Case: R.S. Makashi and Others Vs. I.M. Menon and Others

In the State of Bom bay, an informal (non-statutory) scheme of rationing was introduced in November, 1957 and for administering the said scheme, an ad hoc Organisation was set up under the Controller of Foodgrains Distribution. Since this Organisation (hereinafter r eferred to as CFD) was intended to be only a temporary and short-term set up, no recruitment rules were framed for appointment to the various categories of posts created therein. The CFD was manned principally by (1) personnel who had been worki ng in the temporary Civil Supplies Department created during the second world war period and who were attending to certain residual duties concerned with the winding up of that department, (2) persons taken on deputation from other G overnment departments (3) retrenched former Civil Supply Department personnel, and (4) persons directly recruited to the CFD by the Controller of Foodgrains Distribution on temporary basis through the Employment Exchange. Since no rules had be en framed laying down the qualifications or method of recruitment to the various posts, the guiding factor which seems to have weighed with the authorities in effecting appointments in the CFD was the suitability of the person concerned to carr y out the duties attached to a particular post irrespective of qualifications, age, etc. Admittedly, amongst the persons appointed to the CFD, there were several non-matriculates who were ineligible under the prevailing rules applicable to other Government Departments for regular appointment into the Government service in the clerical category and also quite a few persons who were over-aged for being entertained in the Government service as on the dates of their ad hoc appointments into th ee principles to be observed for fixing the seniority of the personnel appointed to the CFD were laid down by the State Government by a Resolution dated April 1, 1963. Under the said Resolution, the seniority of personnel in each categ ory was to be determined with reference to the date of first appointment in the particular cadre in which they were initially appointed in the CFDIn July 1965, the Government of India issued instructions to all the State Governments ad vising them to start statutory rationing schemes in metropolitan areas and big towns. With a view to implement those instructions of the Central Government, the State Government of Maharashtra sanctioned on October 21, 1965 a skeleton staff for worki ng out details and carrying out other preliminary work for the introduction of a scheme of statutory rationing in Greater BombaySubsequently, by a Resolution dated February 11, 1966, the Government of Maharashtra announced its decision t o introduce a statutory rationing scheme in Bombay and the Industrial Complex around it including some areas of Thana District and to set up an organisation under the Controller of Rationing, Bombay, for efficiently administering the said statutory scheme. The strength and patten of the staff for the Bombay Rationing Organisation (for short, the BRO) which was newly created under the said Resolution was to be as shown in Annexure A appended to the Resolution. The skeleton staff whic h had been already sanctioned for carrying out the preliminary work as per the prior Government Resolution dated October 21, 1965 was to be treated as belonging to the BRO. The existing staff of the CFD consisting of 884 posts as sh own in Annexure B to the aforesaid Resolution was to be merged into the new BRO with effect from March 1, 1966, excepting 9 posts of part-time Mehtars, which were to be abolished with effect from the said date. In addition, 2818 posts in 23 different categories were also created in the BRO as per the particulars shown in Annexure C to the aforesaid Resolution. Out of these, 1220 newly created posts were in the category of Rationing Inspectors and 165 posts were of Seniore it was considered necessary to have experienced staff for manning the higher posts in the new Organisation, it was decided to obtain the services of experienced hands from other departments on deputation. Accordingly, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra addressed a letter dated February 22, 1968 to all, Heads of Departments stating that huge staff was required for manning the posts in the newly created BRO, that for the higher posts of Assist ant Rationing Officers/Inspecting Officers/Head Clerks and Rationing Officers/Senior Clerks, it was absolutely necessary to draw upon senior and experienced persons already working in other Government offices in Greater Bombay and hence the Government had decided that each department should immediately on receipt of the letter release the requisite number of persons under intimation to the Controller of Rationing, Bombay and instruct the persons concerned to report for duty to himIt was further mentioned in the letter that for the posts of Assistant Rationing Officers, persons who had put in at least two years service in a scale comparable to the scale of Rs. 200-10-300 would be considered and that for the posts of Ra tioning Inspectors/Senior Clerks, Clerks who had put in at least two years service would be considered. In compliance with the directions contained in the said letter, a large number of personnel from different departments of the State Government of Maharashtra in the Greater Bombay area were sent over to the BRO on deputation and they were appointed to posts in different categories in the new Organisation (B.R.O.) Apparently for the reason that the number of persons so obtained on deputation was not adequate to fill up all the new posts in the BRO, some persons were also directly recruited into the said Organisation subsequent to March 1,s an essential preliminary step for the integration of the former CFD perso nnel with the staff appointed in the BRO from other sources, the Controller of Rationing, Bombay published on 29.8.1966 a provisional Gradation List of the CFD personnel as on March 1, 1966. Subsequently, on March 22, 1968, the Government of Ma harashtra issued the "Bombay Rationing Organisation (Fixation of Seniority) Rules, 1968", laying down the principles to be applied for the fixation of seniority of the persons working in the BRO. These rules were issued under the proviso to Artic le 309 of the Constitution and they were given retrospective effect from October 21, 1965 (the date of the Government Resolution sanctioning the skeleton staff for carrying out the preliminary work for introduction of the scheme of statu tory rationing). The personnel released from other departments of the State Government for work in the BRO, including retrenched or replaced Government servants who had not suffered any break in service before joining the BRO were designa ted under these Rules as "Released Government Servants". Rule 4 which lays down the principles for fixation of seniority of persons in the cadre of Senior Clerks/Rationing Inspectors/Deputy Accountants is in the following terms:"Senior Clerks/Rationing Inspectors/Deputy AccountantsSuppose there are three persons in the cadre of Senior Clerks/Rationing Inspectors and Deputy Accountants, A a released Government servant was holding the post of clerk continuously f rom 1st October 1960 prior to his release, B a merged Government Servant was holding the post of typist continuously from 1st May, 1958. C was appointed as a direct recruit to the post of clerk in the Bombay Ration ing Organisation on 1st May, 1966 and was subsequently promoted as Senior Clerk on 22nd May, 1968. The seniority amongst them will be fixed as under:-Seniority Name Date of commence- Deemed date ofrank. ment of continuous appointment forservice as1. 