Case: Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union Of India

1. In this case the petitioner, Roshan Lal Tandon has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India should not be issued commanding the respondents not to carry out the directives contained in the notification of the Railway Board No. E(NG)65 PM 1-26, dated the 27th October 1965, Annexure D to the Writ Petition, in so far as it grants protection to the existing Apprentice Train Examiners and lays down the procedure to fill upgraded vacancies. Cause has been shown by the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given2. There were originally two scales for Train Examiners - Rs. 100-185 (D Grade) and Rs. 150-225 (C Grade). These scales were later revised as a result of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission and the scale of D Grade was increased to Rs. 180-240 and that of C Grade to Rs. 205-280. On February 18, 1961 the Railway Board issued a letter No. PC-60/ PS5/TP/8, Annexure A to the Writ Petition to the General Managers of all Indian Railways conveying its decision that vacancies in the Entry Grade of Train Examiners (in the scale Rs. 180-240) with effect from February 18, 1961 should be filled as follows :-"(i) 50 per cent of the vacancies should be filled from Apprentice Train Examiners who successfully have completed the prescribed (4 years) apprenticeship the remaining 50 per cent of the vacancies being filled by promotion of skilled artisans(ii) 20 per cent of the annual requirements of Apprentice Train Examiners should be drawn from skilled artisans who are not more than 35 years old on 1st July of the year in which the apprenticeship is likely to commence"Promotions to Grade C of Train Examiners used to take place on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability without any distinction whether the employee entered Grade D of the Train Examiners directly or was selected out of the category of skilled artisans. This rule was laid down by the Railway Board in its letter No. E(s) 1-57-TRS/41, dated January 25, 1958 which states :"Ref: Para. 2 of Boards letter No. E(R) 49-JAC/1S, dated 23rd February 1950 laying down that 20 per cent of the posts in the TXR grade Rs. 150-225 should be reserve and the TXR in the grade of Rs. 80-160 (since revised Rs. 100-185) promoted from skilled and semi-skilled ranks. The Board have reviewed the position and have decided that promotion to the TXR grade of Rs. 150-225 should hereafter be made solely on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability and the reservation of only 20 per cent as mentioned above will no longer be operative."(Annexure B to the Writ Petition)(i) Vacancies in the entry grade of Train Examiners in the authorised scale Rs. 180-240 should not be filled from apprentice T.X.Rs. upto 50 per cent as hitherto but should exclusively be filled by promotion from amongst artisan staff(ii) (a) Vacancies in the next higher grade Rs. 205-280 (AS) should be from amongst the T. X.Rs in grade Rs. 180-240(AS) to the extent of 20 per cent(b) The remaining 80 per cent vacancies should be filled by Apprentice T.X.Rs. who have successfully completed prescribed apprenticeship mentioned in Para. 2 below(c) 25 per cent of the annual requirements of Apprentice T.X.Rs. should be drawn from skilled artisans who are not more than 35 years old on 1st July of the year in which apprenticeship is likely to commenceThe instructions contained in Boards letter No. 2 (NG)-61MI/101 dated 6th June 1962 should be kept in view2. TheApprentice T.X.Rs. recruited On and from 1st April 1966 shall be given a training for a period of five years (three years in the case of-diploma holders). From the same date artisans in lower grades (recruited as Apprentice T.X.Rs.) shall be given in service, training for period of three years. Instructions regarding a revised syllabus for the training of the Apprentice T. X.Rs. will follows :Distribution of posts in different grade :Fifty per cent of existing posts of T.X.Rs. in grade Rs. 180-240 which were required to be earmarked for Apprentice T.X.Rs. in terms of Boards letter No. PC-PC-60/PS-6/TP-6 dated 18th February 1961 should be upgraded to scale Rs. 205-280Revised designations and classification of posts of T.X.Rs:DesignationScale of PayClassificationT.X.Rs., grade D180-240Non-selectionT.X.Rs. grade C205-280Selection for promotees from Grade DT.X.Rs. grade B250-380SelectionT.X.Rs. grade A335-425Non-selectionProtection to the existing Apprentice T.X.Rs. and procedure to fill upgraded vacancies:It has also been decided that with effect from 1st April 1966 all the Apprentice T. X. Rs. (Diploma holders as well others) on successful completion of their training should be straightaway brought on to the scale Rs. 205-280 (AS) instead of being first absorbed in scale Rs. 180-6-240 as at present. Consequently they should be allowed stipend in scale Rs. 180-6-210 during the period of their training. As regards the Apprentice T.X.Rs. who are undergoing training at present and will not be brought on to the working posts before 1st April 1966, it has been decided that from the date of this letter they should be allowed stipend in scale Rs. 180-6-210 during the remaining period of their training. Their period of training should also be increased to 5 years on completion of which they should be put on to the working posts in scale Rs 205-280(AS). The Apprentice T.X.Rs. who have already been or will be absorbed in scale Rs. 180-240 upto 31st March 1966 should first be accommodated in Scale Rs. 205-280 against the quota of 80 per cent vacancies reserved for them. Such staff should not be required to undergo a Selection before being absorbed in that grade. The upgraded vacancies in scale Rs. 205-280 left over after earmarking those for the apprentices under training on 2nd April 1966 should be filled by promotion of T.X.Rs. in scale Rs. 180-240 on a selection basis. While computing the number of posts available for promotion of T.X.Rs. in scale Rs. 180-240 the vacancies likely to occur during the period of apprenticeship of the apprentices under training as on 1st April 1966 should also be taken into account. In other words it would be necessary to keep in reserve, only the number of posts equal to the number of apprentices under training as on 1st April 1966 who cannot be absorbed in the anticipated vacancies which will arise by the time they qualify."

