A.N. PATHAK AND 5 OTHERS versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 12-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-i 
--- '( 
i 
-
~-
~ 
-I 
A.N. PATHAK AND 5 OTHERS 
v. 
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF 
DEFENCE AND ANOTHER 
FEBRUARY 12, 1987 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
Civil Services-Defence Production (Directorate of Production 
and Inspection, Naval) Group A and Group B Technical Post Recruit-
ment Rules, 1976, clauses JO and 11-Delay in filling direct recruit-
ment posts causes hardship to promotees-Seniority List quashed. 
Promotees-Come into service because they form part of a regular 
cadre-Entitled to benefit of length of service-Authorities to be prompt 
in making direct recruitment-Any delay should not visit promotees 
with adverse consequences. 
The petitioners who are working in the Minist:y of Defence, 
Department of Pro<lnction, challenged the validity of The Defence l'Fo-
duction (Directorate of Production and Inspection, Naval) Group A and 
Group B Technical Post Recruitment Rules, 1976, on the grounds: (i) 
that the Rules discriminate between promotees and direct recruits; (ii) 
that their seniority is not taken into consideration while the seniority list 
is prepared and that the direct recruits are given seniority over them 
undeservedly by virtue of the operation of the method of recruitment 
contained in the rules; (iii) that the seniority lists dated 25.7.77, 3.9.77 
and 7.9.77 prepared according to rules are purely arbitrary and ignore 
their length of service. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents 
contended that the principle of fixing seniority on the basis of length of 
service and dates of confirmation is not an infle:ol>le rule and it is JIOS"'Dle 
in law that a direct recruit who is appointed later in point of time is 
senior to a promotee because of the working out of the quota rule and 
that in certain given cases, seniority based on length of service can be 
ignored. 
Allowing the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1. 1 The grievance of the petitioners is justified in law. 
The rules enabling the authorities to fill in vacancies for direct recruits as 
and when recruitment is made and thereby destroying the chance of 
promotion to those who are already in service cannot but be viewed with 
281 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1987] 2. S.C.R. 
disfavour. H the authorities want to adhere to the rules strictly all that is 
A 
necessary is to be prompt in making the direct recruitment. !287D·El 
1.2 The respondents are directed to redraw the senority lists 
dated 25. 7.77, 3.9.77 and 7.9.77 appended as Annexures C, D and E to 
the writ petition and prepare the list afresh giving the petitioners the 
B 
positions they would have been entitled to, but for the offending por· 
'L 
lions of clauses 10 and 11 in the Schedule to the Rules. l287H; 288A-B] 
r 
c 
2. The manner in which the provision contaiued in columns 10 
and 11 of the Schedule to the Rules works to the detriment of the 
promotees is as follows. The ~1erson who is working as a Senior Tecbni· 
cal Officer must have a minimum service of five years in that grade for 
promotion to the higher post. A direct recruit who joins service much 
later and who does not have the requisite five years service wUI be 
placed above him for promotion. The posts to be filled in by direct 
recruitment are kept vacant and as when recruitment is made, the 
names of direct recruits are inserted at the places reserved for them 
D 
regardless of the fact that there are many others who had put in more 
years of service than they. This method works an additional hardship to 
the promotees in that they wiill not be confirmed though the required 
probation period has been completed by them, only to allow the direct 
recruits to complete their period of probation. The combined operation 
E 
F 
G 
H 
of clause 10 and 11 of the Schedule to the Rules causes a douLle damage 
to the petitioners the promotees and the direct recruits consequently 
have double advantage. 1286C-F] 
3. Delay in making appointments by direct recruitment should 
not visit the promotees with adverse consequences, denying them the 
benefit of their service. [287El 
A. Janardhana v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 769; O.P. 
Sing/a and Anr. v. Union of India and others, (1985] 1 SCR 351; G.S. 
Lamba & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1019; Narender 
Chadha v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 638 and G.K. Dudani and 
Ors. v. S.D. Sharma and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1455, relied upon. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1889 Of 1978. 
(Under Arti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.