2. 3. 41. B 1.5.1958 1.5.19602. A 1.10.1960 1.10.19623. C 1.5.1966 1.5.1968Suppose there are four persons in the cadre of Senior Clerks, Rationing Inspectors and Deputy Accountants. All of them were in the Bombay Foodgrains Distribution Scheme. A was a clerk in the Scheme and he was promoted to the post of Supply Inspector with effect from 1st May 1960 and since then was continuously officiating in the post. B and C were recruited as Supply Inspectors by nomi nation and were officiating continuously in that post from 15th April, 1960 and 15th April, 1965. None of the Clerks in that scheme was promoted after C till the merger of the staff in the Bombay Rationing Organisation. D wa s a Clerk and he was promoted as Senior Clerk with effect from 15th April 1966 i.e. after merger of the staff in the Bombay Rationing Organisation. Their seniority amongst them will be as under:-Seniority rank NameSuppose there are three persons in the cadre of Senior Clerks, Rationing Inspectors and Deputy Accountants who were recruited to the cadre by nomination. A was recruited as Rationing Inspector from 24th F ebruary 1966. B was recruited as Senior Clerk from 15th March 1966. C was recruited as Deputy Accountant, from 28th February, 1966. The seniority amongst them will be fixed as under:-Seniority Date of commencementrank. Name of continuous service1. 2. 31. A 24.2.19662. C 28.2.19663. B 15.3.1966Suppose there are 7 persons in the cadre of Senior Clerks, Rationing Inspectors, Deputy Accountants. A and B were Supply Inspectors directly recruited in the Bombay Foodgrains Distribution Scheme and were continuously officiating in those posts from 4th May, 1963 and 1st May 1963 respectively. C was a Clerk in the former Bombay Foodgrains Distribution Scheme from 1st September 1960. He was promoted as Supply Inspector on 5th May, 1963. D was a Rationing Inspector directly rec ruited to it from 2nd February, 1966. E was a released Government servant holding the post of Clerk in the former office from 1st August 1960. He was taken up as Senior Clerk from 2nd August, 1967, in the Bombay Rationing Organ isation. F was a released Government servant holding the post of a clerk in his former office from 1st February, 1964. He was taken up as Rationing Inspector on 1st August 1967. G was a released Government servant holding the post of a clerk in his former office from 1st December 1964. He was taken up as a clerk in Bombay Rationing Organisation subsequently he was promoted as Rationing Inspector from 1st April, 1967. The seniority amongs t them will be as under- Name Mode Actual date DEEMED1. 2.3.) 4.(b) 52. B Direct S.I. - 1.5.63 31.8.62A -do- - 4.5.63 31.8.624. C Promoted ExCFD Clerk 1.9.60 5.5.63 1.9.625. F Promoted Clerk(released) 1.2.64 1.8.67 1.2.66ing Inspector. - 2.2.66 2.2.667. G Released ClerkInspector." 1.12.64 1.4.67 1.12.66However, it was further provided under Rule 7 that "notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing Rules:(a) In case of Government servants released from one and the same office to join the Bombay Rationing organisation the seniority inter se in their former office shall not be disturbed;(b) in case of the merged Government servants, they shall be governed by t he principles contained in the Government Resolution, Agriculture and Co- operation Department No. EST-1060/40002/SlV, dated the 1st April 1963; and(c) in case of-(i) those who were recruited directly in the former Bombay Foodgrains Distribution Scheme shall be governed by the principles contained in the Government Resolution No. Agriculture and Cooperation Department No. EST l 1060/40002/ SIV dated the 1st April, 1963;(ii) those who were drawn in the Bombay Foodgrains Distribution Scheme from one and the same Government office/Department shall take their ra nk according to seniority inter se in the office/department from which they were drawnA who started his career as Assistant in Revenue and Forests Department from 1st May 1962 was drawn in Bombay Foodgrains Distribution Scheme on 18th October, 1964 and was taken up as Inspecting officer, B an Assistant in Revenue and Forests Department working in that cadre continuously from 1st May, 1961 was released to join Bombay Rationing organisation on 22nd August, 1966 as Inspecting officer. C who started his career as Assistant in General A dministration Department from 1st April 1960 was drawn in Bombay Foodgrains Distribution Scheme on 18th May, 1965 as Inspecting officer. D as Assistant in General Administration Department working in that cadre continuousl y from 1st May, 1960 was released to join Bombay Rationing organisation on 1st July 1967 as Inspecting officer. The seniority of these persons will be fixed as under:-Senio - Name Department Date of Date of Date ofrity recruit- joining in joining inrank ment as Bombay BombayAsstt. Food- Rationingin the grains Organi-present Distri- sation1. 2.3.4.5. 61. C. General Admn2. D. General AdmnDepartment. 1.5.60 - 1.7.67Department 1.5.61 - 22.8.1966By State Governments Resolution dated July 25, 1968, various posts that existed in the former CFD were equated with posts in the BRO in the manner indicated therein. Items 9 to 11 in the Table appended to the said Resolution dealt with the posts of Deputy Chief Supply Inspectors, Supply Inspectors and Senior Clerks, respectively in the CFD. All those Three categories of posts were equated with the posts of Rationin g Inspectors/Senior Clerks in the BRO on Rs. 160-10-220-EB-10- 270 despite the fact that in the CFD the pay scale of the post of Deputy Chief Inspector was a higher post than that of Supply Inspectors and Senior Clerks and it carried a higher payy a Resolution dated July 29, 1968, the State Government of Maharashtra promulgated the Recruitment Rules for non-gazetted posts in the establishment of the BRO specifying also the method of appointment to the various post s in the said organisation. Under these Rules, appointments to the category of Senior Clerks/Rationing Inspectors in the BRO were to be made either by promotion from among Clerks, Clerks-typists, Typists etc., who had worked as such for not less than two years, or by transfer of General Duty Clerks from the Secretariat Departments and the offices of Heads of Departments with not less than two years of service in the cadre. Obviously, the first of the two alternative methods afo rementioned would get attracted only when persons already working in the BRO as Clerks were to be appointed as Senior Clerks/Rationing Inspectors. The other alternative provided was to fill up the vacancy by transfer of Clerks working in the Secret ariat Departments or in the offices of the Heads of Departments who possessed not less than two years of serviceOn May 28, 1971, a Gradation List of Rationing Inspectors, Senior Clerks and Deputy Accountants working in the BRO as on April 1, 1968 was published by the Controller of Rationing. It was expressly recited therein that the said List had been drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968. It was also sta ted that while preparing the said list, the inter se seniority of the ex-CFD personnel had been kept in tact except in the case of those who had been working in the CFD on deputation from other Departments and offices in respect of whom the seniorit y had been fixed according to their position inter se in the respective former Departments and offices from which they had been drawn on deputation A specific direction was contained in paragraph 3 of the order that copies of the said o rder should be exhibited on the Notice Boards in the Head office of the BRO, all the Regional offices as well as in the Rationing offices, and the signatures