A. K. SUBRAMAN & ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 11-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
979 
A. K. SUBRAMAN & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
December 11, 197 4 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, P. N. BHAGWATI AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.J 
Civil Servic~mlority, wMther to follow length .of strvice or eonflmration 
-Quota rule whether implies rotational formula-Whether vacancies means 
1•acancie• in permalftnt posts ""'Y or it indudes vacandes in temporary posts 
lllso.-Memorandum of Home Ministry dated 22-6-11149 
and 
22-12-1959-
Mem11ra11dum 11/ Ministry of Works, Housin~ and Supply dated 8-12-1960 .. 
Disti11cti011 between promo/ion and confirmation. 
For recruitment through two sources whether quota is inte.rdependent or 
1:~dependent-Constitutio11 Article 11(3)-Ef}ect of Memorandum issued by 
Mr'nistry other than one empowered under Al/dcation of Bual1ieS1J Rules. 
'The petitioners who were Assistant Engineers (Class Il) were promoted to 
ofticiatc as Exe:;utive Engineer!! in Clas!! I Central Engineering Semce by a 
propedy oonstituted Departmental Promotion Committee. Respondents 4 to 
'6 we.-e initially recruited as Assistant Executive Engineers Clas9 I and wero 
promlltc'..1 to the grade ot Executive Engineer. The vacancies in the grado 
of Bx.eOl.'.tiVe Engineer can only be filled by promotion trom the aforesaid two 
:radei in the ratio of 75% and 25%. The relevant mle reads as under:-
"75 per cent of the vacancies. in the grade of Executive Engineer, Clasa I, 
shall be filled by promotion of Assistant Executive Engineers Oas'! I, the 
reit of the vacancies being filled by promotion and or by transfer in accordance 
with paru 4 and. 5 of the rules respectively". 
There are no statutory seniority rules. The petitioner1 were sohown u junior 
tct reipomlents No. 4 to 66 and they were not considered for promotion to the 
llilber post of Superintending Engineer, although they have been· Executive 
llngincers for loneer period, br fbllowing the- quota rule at the. itagc of 
cGnfirmation. · 
The ,petitioner> contended that their seniority should be determined 
in 
accordance wi1l the Home Ministry's MemOl'lllldum dated 22-6-1949. i.e., the 
lcD&lh of iervice put in by them in the grade of Excrotive Engineer. 
F 
It was contmded on behalf Df the re11pondcnu. 
(1) Jn the quota rule there is an implied rotation&! system by which only 
at the time of confirmation of the petitioners as Executive Engineers the 
1cniority may, be fixed in ~ 
with the quota. 
(2) Reliance was also placed ·on the Office Memorandum dated S-12-1960 
iSiued by the Miiiistry of . Works, Housing and Supply . according to which 
confirmation was t. bo made by applyin1 rotational method in workini out 
G 
the quota rule. 
(3) Vacancies .in quota role means only vacancie1 in permanent poati. 
( 4) Quota rule applies et the stage ot confirmation and the seniority would 
9c relatablc to confirmation. 
· 
(5) One third quot& cannot be filled in until and unleis two third quota 
is available and filled in. 
H 
(6) Since the pctitiooera .had their lien in 0111 II po11ta I.my cannot be 
expected to belon1 to 2 lfadcl at tho r:une time. 
(7) Memorandum dated 22-6-1949 hu no application Unai it wat ioued 
ia •rd« to safesuard the inlllrei;ts of thG displaced government &ervant1. 
988 
SUPREM! COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.1.. 
HELD: 
( 1) When :recruitment 
j5 !rom two 0r several sources there is ao 
inherent invalidity in introduction of· quota aystem and to work. it out by a 
rule of rotation. The existence of a quota and rotation~ I rule by itsell will 
not violate Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution. [993 El 
Mervin Coutinhd and Govind Dattatr.aya Ktlkar cases referred to. 
A 
It is the unreasonable implementation of the s.1me which may in a £iven ca,. 
attract the frown of the equality clause. [993 E-F] 
B 
(2) The Memor3ndum dated 8-12-1960 issued by the Ministry of WorkJ, 
Housing and Supply ha~ not emanated from the Home Ministry which i• the 
•ppropriate department for issuing instructions in service matters under Alloca-
tion of Busine!s Rules of the Central Government frame<! under Article 77 (3) 
of the Constitution. The said Memorandum also refers to a notification dated 
22-11-1960 of the Home Ministry which bas not been produced. The ~aid 
Memorandum, therefore. cannot be availed of. The High Court wrongly relied 
upon the Mem1)randum dated 8-12-1960. [987 B-D} 
C 
(3) Words "vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer" include b•JtA 
va::ancies in the permanent posts as well as in temporary post! since the c:,idr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.