Reasoning:
Writ Petition No. 203 of 1966 :The materialfacts of this case are parallel to those in Writ Petition No. 154 of 1966 and for the reasons already given we hold that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned part of the notification dated October 27, 1965, Annexure D to the Writ PetitionIn our opinion, the constitutional objection taken by the petitioner to this part of the notification is well founded and must be accepted as correct. At the time when the petitioner and the direct recruits were appointed to Grade D, there was one class in Grade D formed of direct recruits and the promotees from the grade of artisans. The recruits from both the sources to Grade D were integrated into one class and no discrimination could thereafter be made in favour of recruits from one source as against the recruits from the other source in the matter of promotion to Grade C. To put it differently, once the direct recruits and promotees are absorbed in one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade C. In the present case it is not disputed on behalf of the first respondent that before the impugned notification was issued there was only one rule of promotion for both the departmental promotees and the direct recruits and that rule was seniority-cum-suitability, and there was no rule of promotion separately made for application to the direct recruits. As a consequence of the impugned notification a discriminatory treatment is made in favour of the existing apprentice Train Examiner who have already been absorbed in Grade D by March 31, 1966, because the notification provides that this group of Apprentice Train Examiners should first be accommodated en bloc in Grade C upto 80 per cent of vacancies reserved for them without undergoing any selection. As regards the 20 per cent of the vacancies made available for the category of Train Examiners to which the petitioner belongs the basis of recruitment was selection on merit and the previous test of seniority-cum-suitability was abandoned. In our opinion, the present case falls within the principle of the recent decision of this Court in Mervyn v. Collector of Customs. Bombay, 1966-3 SCR 600   : (AIR 1967 SC 52  ). In that case, the petitioners who were Appraisers in the Customs Department filed a writ petition under Article 32, challenging the validity of the rotational system as applied in fixing the seniority of Appraisers and Principal appraisers. The system, as laid down in the relevant departmental circulars was that vacancies occurring in the cadre of Appraisers were to go alternatively to promotees and direct recruits. According to the petitioners of that case this resulted in inequality, especially in view of the fact that the number of direct recruits over the years was very low. Promotion to the grade of Principal Appraisers was from the cadre of Appraisers; only those who had served as Appraisers for five years were entitled to be promoted to the higher grade. Since the direct recruits had to wait for five years before they could become Principal Appraisers the promotees below them who had put in five years as Appraisers became Principal Appraisers. In order to restore the seniority of the direct recruits thus lost, the rotational, system was applied to the cadre of Principal Appraisers also i. e., one vacancy was to go to a promotee and the other to a direct recruit. The plea of inequality in violation of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution was raised by the petitioners in respect of this also. It was held by this Court, in the first place that there was no inherent vice in the principle of fixing seniority by rotation in case when a service is composed in fixed proportion of direct recruits and promotees. It was held in the second place that the same could not be said when the rotational system was applied to the recruitment of Principal Appraisers. The source of recruitment for these was one only, namely, the grade of Appraisers. There was no question of any quota being reserved from two sources in their caseWe are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner has no vested contractual right in regard to the terms of his service and that Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the case.