of all the employees working in the respective offices should be taken in a separate copy of the order which should be kept on the record of the respective offices. It was further ordered that a report to the effect that the Gradation List had been brought to the notice of all the persons concerned should be forwarded to th e Assistant Controller of Rationing, (EST), Head office in his personal name on or before June 10,, a final Gradation List as on April ], 1968 was also published with a similar direction for bringing it to the notice o f all the persons borne on the establishment of the BRO. Still later, on April 9, l 973, another provisional Gradation List of Rationing Inspectors, Senior Clerks and Deputy Accountants as on April 1, 1972 was published with a like direction that it s hould be brought to the notice of all the persons borne on their establishmentBy Resolution dated March 1, 1974, the Government of Maharashtra took note of the fact that during the course of the n previous few years a number of candidates who h ad not been selected by the Public Service Commission had come to be recruited temporarily to the posts of Clerks, Typists, Stenographers, Assistants, etc. pending allotment of candidates selected by the Public Service Commission, and it was d irected that since many of such temporary employees had put in several years of service, they may be retained in Government service without being replaced by candidates selected by the Public Service Commission, provided they fulfilled the fol lowing two conditions:"(1) The non-P.S.C. persons concerned should have the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the posts to which they were appointed(2) They wer e within the age-limits prescribed for appointment to the respective posts held by them at the time of their initial appointment to such posts."It was also specified in the Resolution that the bene fit of such retention in service would be applicable only to the non-P.S.C. persons, who were recruited in various Government offices prior to January 1, 1971 and were in service on the date of issue of the said order. Further, the Resolution conta ined a clear stipulation that the seniority of such non-P.S.C. persons on whom the benefit of continuance of service was thereby conferred was to be fixed only with reference to the date of issuance of the said Resolution, with the conse quence that P. S. C. selected candidates who were already A working in the various Departments or offices prior to the said date were all to be treated as seniors in relation to the non-P.S.C. persons covered by the saidn November 18, 1975, a provisional Gradation List of Rationing Inspectors, Senior Clerks and Deputy Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1974 was published on a combined application of the seniority principles laid down by the BRO in the Rules date d March 22, 1968 and those laid down in the Resolution dated March 1, 1974 concerning the non P.S.C. candidates who were granted the benefit of retention in service under the said Resolution. A similar Gradation List of Assistant Rationing Offic ers/Junior Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1974 was also published by the Controller of Rationing on November 27, 1975On January 31, 1976, respondents Nos. I to 22 herein who were directly recruited in the former CFD as Supply Inspectors and had been subsequently absorbed in the BRO in the category of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay - Misc. Petition No. 166176 - chal lenging the legality and validity of the aforementioned two Gradation Lists dated November 18, 1975 and November 21, 1975. The main contention put forward by them in the writ petition was that the impugned lists were violative of Articles 14 a nd 16 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, firstly, the State Government and the Controller had given a go-by to the normal rule of fixation of seniority according to the date of appointment to the post, and secondly, unequals had been t reated as equals while fixing the seniority inasmuch as the period of service rendered by the employees in the clerical cadre had been reckoned and equated with the service rendered in the Rationing Inspectors cadre. Another plea taken in th e writ petition was that the seniority of the writ petitioners has been made to depend upon an uncertain factor, namely, the seniority of persons who get promoted to the cadre of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks etc., from time to time and t his rule which kept the question of seniority of employees in a state of flux for all time to come was grossly arbitrary ands I to 3 in the writ petition were the State of Maharashtra. the Controller of Ration ing and the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Food &Supply Department, respectively. One hundred and sixty-two employees working in the BRO in different categories of posts were impleaded as respondents Nos. 4 to 165 on the gro und that they were likely to be affected in case the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioners were granted by the High Court. The respondents raised a preliminary objection before the High Court the main attack levelled in the petition bein g against the validity of the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968, the writ petition filed after the lapse of more than seven years since the passing of the impugned Resolution was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It wa s pointed out that on the basis of the impugned Resolution, the provisional Gradation List had been published on May 28, 1971 showing the seniority of personnel in the BRO as on April l, 1968 and it had been specifically stated in the said gradation list that it had been drawn up on the basis of the principles laid down in the impugned Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968. The said list had been circulated to all the offices attached to the BRO and signatures of all the personnel working in the different offices had been taken in token of their having seen the list. The respondents stressed before the High Court the fact that even though objections had been invited against the provisional Gradation List, none of the petitioners had filed any objections. Subsequently, a final Gradation List was published on November 23, 1972, which was also brought to the notice of the personnel working in the BRO. Reliance was also placed by the respondents on the fact that the second provisional Gradation List based on the impugned Resolution of 1968 was published on April 9, 1973 showing the seniority of personnel working in The BRO as on April 1, 1972 and though writ petitioners 1 to 3 filed certain o bjections against the said list long after the date fixed for the receipt of such objections, no contention has been taken therein objecting to the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968. The objections raised by wr it petitioners 1 to 3 were rejected by the Controller of Rationing as per his communications dated December 6, 1973 and December 19,. Eventhereafter, no steps were taken by the petitioners to challenge the validity of the principl es laid down in the Government Resolution. It was urged by the respondents before the High Court that in view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners, it was not legally open to them to raise a challenge against the said Resoluti on in the writ petition filed after eight years and thereby upset the seniority position of personnel which had become settled during the course of the period of eight years and disrupt rights which have become vested in others by virtue of the various postings and promotions