Case: Reserve Bank Of India Vs. N. C. Paliwal &amp; Others

find any substance in them. They are based on a misconception of the true nature of the process involved in integration of non-clerical with clerical services. There was, as already pointed out above, a non-clerical cadre in each Department of the Reserve Bank and it was decided by the-Reserve Bank that the non-clerical cadres in all the Departments should be integrated with the clerical cadre. With that end in view, the Combined Seniority Scheme gave an option to all employees in non-clerical cadres to be transferred to posts in the clerical cadre, but in the interest of efficiency, prescribed a qualification that only those employees in non-clerical cadres would be entitled to be transferred who are either graduates or have passed both parts of Institute of Bankers Examination. Now, when the employees from non-clerical cadres are admitted in the clerical cadre, some rule would have to be made for determining their seniority vis-a-vis those in the clerical cadre. They would have to be fitted into the clerical cadre and for that purpose, some rule would have to be devised for determining how they shall rank in seniority. The Combined Seniority Scheme adopted the rule that for determining the seniority of non-clerical staff who exercised the option and were admitted in the clerical cadre, one-third of their total non-clerical service "until 7th May, 1972 or the date of acquiring qualification" should be taken into account. This was the manner in which the Combined Seniority Scheme sought to bring about integration of non clerical with. clerical services in the several departments of the Bank.Now, the first question which arises for consideration is whether the Reserve Bank violated the constitutional principle of equality in bringing about integration of non-clerical with clerical services. We fail to see how integration of different cadres into one cadre can be said to involve any violation of the equality clause. It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1139) that Article 16 a fortiori also Article 14 do not forbid the creation of different cadres for government service. And if that be so, equally these two Articles cannot stand in the way of the State integrating different cadres into one cadre. It is entirely a matter for the State to decide whether to have several different cadres or one integrated cadre in its services. That is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicability of the equality clause. The integration of non-clerical with clerical services sought to be effectuated by the Combined Seniority Scheme cannot in the circumstances be assailed as violative of the constitutional principle of equality.10. Then we come to the question of the rule of seniority adopted by the Combined Seniority Scheme. Now there can be no doubt that it is open to the State to lay down any rule which it thinks appropriate for determining seniority in service and it is not competent to the Court to strike down such rule on the ground that in its opinion another rule would have been better or more appropriate. The only enquiry which the Court can make is whether the rule laid down by the State is arbitrary and irrational so that it results in inequality of opportunity amongst employees belonging to the same class. Now, here, employees from non-clerical cadres were being absorbe d in the clerical cadre and, therefore, a rule for determining their seniority vis-a-vis those already in the clerical cadre had to be devised. Obviously, if the non-clerical service rendered by the employees from non-clerical cadres were wholly ignored, it would have been most unjust to them. Equally, it would have been unjust to employees in the clerical cadre, if the entire non-clerical service of those coming from non-clerical cadres were taken into account, for non-clerical service cannot be equated with clerical service and the two cannot be treated on the same footing. Reserve Bank, therefore, decided that one-third of the non-clerical service rendered by employees coming from non-clerical cadres should be taken into account for the purpose of determining seniority. This rule attempted to strike a just balance between the conflicting claims of non-clerical and clerical staff and it cannot be condemned as arbitrary or discriminatory. Vide: Anand Parkash Saksena v. Union of India.([1968] 2 S.C.R. 611, 622.)The last contention of the petitioners was that seniority is a civil right and the State cannot interfere with it to the prejudice of an employee without giving an opportunity to him to be heard and since the Combined Seniority Scheme adversely affected the seniority of the petitioners in the clerical cadre without giving them an opportunity to represent against it, it was void and inoperative. There are two answers to this contention and each is, in our opinion, fatal. In the first place, we do not find from the judgment of the High Court that this contention was at any time advanced before the High Court and, in the circumstances, we do not think it would be fight to permit it to be raised for the first time before this Court. Secondly, even if this contention were allowed to be raised, we do not think it can be sustained. Here, there was no question of any existing seniority being disturbed by change in the rule of seniority. The problem was of fitting into the clerical cadre employees coming from non-clerical cadres and for that purpose, a new rule was required to be made which would determine the seniority of these new entrants vis-a-vis those already in the clerical cadre. Such rule did not affect seniority and hence there could be no question of giving the petitioners an opportunity to make representation against it.11. These were the only contentions urged before us against the constitutional validity of the Combined Seniority Scheme and since there is no substance in them, we think that the High Court was in error in striking down the Combined Seniority Scheme.