who was highly qualified engineer who had joined service with diploma in engineering and later had had acquired B.E., M.Tech. and another diploma (DPM) and was left without opportunity for promotion for about twenty years and the Administrative Tribunal had granted him a promotion in the light of the bye-law No. 71(b)(ii) of the bye-laws of the said Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and, the Apex Court though did not agree that said engineer was entitled for promotion within the scope of the said bye-law, the Apex Court chose not to interfere with his promotion. 10. Admittedly, both the cases cited at the Bar and referred to herein above, show that there were no promotional avenues at all in those cases and 9 that is not the case at hand. The petitioners seem to have forgotten that they joined as LDCs and have been promoted as UDCs sooner or later, while the Junior Stenographers who join directly draw a pay scale equivalent to the UDCs and the former are required to have higher qualifications then the LDCs. Thereafter both UDCs and LDCs are entitled to compete for the posts of ten Head Clerks which are available in the department and those who cannot make it within twelve years, are granted T.B.P.S. i.e. the scale of the next higher post. It is within the province of the Government as to what Rules are to be framed and in what manner the promotional avenues are to be provided for. Generally, it is an accepted principle that a post can be filled by promotion from different sources. In case the promotional avenues of the Junior Stenographers are restricted only to the promotion of Senior Stenographer then it is they who is bound to suffer more than the petitioners since their promotional avenues will be very few and for between and then there will be disparity towards them. Petitioners do have promotional avenues from LDCs to UDCs and thereafter to Head Clerks and although a promotion to the Head Clerk does not come soon enough, as expected by the petitioners, they are entitled to the scale of the post of Head Clerk after completion of twelve years of service. Even otherwise, they are entitled to more than two promotions in their service career. Considering all these aspects it cannot be said that the Rules are arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional. In our view, clubbing the Junior Stenographers with the 10 UDCs in one cadre for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Head Clerks does not at all amount to treating of unequals as equals. Both are equals by virtue of enjoying the same pay scales. 11. Considering the facts of the case, in our view, there is no merit in this petition and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-