that have taken place in then the merits, the respondents contended before the High Court that the BRO being a newly constituted organisation with its personnel drawn from dif ferent sources, it was perfectly open to the State Government to lay down the principles to be applied for the determination of inter se seniority of the members of the staff belonging to the different categories. Since the new Department was to consi st of "merged Government servants" who were absorbed from the CFD, "released Government servants" drawn on deputation from other departments and also direct recruits, it was necessary to evolve some fair and reasonable principle for th e fixation of the inter se seniority of the integrated personnel in the different categories. The respondents submitted before the High Court that viewed in the context of the relevant facts and circumstances, the principles laid down in the impugned Resolution were perfectly reasonable and that the challenge levelled by the petitioners against the said Resolution and the Gradation Lists dated November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975 on the ground of alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was wholly devoid of meritThe writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and by judgment dated September 11, 1979, the petition was allowed and clauses (a) and (c) of rule 4 and the pro viso to rule 7 of the impugned Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 were struck down on the ground that they were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Gradation Lists dated November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975 were also quashed by the learned Judge, and the first respondent-State of Maharashtra-was directed to prepare a fresh seniority list without taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions of the impugned Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 which had been struck down and to give consequential benefits to the writ petitioners, including increments, promotionse preliminary objection on the ground of laches and delay, raised by the respondents before the High Court, w as over-ruled by the learned Single Judge by stating, firstly, that the law with respect to laches did not lay down any obligation on the Court to refuse to grant reliefs merely because there was a lapse of time since the cause of action arose and since the challenge against the Government Resolution was based on the contention that the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution were violated, it was not open to the court to shut out the petitioners fro m putting forward their challenge against the rules on the ground of delay or laches since such course would tantamount to "condoning the continuance of invalid rules or statutes." The second reason stated by the learned Judge for overruling the preliminary objection was that beyond making a vague statement that the seniority list of November 23, 1972 showing the placement of the officers as on April 1, 1968 had been since followed and promotions made on that basis. no factual data had been placed before the High Court by the respondents "to show the extent of such promotions and the manner in which the promotees would be affected if the relief was granted to the petitioners". A further ground mentioned by the learned Judge for re jecting the preliminary objection put forward on the ground of delay is that by reason of the Resolution dated March 1, 1974 passed by the State Government directing that all temporary employees in the clerical cadre, who had been recruited prior to January 1, 1971 without insistence on the passing of the Public Service Commission examination, may be regularly absorbed in service with effect from March 1, 1974 subject to the conditions mentioned therein, the final Gradation List of personnel in the BRO published on November 23, 1972 has inevitably been upset and hence it cannot be said that any rights have accrued to such of the employees in the BRO who were assigned ranks above the writ petitioners in the impugned seniority list, so a s to entitle them to put forward the objection based on laches ande may also briefly set out the reasons mentioned by the learned Judge in support of his conclusion that clauses (a) and (c) of rule 4 and proviso to rule 7 of the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Firstly, it is stated by the learned Judge that since the petitioners had been directly recruited as Supply Inspectors in the former CFD, they were in the posi tion of direct recruits to the cadre of Rationing Inspectors in the BRO and the provision contained in the impugned rules for assignment of deemed dates to the promotees coming from other departments on the basis of their continuous servi ce in the clerical cadre minus two years is against "the normal rule which determines the seniority on the basis of the dates of appointment to the post". According to the learned Judge, any departure from the "normal rule" mentioned by h im must be justified by rational, relevant and cogent reasons and since there was no material "to justify the enactment of the said abnormal rule for determining seniority" either in the impugned Resolution itself or in the return filed on behalf o f the State, the provisions contained in the impugned rules had to be struck down on the ground of infringement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The second reason stated by the learned Judge is that there is an inherent fallacy in t he attempt made by the impugned rules to equate the post of Supply Inspector in the CFD to the posts in clerical cadres in other departments and the impugned rules in so far as they provide for the fixation of inter se seniority of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants in the BRO by giving credit to the service rendered by the "released Government servants" in the clerical cadre in their parent departments subject to a deduction of two years therefrom is v iolative of Articles 14 and 16. In the opinion of the learned Judge, it was not legally open to the Government, while laying down rules for fixation of seniority in the category of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks, to make a provision for taking into consideration any service rendered by the deputationists in the lower post of Clerk and that by itself spells out discrimination. The learned Judge has expressed the view that in treating a clerk with two years service on a par with the Supply Inspector of the CFD, the impugned Resolution has treated unequals as equals and thereby committed a clear breach of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Lastly, it was held by the learned Judge that, since under the provisions of the impugned Resolution the deemed date of appointment of a promotee depends upon two factors, namely, his inter se seniority amongst the persons who have been promoted from his department and his cont inuous service in the clerical cadre minus two years, it is inevitable that whenever a person from some other department is taken on promotion to the BRO, the deemed date of appointment of persons drawn earlier from the same department is likely to get altered and since in consequence thereof the deemed dates of the direct recruits will also undergo a change, the seniority of the direct recruits is made dependant on uncertain events which has no reasonable nexus with the object and purpose of the rules and the rule has therefore to be struck down as arbitrary and violative of the principles of equality of opportunity enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of they nine persons belonging to the category of "releas ed Government servants" who are amongst the respondents in the writ petition and whose seniority etc., were adversely affected by the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division B ench of the High Court, but that appeal was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench, and hence they have filed this appeal in this Court after obtaining special leave.

