Case: Anand Parkash Saksena Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

25 per cent quota the appointments of officers from List II will be excluded.19. There were vacancies in the 25 per cent quota which were filled up by promotion of respondents, Nos. 14, 15 and 16 from the Madhya Bharat State Service. Respondents Nos. 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 were from the former Madhya Pradesh State Service. Some of them were promoted to the Indian Administrative Service against the 25 per cent quota in the State cadres before the integration of the cadres on November 1, 1956. No appointments were made between November 1, 1956 and November 17, 1956 when the petitioner was appointed to officiate in a senior post. Other respondents were appointed after November 17, 1956. None of the appointments is open to any challenge. It is surprising that the petitioner seeks to challenge the appointments after a long lapse of time. He has not given any adequate explanation as to the delay in filing the writ petition.20. The petitioner next challenge the seniority assigned to the respondents. In the gradation list, all the respondents are shown as senior to him. Respondents Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 are special recruits and their seniority has been fixed under Regulation 3 (3) of the I. A S. (Seniority of Special Recruits) Regulation, 1960 read with R. 3 (3) (b) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954. The other respondents are promotees and their seniority has been fixed under R. 3(3) (b) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules and the proviso thereto.21. The petitioner challenges the vires of R. 4 (3) of the Recruitment Rules under which the Central Government framed the Special Recruitment Regulations. The Recruitment Rules were made under S. 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. In D. S. Garewal v. State of Punjab, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 792 = (AIR 1959 SC 512 ) this Court held that S. 3 was not bad on the ground of excessive delegation of Legislative power. The petitioner submits that R 4 (3) of the Recruitment Rules is bad on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power. Assuming that the doctrine of excessive delegation of legislative power applies to rules. we think that Rule 4 (3) does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. Rule 4 (3) authorises the Central Government to make regulations for special recruitment;22. In making the regulations, the Central Government is to be guided by the exigencies of the service and the advice of the State Governments and the Union Public Service Commission. These authorities are the best judges of the appropriate regulations to be made in the matter. In the light of their expert knowledge they can adapt for this purpose the existing regulations for other methods of recruitment with suitable modifications or make other appropriate regulations having regard to the exigencies of the service. As a matter of fact, the Special Recruitment Regulations, 1960 framed under R. 4 (3) have adapted for the purposes of special recruitment the regulations for recruitment by competitive examination, promotion and selection with appropriate modifications.23. The petitioner next contends that R. 3 (3) (b) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules makes unjust discrimination between a promotee and a direct recruit in the matter of seniority by arbitrarily assigning a lower year of allotment to a promotee and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This contention is devoid of merit.The seniority of direct recruits inter se and promotees inter se is fixed by R. 4. The object of R. 3 (3) (b) is to fix the seniority of the promotees in relation to direct recruits. The promotees obtain promotion after long service in the State Civil Services. From the point of view of the promotee, his seniority should be counted from the date of his joining the State Civil Service. From the point of view of the direct recruit, the seniority of the promotee should be counted from the date of his appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. Rule 3 (3) (b) attempts to strike a just balance between the conflicting claims. It gives the promotee the year of allotment of the juniormost direct recruit officiating continuously in a senior post earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the promotee. If no direct recruit was officiating continuously in a senior post on an earlier date the seniority of the promotee is determined ad hoc. In our opinion, the rule is not arbitrary or discriminatory and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.24. The petitioner next challenges the validity of Regulation 3 (3) of the Special Recruitment Seniority Regulations, 1960 on the ground that it offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the relevant rules and regulations have set up an arbitrary double standard for a special recruit enlisted by promotion because Regulation 3 (3) of the Special Recruitment Seniority Regulations read with R. 3 (b) (b) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules treats him as a promotee for the purpose of seniority while R. 9 (3) (b) (iv) of the Recruitment Rules treats him as a direct recruit for the purpose of recruitment. There is no substance in this contention. Special recruits form a distinct class. They are neither direct recruits nor promotees. Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules does not treat them as direct recruits. Regulation 3 (3) of the Special Recruits Seniority Regulations properly adopts the formula applicable to promotees for fixing the seniority of special recruits enlisted by promotion, so that in the matter of seniority all officers recruited from the State Civil Service are placed on the same footing. The regulation is not arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.25. The seniority of the respondents was fixed in accordance with Regulation 3 (3) of the Special Recruitment Seniority Regulations, R. 3 (3) (b) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules and the proviso thereto, and is not open to any challenge.26.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The decision in P. C. Wadhwas case, 1964 (4) SCR 598   = (AIR 1964 SC 423  ) is distinguishable. There a cadre Officer in the junior scale of pay was promoted to officiate in a post in the senior scale of pay and was thereafter reverted to his substantive post while other cadre officers junior to him continued to officiate in posts in the senior scale of pay. As against cadre officers junior to him, he had the right to hold the post in the senior scale of pay. The reversion while cadre officers junior to him continued in the senior scale amounted to not only reduction in rank but also withholding of promotion. This is all that P. C Wadhwas case, 1964 (4) SCR 598   = (AIR 1964 SC 423  ) decided. The facts in the present case are entirely different. The petitioner was not suitable to fill the vacancies in the senior post and non-cadre officers were appointed to fill the vacancies under Rule 9 of the Cadre Rules. No cadre officer junior to the petitioner was promoted to the cadre post before his promotion on November 17, 1956. Nor was he reverted after his promotion, while officers junior to him continued to hold senior posts. The petitioner was not reduced in rank, nor was his promotion withheld. He had no right to fill a vacancy in the senior posts or to draw salary in the senior scale between April 2, 1952 and November 17,making the regulations, the Central Government is to be guided by the exigencies of the service and the advice of the State Governments and the Union Public Service Commission. These authorities are the best judges of the appropriate regulations to be made in the matter. In the light of their expert knowledge they can adapt for this purpose the existing regulations for other methods of recruitment with suitable modifications or make other appropriate regulations having regard to the exigencies of the service. As a matter of fact, the Special Recruitment Regulations, 1960 framed under R. 4 (3) have adapted for the purposes of special recruitment the regulations for recruitment by competitive examination, promotion and selection with appropriatecontention is devoid of merit.The seniority of direct recruits inter se and promotees inter se is fixed by R. 4. The object of R. 3 (3) (b) is to fix the seniority of the promotees in relation to direct recruits. The promotees obtain promotion after long service in the State Civil Services. From the point of view of the promotee, his seniority should be counted from the date of his joining the State Civil Service. From the point of view of the direct recruit, the seniority of the promotee should be counted from the date of his appointment to the Indian Administrative Service. Rule 3 (3) (b) attempts to strike a just balance between the conflicting claims. It gives the promotee the year of allotment of the juniormost direct recruit officiating continuously in a senior post earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the promotee. If no direct recruit was officiating continuously in a senior post on an earlier date the seniority of the promotee is determined ad hoc. In our opinion, the rule is not arbitrary or discriminatory and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of theis no substance in this contention. Special recruits form a distinctare neither direct recruits nor promotees. Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules does not treat them as direct recruits. Regulation 3 (3) of the Special Recruits Seniority Regulations properly adopts the formula applicable to promotees for fixing the seniority of special recruits enlisted by promotion, so that in the matter of seniority all officers recruited from the State Civil Service are placed on the same footing. The regulation is not arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.The seniority of the respondents was fixed in accordance with Regulation 3 (3) of the Special Recruitment Seniority Regulations, R. 3 (3) (b) of the Regulation of Seniority Rules and the proviso thereto, and is not open to any challenge.