BIHAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION versus KAPILDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 10-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BIHAR STATE SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES FIELD OFFICERS' 
A 
ASSOCIATION 
11. 
KAPILDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
MAY 10, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Bihar Industries Service Cadre Rules, 1987-Rules 3 to 15, Schedules C 
I to IV-Employees in group Bin Scale of Rs. 940-1660 and in group C 
in Scale of Rs. 880-15 JO in Schedule IV belonging to the non-gazetted 
category grouped together with Group A gazetted officers in Schedule IV in 
scale of Rs. 880-1510 for promotion as Manager etc. in the scale of Rs. 
1000-1820-Rationality of-Held, once the officers in group B were getting D 
a higher scale than those in group A, and group C officers were on a scale 
equivalent to that of group A officers and if Government felt that they should 
be brought into the feeder group, the same could not be treated as irrational 
or violative of Articles 14 and 16(/)-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 
14, 16(/). 
E 
Words and Phrases-Rule I J(a)-'Just be/ow'-Jnterpretation of 
The State of Bihar issued the Bihar Industries Service Cadre Rules, 
1987 stipulating in Schedule IV the list of officers in 'Subordinate Service' 
eligible for 'promotion' to the post of Manager/ Assistant Director. By the F 
said Rules, non-gazetted category of officers viz. field employees and statistics 
employees of senior scales were included along with the gazetted categories, 
for promotion to the post of Manager/Assistant-Director. 
Aggrieved by the inclusion of the field employees in the promotional 
channel, the gazetted category of employees filed a writ petition in the High G 
Court. Single Judge of the High Court struck down the relevant rule not only 
in so far as the filed employees were concerned but also in relation to statistics 
employees. The Industrial Department Statistical Employees Association, 
therefore, filed an LP A wherein it was clarified b} a Division Bench of High 
Court that the judgment of the Single Judge would not affect the statistics 
185 
fl 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A employees. But this order was not noticed by the Division Bench which 
disposed of the LPA filed by the Bihar State Subordinate Industries Field 
Officers' Association against the judgment of the Single Judge, wherein the 
Division Bench affirmed the entire judgment of the Single Judge. Hence~ the 
Statistics Employees as well as the field employees preferred the present 
B appeals which were heard together. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that such grouping of 
officers was not violative of Articl.e 14 when it was substantiated by the State 
that t~ere were good reasons for doing so. 
C 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: I. The grouping tog:ether of employees in Group 8 in scale of 
Rs. 940-1660 and in Group C in scale of Rs. 880-1510 in Schedule IV 
belonging to the non-gazetted category with Group A gazetted officers in 
Schedule IV in scale of Rs. 880-1510 for promotion as Manager etc. in the 
D scale of Rs. 1000-1820 is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the 
Constitution. There may be varied reasons or situations or considerations 
that may be the basis for a decisio111 by Government in clubbing two groups 
together to improve the chances of promotion, even though one was a feeder 
channel for the other. One was that those in senior scale in Group 8 were 
E drawing higher scales than Group A. Those in higher scale in Group C were 
drawing same scale as Group A. Once these officers in Group 8 were getting 
a higher scale than those in Group A, and if Government felt they should be 
brought into the feeder group, the same could not be treated as irrational. 
Similarly, on the same considerations, Group C officers drawing Rs. 880-
1510, which was a scale equivalent to the scale of Group A officers, were also 
F included in the feeder category, this could not by itself be treated as irrational 
One other important consideration, was that among Managers, it was felt that 
there must be more persons having experience in Extension posts and 
Statistical/ Investigator posts in the group 8 and C categories. Those who 
might have reached through an intermediate post, if any, were not found 
G sufficient, even assuming that those from 8 and C groups could have first 
gone to Group A and then as Managers. The promotion quota could go beyond 
SOo/e to 75% if suitable persons were available. These considerations cannot 
be ignored nor characterised as irrational. [191-F; 194-F-G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.