Reasoning: we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the view expressed by the High Court that clauses (a) and (c) of rule 4 and the proviso to rule 7 of the impugned Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 are violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is unsustainable in law and that the direction given by the High Court to the State Government to prepare a fresh seniority list without taking into consi deration the aforesaid provisions of the impugned Government Resolution and to give to the writ petitioners consequential benefits, including promotions and the emoluments on the n basis of such revised seniority gradation list was not called for. W e are also of opinion that the High Court was wrong in over- ruling the preliminary objection raised before it by the present appellants that the writ petition in so far it sought to challenge the legality of the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968, was highly belated and was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delayIt is said that if this was the practice the guarantee of Art. 32 would be destroyed. But the article no where says that a petition, howsoever late, should be entertained and a writ or order or direction granted, howsoever remote the date of infringement of the fundamental right. In pr actice this Court has not been entertaining stale claims by persons who have slept over their rightsThe learned Counsel for the petitioners strong ly urges that the decision of this Court in M/s. Tilokchand Motichands (2) case needs review. But after care fully considering the matter, we are of the view that no relief should be given to petitioners who, with out any reasonable explanation, approach this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution after inordinate delay. The highest A Court in this land has been given original Jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It could not have been the intention that this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of yearsIt is said that Art. 32 is itself a guaranteed right. So it is, but it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the constitution makers that this Court should discard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay. We are not anxious to throw out petitions on this ground, but we must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entit led to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of yearsThe Government Re solution of March 22, 1968 must have come to the knowledge of the writ petitioners at least when the provisional seniority list dated May 28, 1971 was circulated amongst the staff of the BRO. Thereafter, in November 1972, a final Gradat ion List of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1968 had been published and the said list was circulated to all the members borne on the concerned categories of the organisation. It was expres sly stated in both the aforesaid lists that the ranking of personnel had been effected in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968. The writ petitioners did not file any objections against th e provisional list despite representations having been invited, nor did they take any steps to question the validity of the final gradation list or the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, on the bas is of which the said list had beenl later, in April 1973, another provisional Gradation List of personnel working in the aforesaid categories was published by the Controller of Rationing and the said list, which was a lso drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968, had been admittedly brought to the knowledge of the writ petitioners. They did not file any objections against the said list within the time prescribed. And what is more significant is that even in the earlier representations filed by writ petitioners 1 to 3, which they filed in November 1973, no objection or protest was raised by them against the principles for determina tion of seniority laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968. The Controller of Rationing informed writ petitioners 1 to 3 in December 1973 itself that the representations stood rejected since the seniority and rank assigned to them in the provisional Gradation List were in strict conformity with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.Eventhere after, the petitioners did not wake up and it was only on January 31, 1976 that they approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash the Government Resolution of 1968 and the Gradation Lists of November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975.The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanati on whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.As already indicated by us, the fact that the Government had subsequentl y passed a Resolution dated March l, 1974 directing the regularisation of the temporary appointments of non-P.S.Cs. clerical personnel working in Ministerial posts in the different Government Departments in Greater Bombay, has no relevancy at a ll in this context of dealing with the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in taking steps to challenge against the Government Resolution of1968.The inter se seniority between the petitioners and the other personnel regularly absorbed in the BRO who have come over to the BRO as "released Government servants" is not in any way affected by the said Government Resolution of April 1, 1974, inasmuch as it has been expressly made clear therein that the temporary pe rsonnel who are entitled to the benefit of regularisation thereunder were to be assigned seniority only on the basis that regular appointments were effected on the date of issue of the said order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was, th erefore, clearly in error in thinking that the passing of the Government Resolution of 1974 furnished a fresh cause of action for the petitioners for agitating their contentions regarding the invalidity of the Government Resolution of1968.We ar e unable to appreciate the further reason stated by the learned Single Judge, that the respondents had not placed on record any factual data to show the extent of promotions made on the basis of the seniority list of 1972 and the manner in which the promotees would be affected if the relief was granted to the writ petitioners, and the same we find to be is based on a totally incorrect approach. It is to be noticed that there was no dispute before the High Court that from t he date of publication of the provisional list of May 28, 1971, which was expressly based on the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, the seniority and rank of all the personnel in concerned categories had been fixed in a ccordance with the principles laid down in the impugned Resolution. In the counter-affidavits filed in the High Court on behalf of the State Government and the Controller of Rationing as well as in the affidavits filed by the other r espondents, it had been specifically averred that innumerable promotions had been made during the period of six years on the basis of seniority as fixed in accordance with the impugned rules and many officers had gone up by two or three sta ges as a result of such promotions. Further, there is the clinching fact