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

.(2) The Factory has four cadres of officers: (i) Gazetted officers; (ii)officers; (iii) NonIndustrial employees; (iv) lndustrial employees. The petitioners belong to the second cadre which has four grades: (a) Foremen; (b) Assistant Foremen; (c) Chargemen Gr. I; (d) Chargemen Grade II. The 3rd cadre of nonindustria l employees has two grades (i) Supervisor A Grade; and (ii) Supervisor B grade. The employees of the 3rd cadre are classified as Class III employees in the general scheme of classification of Govt. servants who are governed by India ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class II personnel) Rules.(3) The seniority rules of Gazetted andofficers of the ordnance Factories are laid down in office Memorandum dated 4th January, 1956, am ended in 1961 (Annexure B).(4) The Director General of ordnance Factories, Respondent No. 2, issued an advertisement, dated 14th November, 1962 for direct recruitment to the grade of Foremen, Assistant Foremen, Chargemen Grade I and Ghargemen Grade II. At the time of this advertisement, all the petitioners, except petitioner No. 12, were already serving as officiating Supervisors of A Grade of Class IIl: employees. In answer to the advertisement for appointment to temporary posts with prospects of being "considered for permanent appointment in due course", the petitioners, who possessed the minimum qualification prescribed, applied for direct recruitment which was open to them also. The petitioners were for interview by a letter issued by the General Manager, High explosives I Factory, Kirkee, on 7th February, 1963, but, after the interviews, no letters of appointment were received by the petitioners other than petitioner No. 1They were promoted between April, 1963, and November, 1963, from their substantive grade of Supervisor A to Chargemen Grade II by the General Manager of their factory, on short term basis, by virtue of powers delegated to hi m. Petitioner No. 12, who was not in service at all before, was appointed a temporary chargemen, Grade II, in April, 1963, as a result of his selection after interview. Respondents 5 to 16, however, entered  the  grade of Chargemen Grade II between 1st December, 1963 and 4th February, 1965, and were also shown as temporary Chargemen Grade II, but, they were not holding any post in the grade of Supervisors. The respondents were apprentices before entering into the Grade II of Chargemen.(6) The promotions of the petitioners were given  retrospective effect, by an order dated 11th June, 1965, passed by the Director General ordnance Factories. In December, 1967, however, the petitioners were superseded b y others who were alleged to be their juniors. The petitioners made representations and sent reminders which were not replied to. Respondents S to 16 were promoted from Chargemen Grade II to the grade of Assistant Foremen by an order of the respondent No. 2 Director General ordnance Factories dated l 7th September, 1971. This order according to the petitioners amounted to another supersession of the petitioners who were shown as holding permanent posts only as Supervisors of A  grade in 1971. The petitioners, therefore called to this Court on 14th December, 1971 against the orders dated 17th September, 1971, Which amounted to their supersession.

Reasoning:
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.