Case: S.K.Bhate and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

the petitioners want to take advantage, were really the result of a mistake or misunderstanding in not realising the actual legal position of the petitioners as direct recruits. It was pointed out that, in the letters issued calling them for interviews as direct recruits, it was made clear to them that their appointments did not carry with them any decision about their fitness for the post applied for and that they could be considered for any lower post to which they might he so entitled. In other words, this clearly meant that they were on trial. It was also pointed out that promotions are only made under Rule 6 of the Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956, as amended in 1961 to Chargemen Grade II, on the basis of "a selection list prepared by the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee". rt was asserted that, in the minutes of the Departmental Promotions Committee held in the month of April 1963, prior to the appointment of petitioners as Chargemen Grade II, the Committee had prescribed a normal minimum qualification of three years service in the post of Grade A for promotion barring exceptional cases of ex- apprentices. It was asserted that, as the Petitioners had not satisfied this condition, they could not be considered for promotion to the posts of Chargemen Grade II. They did not belong to the class which had any exceptional qualifications. Hence, their names did not appear in the list of persons to be promoted prepared by the Departmental Promotions Committee for the post of Chargemen Grade II.It was asserted that they were being treated as direct recruits and not promotees despite their wrong description and even wrong orders conveying the impression that they were promotees. The condition precedent to promotion not having been satisfied they could only be considered as direct recruits and get the appointments reserved for the class of direct recruits as and when their turns arrived in this quota. It was conceded on behalf of the respondents that much larger number of appointments had been made in the class of direct recruits than the vacancies available. It was, however, explained that this was due to the sudden and exceptional demands for these appointments as a result of the pressure on our ordnance Factories due t o the war with China and other defence requirements. It was urged that the petitioners could not take advantage of erroneous orders made by the Manager of their ordnance Factory even if the error had been repeated by the Director General Ordnance Factories. If the petitioners had not satisfied the condition precedent to promotion, they could not get the appointments reserved for the 80% quota of promotees whose work was watched by the Promotions Committee so that they could be declared fit for promotion. The promotions were on the basis of a selection on merit, the tests of which had not been satisfied by the petitioners In fact, the petitioners were considered with others, and were not selected. It was not necessary to give them opportunities of being heard on comparative merits, as they claimed, just as candidates at an examination are not entitled to any such opportunities as these are not disciplinary proceedings.4. Counsel for the petitioners was, in our opinion, not able to meet the objections put forward to petitioners claims as promotees. He could not show that they satisfied the conditions precedent to promotions. Hence, the so called orders of promotion could not cure the defect. It was immaterial that the petitioners were wrongly shown as Promotees in their service records or that they had not received intimations or their appointments as direct recruits. There was a justifiable ground for a distinction between them and the class to which the respondents belonged. There was no challenge to the fairness of the 20% quota reserved for direct recruits as against that of promotees. Hence, we do not think that the petitioners can complain of violation of any fundamental rights under Article 16 of the Constitution petitioners cannot also claim any benefit resulting from being treated as persons belonging to the same class as respondents 5 to 16 whose places on the seniority list are questioned by them as amounting to illegal supersessions of the petitioners. We may mention here that Mr. Sanghi, Counsel appearing for the Union of India, Respondent No. 1, and the Director General ordnance Factory, Respondent No. 2, and other officials, has fairly conceded that so far as the case of Petitioner No. 11 is concerned, it stands on a special footing and that his clients are considering it on that footing. Counsel for the petitioners has also conceded that so far as 3 of the petitioners are concerned, they have been rightly treated as direct recruits. We find no error in treating the others also as direct recruits.5. It may also be mentioned here that Mr. Sanghi, Counsel for the Union of India and its officials, has stated to the Court that none of the petitioners will be reverted to his substantive post merely on the ground that he was treated as a direct recruit. The question of inter-se seniority is a different matter. The petitioners have been unable to establish that they have been denied their seniority in violation of any right under Article 16 of the Constitution.6. It may be mentioned here that, in Amrit Lal Berry Vs. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue & Ors this Court laid down (at p. 546):"It was for the petitioner to satisfy the Court that he was not given the senior grade although he satisfied all the required conditions of it and that others, who were promoted into it were given unjustifiable preference over him". As we are not satisfied that the seniority list has been prepared in violation of any rule or principle of justice, we are unable to accept the petition before us. We therefore, dismiss this petition. The parties will bear their own costs.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]4. Counsel for the petitioners was, in our opinion, not able to meet the objections put forward to petitioners claims as promotees. He could not show that they satisfied the conditions precedent to promotions. Hence, the so called orders of promotion could not cure the defect. It was immaterial that the petitioners were wrongly shown as Promotees in their service records or that they had not received intimations or their appointments as direct recruits. There was a justifiable ground for a distinction between them and the class to which the respondents belonged. There was no challenge to the fairness of the 20% quota reserved for direct recruits as against that of promotees. Hence, we do not think that the petitioners can complain of violation of any fundamental rights under Article 16 of the Constitution petitioners cannot also claim any benefit resulting from being treated as persons belonging to the same class as respondents 5 to 16 whose places on the seniority list are questioned by them as amounting to illegal supersessions of the petitioners. We may mention here that Mr. Sanghi, Counsel appearing for the Union of India, Respondent No. 1, and the Director General ordnance Factory, Respondent No. 2, and other officials, has fairly conceded that so far as the case of Petitioner No. 11 is concerned, it stands on a special footing and that his clients are considering it on that footing. Counsel for the petitioners has also conceded that so far as 3 of the petitioners are concerned, they have been rightly treated as direct recruits. We find no error in treating the others also as direct recruits.It may be mentioned here that, in Amrit Lal Berry Vs. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue & Ors this Court laid down (at p. 546):"It was for the petitioner to satisfy the Court that he was not given the senior grade although he satisfied all the required conditions of it and that others, who were promoted into it were given unjustifiable preference over him". As we are not satisfied that the seniority list has been prepared in violation of any rule or principle of justice, we are unable to accept the petition before us. We therefore, dismiss this petition. The parties will bear their own costs.