that the writ petitioners themselves had impleaded as many as 162 officers as respondents on the ground that they were all likely to be affected in case the re liefs claimed in the writ petition were granted. In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened b etween the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, ]968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have beenn the merits also , we do not find any substance in the attack levelled by the petitioners against the legality and validity of the seniority principles laid down in the impugned Government Resolution of March 22,1968.We shall briefly indicate our reasons for reaching this conclusion. The BRO was a totally new Department which was constituted on March 1, 1966 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated February 11, 1966. Under the said Resolution, it was directed that the staff for manning the new organisation should consist of:(a) the skeleton staff already sanctioned under an earlier Government Resolution dated October 21, 1965 for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with the establi shment of the new organisation (BRO);(d) the existing staff under the Controller of Foodgarins distribution, Bombay, Consisting of 384 posts which were to be merged with a new Bombay Rationin g office (BRO) with effect from March 1, 1956;(c) personnel drawn on deputation from other departments of the State Governments; and(d) persons directly recruited to the BROThe Government Re solution of March 22, 1968 must have come to the knowledge of the writ petitioners at least when the provisional seniority list dated May 28, 1971 was circulated amongst the staff of the BRO. Thereafter, in November 1972, a final Gradat ion List of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1968 had been published and the said list was circulated to all the members borne on the concerned categories of the organisation. It was expres sly stated in both the aforesaid lists that the ranking of personnel had been effected in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22,1968.The writ petitioners did not file any objections against th e provisional list despite representations having been invited, nor did they take any steps to question the validity of the final gradation list or the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, on the bas is of which the said list had beenl later, in April 1973, another provisional Gradation List of personnel working in the aforesaid categories was published by the Controller of Rationing and the said list, which was a lso drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968, had been admittedly brought to the knowledge of the writ petitioners. They did not file any objections against the said list within the time prescribed. And what is more significant is that even in the earlier representations filed by writ petitioners 1 to 3, which they filed in November 1973, no objection or protest was raised by them against the principles for determina tion of seniority laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.The Controller of Rationing informed writ petitioners 1 to 3 in December 1973 itself that the representations stood rejected since the seniority and rank assigned to them in the provisional Gradation List were in strict conformity with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.Eventhere after, the petitioners did not wake up and it was only on January 31, 1976 that they approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash the Government Resolution of 1968 and the Gradation Lists of November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975.The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanati on whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.As already indicated by us, the fact that the Government had subsequentl y passed a Resolution dated March l, 1974 directing the regularisation of the temporary appointments of non-P.S.Cs. clerical personnel working in Ministerial posts in the different Government Departments in Greater Bombay, has no relevancy at a ll in this context of dealing with the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in taking steps to challenge against the Government Resolution of1968.The inter se seniority between the petitioners and the other personnel regularly absorbed in the BRO who have come over to the BRO as "released Government servants" is not in any way affected by the said Government Resolution of April 1, 1974, inasmuch as it has been expressly made clear therein that the temporary pe rsonnel who are entitled to the benefit of regularisation thereunder were to be assigned seniority only on the basis that regular appointments were effected on the date of issue of the said order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was, th erefore, clearly in error in thinking that the passing of the Government Resolution of 1974 furnished a fresh cause of action for the petitioners for agitating their contentions regarding the invalidity of the Government Resolution of1968.We ar e unable to appreciate the further reason stated by the learned Single Judge, that the respondents had not placed on record any factual data to show the extent of promotions made on the basis of the seniority list of 1972 and the manner in which the promotees would be affected if the relief was granted to the writ petitioners, and the same we find to be is based on a totally incorrect approach. It is to be noticed that there was no dispute before the High Court that from t he date of publication of the provisional list of May 28, 1971, which was expressly based on the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, the seniority and rank of all the personnel in concerned categories had been fixed in a ccordance with the principles laid down in the impugned Resolution. In the counter-affidavits filed in the High Court on behalf of the State Government and the Controller of Rationing as well as in the affidavits filed by the other r espondents, it had been specifically averred that innumerable promotions had been made during the period of six years on the basis of seniority as fixed in accordance with the impugned rules and many officers had gone up by two or three sta ges as a result of such promotions. Further, there is the clinching fact that the writ petitioners themselves had impleaded as many as 162 officers as respondents on the ground that they were all likely to be affected in case the re liefs claimed in the writ petition were granted. In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened b etween the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, ]968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have beenn the merits also , we do not find any substance in the attack levelled by the petitioners against the legality and validity of the seniority principles laid down in the impugned Government Resolution of March 22,1968.We shall briefly indicate our reasons for reaching this conclusion. The BRO was a totally new Department which was constituted on March 1, 1966 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated February 11, 1966. Under the said Resolution, it was directed that the staff for manning the new organisation should consist of:(a) the skeleton staff already sanctioned under an earlier Government Resolution dated October 21, 1965 for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with the establi shment of the new organisation (BRO);(d) the existing staff under the Controller of Foodgarins distribution, Bombay, Consisting of 384 posts which were to be merged with a new Bombay Rationin g office (BRO) with effect from March 1, 