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]This was the anomalous and unjust result brought about by the Combined Seniority Scheme and that, according to the petitioners, introduced a serious infirmity. This argument, we are afraid, is more an argument of hardship than of law and we do not think we can accept it.When the petitioners opted to be transferred to the Specialised Departments under the Optee Scheme of 1965, they obviously did so as they thought that they would have quicker chances of promotion in the Specialised Department than in the General Departments. But it appears that before their turn for promotion as Grade I Clerks in the Specialised Departments could come, some vacancies occurred in the cadre of Grade I Clerks in the General Departments and naturally they were filled up by promotion of Grade II Clerks in the General Departments. Some of these Grade II Clerks who were promoted were junior to the petitioners, but they got an opportunity for promotion as the petitioners went out of the General Departments by exercising the option to be transferred to the Specialised Departments. This was a wholly fortuitous possibly not anticipated by the petitioners or perhaps the petitioners might have thought that they would have an advantage in the matter subsequent promotions to posts higher than Grade I Clerks. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this was the position which obtained at the date when the Combined Seniority Scheme was introduced by the Reserveis now well settled, as a result of the decision of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1139) that Article 16 a fortiori also Article 14 do not forbid the creation of different cadres for government service. And if that be so, equally these two Articles cannot stand in the way of the State integrating different cadres into one cadre. It is entirely a matter for the State to decide whether to have several different cadres or one integrated cadre in its services. That is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicability of the equality clause. The integration of non-clerical with clerical services sought to be effectuated by the Combined Seniority Scheme cannot in the circumstances be assailed as violative of the constitutional principle ofonly enquiry which the Court can make is whether the rule laid down by the State is arbitrary and irrational so that it results in inequality of opportunity amongst employees belonging to the same class. Now, here, employees from non-clerical cadres were being absorbe d in the clerical cadre and, therefore, a rule for determining their seniority vis-a-vis those already in the clerical cadre had to be devised. Obviously, if the non-clerical service rendered by the employees from non-clerical cadres were wholly ignored, it would have been most unjust to them. Equally, it would have been unjust to employees in the clerical cadre, if the entire non-clerical service of those coming from non-clerical cadres were taken into account, for non-clerical service cannot be equated with clerical service and the two cannot be treated on the same footing. Reserve Bank, therefore, decided that one-third of the non-clerical service rendered by employees coming from non-clerical cadres should be taken into account for the purpose of determining seniority. This rule attempted to strike a just balance between the conflicting claims of non-clerical and clerical staff and it cannot be condemned as arbitrary or discriminatory. Vide: Anand Parkash Saksena v. Union of India.([1968] 2 S.C.R. 611, 622.)The last contention of the petitioners was that seniority is a civil right and the State cannot interfere with it to the prejudice of an employee without giving an opportunity to him to be heard and since the Combined Seniority Scheme adversely affected the seniority of the petitioners in the clerical cadre without giving them an opportunity to represent against it, it was void and inoperative. There are two answers to this contention and each is, in our opinion, fatal. In the first place, we do not find from the judgment of the High Court that this contention was at any time advanced before the High Court and, in the circumstances, we do not think it would be fight to permit it to be raised for the first time before this Court. Secondly, even if this contention were allowed to be raised, we do not think it can be sustained. Here, there was no question of any existing seniority being disturbed by change in the rule of seniority. The problem was of fitting into the clerical cadre employees coming from non-clerical cadres and for that purpose, a new rule was required to be made which would determine the seniority of these new entrants vis-a-vis those already in the clerical cadre. Such rule did not affect seniority and hence there could be no question of giving the petitioners an opportunity to make representation againstwere the only contentions urged before us against the constitutional validity of the Combined Seniority Scheme and since there is no substance in them, we think that the High Court was in error in striking down the Combined Seniority Scheme.