LexDWARKA PRASAD AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DWARKA PRASAD AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. JULY 28, 2003 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARJ, JJ.] Service law: Department of Revenue (Customs Appraisers Recruitment) Rules, 1988- C Promotion to the post of Appraiser Group 'B '-Fixation of 20% quota for Preventive Officers and 75% for Examining Officers - POs pleading that lower quota fixed as compared to EOs, thus fixation arbitrary and discriminatory hence violative of Articles, 14 and 16--0n appeal held: There is no legal or constitutional infirmity in the lower quota fixed for POs as compared to EOs for the post of Appraiser-In law the right to be considered D for promotion on fair and equal basis may be claimed as a legal and a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 but not chances of promotion- Further Articles 14 and 16 cannot be pressed into service to describe the fixation of lower quota for POs as discriminatory-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. E Appellants were appointed as Preventive Officers-POs (Grade I) in Central Services Grade 'C' (non-gazetted). Department of Revenue (Customs Appraisers Recruitment) Rules, 1988 framed under the Constitution, fixed 75% quota for Examining Officers (EO) and 20% quota for POs to the promotion post of Appraiser. Appellants challenged the quota fixed as it was F much lower as compared to the quota fixed in favour of EOs. Tribunal rejected the same. Hence the present appeals. Appellant contended that fixation of 20% quota for promotion of POs is not proportionate to their cadre strength; that fixation of such small quota as compared to 75% for EOs is arbitrary and discriminatory hence violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; that in normal course POs would be G taking fifteen years for promotion to Grade 'D' cadre whereas EOs would take fi\'e years which is creating huge imbalance; that by upgradation of POs to the post of Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) in the years 1996-97 broadly though not strictly, parity has been achieved in the matter of chances of promotion of EOs and POs but that would have beneficial effect only H 784 DWARKAPRASADv. U.O.L 785 prospectively; that upgradation of POs posts shou.ld be made operative A retrospectively; and that although below Group 'B' post EOs and POs constitute two different cadres but once they are promoted to Group 'B' post either as Superintendent (Customs) in the line of POs or Appraisers in the joint channel available to POs and EOs, for the purposes of next higher promotion of Group A, they again join in one feeder post, thus the holders of two posts of POs and EOs deserve just and similar treatment. B Respondent-Union of India contended that although POs and EOs have been recruited through common competitive examination, the functions and nature of work are distinct; that conscious decision has been taken to provide only 20% quota to POs for the post of Appraiser, an ex-cadre post for them because they have 100% quota for the post of Superintendent (Customs) C Group 'B' in their own channel; and that in the ex-cadre post of Appraiser if their quota is further increased above 20% they would make an inroad into the chances of EOs. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. There is no legal or constitutional infirmity in the lower quota D fixed for POs as compared to EOs forthe post of Appraiser Group 'B'. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service by describing the fixation of lower quota for POs as discriminatory. It is well established in law that the right to be considered for promotion on fair and equal basis without discrimination may be claimed as a legal and a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but chances of promotion as such cannot E be claimed as of right. [796-D; 796-A-BI All India Federation of Central Excise v. UOI, [199711 SCC 520, distinguished. Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1974) SC p 259, relied on. 2. Fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly pertaining to policy making field. The relevant considerations in fixing a G particular quota for a particular post are the cadre strength in the feeder quota, suitability of the holders in the feeder post, their nature of duties, experi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.