1956;(c) personnel drawn on deputation from other departments of the State Governments; and(d) persons directly recruited to the BROThe Government Re solution of March 22, 1968 must have come to the knowledge of the writ petitioners at least when the provisional seniority list dated May 28, 1971 was circulated amongst the staff of the BRO. Thereafter, in November 1972, a final Gradat ion List of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of the BRO as on April 1, 1968 had been published and the said list was circulated to all the members borne on the concerned categories of the organisation. It was expres sly stated in both the aforesaid lists that the ranking of personnel had been effected in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22,1968.The writ petitioners did not file any objections against th e provisional list despite representations having been invited, nor did they take any steps to question the validity of the final gradation list or the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, on the bas is of which the said list had beenl later, in April 1973, another provisional Gradation List of personnel working in the aforesaid categories was published by the Controller of Rationing and the said list, which was a lso drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the Government Resolution of March 22, 1968, had been admittedly brought to the knowledge of the writ petitioners. They did not file any objections against the said list within the time prescribed. And what is more significant is that even in the earlier representations filed by writ petitioners 1 to 3, which they filed in November 1973, no objection or protest was raised by them against the principles for determina tion of seniority laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.The Controller of Rationing informed writ petitioners 1 to 3 in December 1973 itself that the representations stood rejected since the seniority and rank assigned to them in the provisional Gradation List were in strict conformity with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.Eventhere after, the petitioners did not wake up and it was only on January 31, 1976 that they approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash the Government Resolution of 1968 and the Gradation Lists of November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975.The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanati on whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of1968.As already indicated by us, the fact that the Government had subsequentl y passed a Resolution dated March l, 1974 directing the regularisation of the temporary appointments of non-P.S.Cs. clerical personnel working in Ministerial posts in the different Government Departments in Greater Bombay, has no relevancy at a ll in this context of dealing with the question of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in taking steps to challenge against the Government Resolution of1968.The inter se seniority between the petitioners and the other personnel regularly absorbed in the BRO who have come over to the BRO as "released Government servants" is not in any way affected by the said Government Resolution of April 1, 1974, inasmuch as it has been expressly made clear therein that the temporary pe rsonnel who are entitled to the benefit of regularisation thereunder were to be assigned seniority only on the basis that regular appointments were effected on the date of issue of the said order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was, th erefore, clearly in error in thinking that the passing of the Government Resolution of 1974 furnished a fresh cause of action for the petitioners for agitating their contentions regarding the invalidity of the Government Resolution of1968.We ar e unable to appreciate the further reason stated by the learned Single Judge, that the respondents had not placed on record any factual data to show the extent of promotions made on the basis of the seniority list of 1972 and the manner in which the promotees would be affected if the relief was granted to the writ petitioners, and the same we find to be is based on a totally incorrect approach. It is to be noticed that there was no dispute before the High Court that from t he date of publication of the provisional list of May 28, 1971, which was expressly based on the principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968, the seniority and rank of all the personnel in concerned categories had been fixed in a ccordance with the principles laid down in the impugned Resolution. In the counter-affidavits filed in the High Court on behalf of the State Government and the Controller of Rationing as well as in the affidavits filed by the other r espondents, it had been specifically averred that innumerable promotions had been made during the period of six years on the basis of seniority as fixed in accordance with the impugned rules and many officers had gone up by two or three sta ges as a result of such promotions. Further, there is the clinching fact that the writ petitioners themselves had impleaded as many as 162 officers as respondents on the ground that they were all likely to be affected in case the re liefs claimed in the writ petition were granted. In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority, rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened b etween the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 22, ]968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have beenn the merits also , we do not find any substance in the attack levelled by the petitioners against the legality and validity of the seniority principles laid down in the impugned Government Resolution of March 22,1968.We shall briefly indicate our reasons for reaching this conclusion. The BRO was a totally new Department which was constituted on March 1, 1966 pursuant to the Government Resolution dated February 11, 1966. Under the said Resolution, it was directed that the staff for manning the new organisation should consist of:(a) the skeleton staff already sanctioned under an earlier Government Resolution dated October 21, 1965 for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with the establi shment of the new organisation (BRO);(d) the existing staff under the Controller of Foodgarins distribution, Bombay, Consisting of 384 posts which were to be merged with a new Bombay Rationin g office (BRO) with effect from March 1, 1956;(c) personnel drawn on deputation from other departments of the State Governments; and(d) persons directly recruited to the BROClause (c) of rule 4 which is the next provision that has been struck down by the High Court merely states that the seniority of Government servants in the cadre of Senior Clerks/Ra tioning Inspectors/Deputy Accountants shall be refixed in accordance with the principles laid down in clauses (a) and (b) of rule4.We have repelled the challenge against clause (a) of rule 4 and no challenge has been raised by th e petitioners before us against clause (b) of the said rule. It must automatically follow that the aforesaid provision contained in clause (c) of rule 4 is perfectly valid and constitutionalThat takes us on to the proviso to rule 7 which i s the only other provision struck down by the High Court. Clause (a) of rule 7 lays down that in the case of Government servants taken into the BRO on release from one and the same office, their seniority inter se in their former office shall be maintained in the BRO. Clause (b) is a similar provision relating to the "merged Government servants" (ex- CFD personnel). Clause (c) of rule 7 lays down that the inter se seniority of