LexDEBRAJAN RAY & ORS. versus COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r DEBRAJAN RAY & ORS. v. COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF IN.PIA AND ORS. November 13, 1984 (R. S. PATIIAK AND V. BALAKRISHNA flRADI, JJ.] 45 Administrative La~Schemeframed by office of Accountant General, JVest Bengal by Office Order No. T'ft.f 96 dated June 8, 1966 for promoting Upper Divi· sion Clerks who had not passed Subordinate Accounts Service Exiimination- Whether violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of ·the Constitution-Held-N<>-Scheme up- held. At one time all holders of supcrvisC'ry posts in the office of the Accoun- tant General, West Bengal were required to pass 1he Subordinate Accounts Service Examination before crossing the age of 45 years. Jn 1966. for improving the working of the office of the Civil Accountants General. a scheme was framed by an Office Order, No. T?vl 96 dated June 8. 1966. ,The scheme provided that passing the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination would not be a neceSsary qualification for holding: supervisory posts where the work inv0Ived was entirJy of an accounting..cum-administrative nature and the knowledge of rules and accounts of a very high standafd was ·not required. To be eligible for promotions the Upper Division Clerks and Se'ection Grade Clerks should have put in not Jess than 20 years of service in the Upper Division Clerical Cadre and should have exhrr.usted all chances of appearing in the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination or by reason of being over 45 years of age were no longer eligiblo to appear at the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination. The appointments \\'ere temporary and the appointees were not eligible for further piomotion. A number of appointment'i were made under the scheme. The appellants challen- ged the appointments on the ground that in confining .J.he zone of eligibility to Upper Division Clerks who had not passed the Subordio'ate Accounts Service Examination the scheme brought about an invidious discrimination which was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A single Judge of the lUgh Court quashed the scheme. An appeal filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India was allowed by a Division . Bench of the High Court. Hence thh appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal7 JIELD : The scheme was intended to provide a separate avenue of pro· motion for those Upper Division Clerks who had put in 20 years of service or A :B c 'D E F -, G wore in their 1;adre and ·who bad exhausted all their chances of appearing at the H B / c n· E F G 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 S.C.R Su'Jordinate Accounts Service Examination for promotion to supervisory p. »t2, or who having crossed the age of 45 years, were no ]anger eligibJi: to arpea• ~·t the Examination. These indicia distinguished that category of Upper Divb1.; .. Clerks from others. If the scheme had been thrown open to Upper Division Clerks who still enjoyed the possibility of recruitment to the Subordinate Accounts Service, the intent underlying the scheme would have been d~feated. Tb.: appellants, although senior in length of sertice to the respondents promoted under the scheme, were still eligible to appear in the Subordinate Account Ser- vice E~amination and the opportunity of advancement in their regular promo- tional channel was ~till available to them. ·Those promoted under the scheme were not entitled to further promotion to anY higher post. The impugned scheme follow! a clearly defined classification ha .. ·iag a reasonable nexus to the object of - the classification. Those who fall oiitside the scheme cannot complain of discri- mination, for intel1igible differentia exist between those included within the sch:me and those outside it. The framing and implementation of such a scheme falh within the scope of administrative policy, and having regard to the object underlying the scheme as well as its careful definition there is no basi5 for com· plaint by the appellants. (48 H; 49 A·Fl ·· ' Stcfte ·of Jammu and Ka1hmir v." 'Trllokl Nath Khosa and Ors., [197411 S.C.R~ 771, not relevant. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeal No. 1033 of 1979. , ·. Appeal by Specialleave from,theJudgment and Order dated the 6th' July, 1978 of the CaJCutta High Court' i~ Appeal from Original Order No. 497 of 1970. RX. Garg, V. J. Francis and N.M. Popli for the Appellant. Har bans Lal, R.N. Poddar and C. V.S. Rao for the Respondent. Th.e Judgment of the Court was delivered _by PATHAK, J. This appeal by special l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.