DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 15 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 26-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 194 
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS 
v. 
UNtON OF INDIA & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2485-2490 of 2010) 
MARCH 26, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.J 
Service Law- Inter se seniority- Promotion - Customs 
and Central Excise Department - A separate cadre was 
C constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for 
discharging electronic data processing responsibilities -
After the computerization project was fully implemented, the 
separate cadre so created, was sought to be re-amalgamated 
with the existing ministerial cadre - The bifurcation and re-
D amalgamation, resulted in a co-incidental career 
advancement, for those who had accepted to break away from 
the original ministerial cadre - Controversy on account of 
reconstitution of cadres -
Seniority dispute amongst 
employees - Held: Chances of promotion do not constitute 
E a condition of service - In that view of the matter, the High 
Court erred in recording its eventual determination on the 
basis of the fact that the promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003 
and the STA Rules, 2003 was discriminatory and arbitrary 
with regard to the fixation of the inter se seniority, since the 
F same seriously prejudiced the chances of promotion of the 
erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre, namely, those 
members of the original ministerial cadre, who had not opted 
for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry 
Operators, with reference to and in comparison with, those 
G members of the original ministerial cadre who had opted for 
appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry 
Operators- On facts, consequent upon the merger of posts, 
upon promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003, and the STA Rules, 
2003, the nature and duties of the two cadres were combined 
H - There was no serious difference between the two merged 
194 
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF 
195 
INDIA & OTHERS 
cadres, either on the issue of nature of duties, or on the 
A 
subject of powers exercised by the officers holding the post, 
or the extent of territorial or other charge held, or 
responsibilities discharged by them, or for that matter, the 
qualifications prescribed for the posts - On account of the 
aforesaid, the merger of the cadres, and the determination 
B 
of the inter se seniority on merger, were justifiably determined, 
on the basis of the different pay-scales of the cadres merged, 
under the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003 - By the 
mandate of the above Rules, all posts in equivalent pay-
scales were placed at the same level - Posts in the higher c 
scale of pay, were given superiority on the subject of inter se 
seniority, with reference to posts in the lower scale of pay-
The above determination, at the hands of the rule framing 
authority, cannot be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory 
- The provisions of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 D 
of the STA Rules, 2003, cannot be faulted on the touchstone 
of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution -Appeals filed by those 
who moved to the cadre of Data Entry Operators from the 
ministerial cadre, and were thereupon amalgamated in the 
cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants, allowed -
E 
Authorities to give effect to Rules 4 and 5 of the TA Rules, 
2003 and the STA Rules, 2003, respectively, without any 
further delay-: Central Excise and Customs Department Tax 
Assistant (Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (TA 
Rules, 2003) - Central Excise and Customs Department F 
Senior Tax Assistant (Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 
(STA Rules, 2003)-Constitutionoflndia, 1950-Arts. 14and 16. 
Service Law - Promotion - Chances of promotion -
Held: Chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of 
service, and as such, mere alteration of chances of G 
promotion, would not per se calf for judicial interference -
However, the above general proposition would not be 
applicable, in case the chances of promotion are altered 
arbitrarily, or on the basis of considerations which are shown 
to be perverse ormala fide. 
H 
196 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 
Om Prakash Sharma v. Union of India (1985) 
Suppl. SCC 218- held inapplicable. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant 
Kulkarni & Ors. (1981) 4SCC130: [1982) 1 SCR 
665 ; Palaru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of 
. India & Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 541 : [1989) 2 SCR 
92; Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & 
Ors. (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 575: [1992) 3 Suppl. 
SCR 180 ; S.S. Bo

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