persons directly recruited in the former CFD organi sation shall be governed by the principles set out in the Government Resolution dated April l,. It isfurther stated in the said clause that in regard to persons who were taken to the CFD from one and the same Government office/department, they shall take their rank according to their inter se seniority in the office/ department from which they were drawn. Thereafter, follows the impugned proviso which lays down that where there is a clash of principles contained in the Gov ernment Resolution dated April 1, 1963 with the seniority inter se in the former department, the seniority inter se in the former Department shall prevail. The principles for fixation of inter se seniority of personnel working in the CFD ha d been enunciated by the Government in the Resolution dated April 1,. Whathas done under the impugned proviso is only to state that with respect to persons who have been drafted into the CFD organisation from one and the same Government depar tment on deputation basis, their inter se seniority in the former department shall not be disturbed and that to the said extent a deviation should be made from the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated April 1,. Wefail to see how the said direction contained in the impugned proviso for preservation of the inter se seniority of deputationists who have been drawn from one and the same Government department to serve the CFD can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. I t is a just and whole- some principle commonly applied in such situations where persons from other departments are drafted to serve on deputation their inter se seniority in the parent department should be respected and preserved during the period of such deputation to the new, therefore, consider that the High Court was in error in striking down the proviso to rule 7 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of thet now only remains for us to examine whether there is substance in the contention put forward by the writ petitioners that even if the impugned seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated March 22, 1968 are to be regarded as valid, the seniority lists dated No vember 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975 have not been drawn up in accordance with those principles.The first point urged before us is that the effect of clause (b) of rule 7 is to make the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of rule 4 inapplicable t o merged government servants and to direct that the seniority of the merged Government servants should be determined only in accordance with the principles laid down in the Government Resolution dated April 1,This argument is based on a to tal misconception of the scope and effect of rule 7. Whatthat rule provides is only that as between the CFD personnel who have been absorbed in the BRO their inter se seniority reckoned on the basis of the principles contained in the Governm ent Resolution dated April 1, 1963 shall be preserved. In other words, the object and purpose of sub-clause (b) is limited to the preservation and maintenance of the pre-existing inter se seniority as between the CFD personnel even after their absorpt ion in the BRO and the said provision does not in any way hamper the operation of the principles laid down in rule 4 for the fixation of the seniority of all the personnel including the merged Government servants in the respective categories in t he BRO. A careful reading of the provision of clause (c) and the illustrations given thereunder makes this position abundantly clear. The aforesaid contention put forward on behalf of the writ petitioners will, therefore, stand rejectedThere is, however, some substance in the grievance put forward on behalf of the writ petitioners that in drawing up the impugned seniority lists in purported application of the principles laid down in clause (a) rule 4, many persons who were juniors t o the writ petitioners in the category of Supply Inspectors in the CFD have ranked above the petitioners in the category of Inspectors / Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants. There are also instances where persons who were working in the CFD as clerks at the time of the merger and were appointed in the BRO as clerks but have been subsequently promoted in the BRO as Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants have been shown in the gradation list as seniors in relation to the writ petitioners despite the fact that the writ petitioners were all along functioning as Supply Inspectors in the CFD by virtue of their having been recruited to the said cate- gory in thatorganisation.Wedo not find anything i n rule 4 (a) which warrants such an unfair treatment being meted out to persons like the petitioners who were directly recruited as Supply Inspectors in the CFD. Rule 7 clearly lays down that the operation of clause (a) of rule 4 is subject to the lim itation specified therein, namely, that in the case of merged Government servants their inter se seniority will be preserved in tact. Hence, no person who was functioning as a junior in relation to the writ petitioners in the category of Supply Inspe ctors in the CFD can be assigned seniority or rank above the writ-petitioners in the cadre of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants in the BRO. Similarly, no person who has been taken into the BRO as a clerk from the CFD can un der any circumstances be placed above the writ petitioners in the gradation list of Rationing Inspectors/Senior Clerks/Deputy Accountants of theBRO.It isclear from the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that the aforesaid principle has been violated while preparing the two impugned gradation lists dated November 18, 1975 and November 27, 1975. The explanation given in the counter-affidavit for adopting the said course does not appear to us to be acceptable or sound. It was pointed out by the counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) that Exhibit A produced along with the counter-affidavit of the first respondent herein shows that as many as 30 persons, wh o had joined the BRO as Clerks and were subsequently promoted as Rationing Inspectors, have been shown as seniors in relation to the writ petitioners in the gradation list dated November 18, 1975. Similarly, Exhibit B gives the names and par ticulars of persons who were appointed as supply Inspectors in the CFD subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, but who have nevertheless been shown in the impugned gradation list as seniors to the writ petitioners in the corres ponding cadre in theBRO.Wehave already made it clear that on a combined reading of rules 4 and 7 of the impugned seniority rules, the inter se seniority of the CFD personnel has to be strictly maintained in tact, and that no person who was ju nior in the CFD in the category of Supply Inspector can go above his senior in that (Organisation after being absorbed in the BRO, and also that no person who has been taken as a clerk in the BRO can go above persons absorbed therein in the category of Rationing Inspectors.In the light of what we have said above, the impugned seniority lists in so far as they have been drawn up in devitation from the legal position explained above call for immediatee wouldaccordingly dire ct respondents 23 and 24 (State of Maharashtra and the Controller of Rationing, Bombay) to revise the two impugned seniority lists and refix the ranking assigned to the writ petitioners and others in the light of what we have said in this judgmentAfter giving our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by counsel appearing on both sides,