LexBHAGWAN DAS AND OTHERS versus INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
10.64
:\
BHAGW AN DAS AND OTHERS
v.
B
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ·
c
D
E
F
G,
H
A.ND OTHERS
April 30, 1985
[R.S. PATHAK AND V. K!!AUD, JJ.j
Constitution of India 1950, Article 14 and 16,
l.C.A.R.-Senlority first of Asslstants-Promotees and direct recrul,~s
Placement in List Promotees contending violation of guarantee of equality-Satis-
factory proof of date of appointment in grade-Necessity of.
/
The 39 petitioners in the writ petition were promotees to the post of
Assistant in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research-first respondent. The
second respondent was the Union of India and respon('ent Nos.·3 to 31 were
direct recruits to the same post. Respondent Nos. 32 to 88 were also promotees
and impleaded as proforma respondents. The petitioners contended that they
belonged to the service of the Central Secretariat. (Department of Agriculture)
and the Society was a part of that Department till 1.4.1965 on which dat€~ the
Governrilent of India de~ided to re~organise the society into a fully autooon1ous
organisa_tion with its own Secretariat. The petitioners opted to join the Fervice
in the Society on such reaorganisation. Respondent Nos. 3 to 31 Were directly
recruited after an open competitive test. The seniority list was prepared by the
Society in 1976 showing the relative positions of the promotees and the dfrect.
recruits. A second seniority list was published by the Society on 7.4.198·1 and
this list brought changes in the earlier list and pushed down the promotees from.
the positiops they occupied in that list. The petitioners contended that this
seniority list should be quashed on the ground that it violated Artic1e 14 and i6
of the Constitution, as recruitment rules layin~ down· the terms of.servict:s in
the Society were not available seniority had to be fixed on length of service.
They were also entitled to seniority on the basis of the length of their service
from the' date· of they came into the Society by virtue of the option. The case of
the contesting respondents was that seniority has to be fixed not with reference
to the reorganisation of the Society but on _the date of their appointment oo a
regular basis, and that the petitioners bad to establish that they were duly
appointed in the service on a regular basiS when they exercised their option.
Pismi$Sin' the Writ feti~ion~
y
BIJAGWAN DAS v. COUNCIL AGR!CUL1URAL RESBARCll
1065
HELD : t. In the absence of satisfactory proof of the date of ?.PPOint-
ment of the petitioners in the grade as assistants in ·the Society ~he petiiiOne~s
cannot successfully urge violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Consti:ution. -Nri
great· injt.istice was done to the promo tees in the preparation of the tist. Goem,s
through the list. one finds that the gap between the prornotees and the direct
reci:uits is Of a very. short duration .-and not wide as in other cases.
Piirec~
recruitment was made first only \967. However, to work out the quota
sj.rSt~m
an earlier date of apr.ointroent bad to be. given to the direct recruits. Thi$
could not be avoided. This has not done great injustice to the petitioners. This
dislocation was limited ~nly to a period between 1965 to 1967 and 196710 1971
and not a fairly long period of time. [1073 C·El
2.
The memoi'andUm Annexure-4 dated 20th April, 1970 clearly states
that the principles to determine the inter-se seniority of the ministerial staff in
~ the reorganised Council was considered by the Society and that it was decided
'\that the seniority of the Ministerial ~taff would be fix~d on the basis. ~f
11date of
'appointment made on a regular basis." The contention of the petitioners that
seniority has to be fixed with reference to the date on which optiOn was exer-
cised by them, has no basis. [1069D·El
3. Direct recruitmerit to the post or Assistants in the Society was made
holding competitive examination in 1967 and 1971. Upper Division Clerks, like
the petitioners who· were-Working with the Agricultural Department, could very
well have appeared for this competitive examination and goi themselves direct1Y.;
recruited as Assi~tants on successfully pai:;sing the competitive examination.
Some of the petitioners in fact appeared for the competitive test without success.
1
Those who were successful at the competitive examination aod the interview'
were offered the post of Assistant by regular appoi otment. [1069F .. l--l]
4. Relying on Anncxure.4-MemoranduExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.