G.S. LAMBA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 22-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
'r-·· 
. 431 
.A 
G.S. LAMBA & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
B 
March !21985 
[D.A; DESAI AND v. KHALID, JJ.] 
,c 
·cons(itution of India, 1950 Articles 14 and 16 
Service-Constitution of-Recruitment from more then one source and 
quota prescribed for each source-Quota rule of recruitment inter linked with 
rota rule of seniority,__iJeviation and departure in implementation of service 
rule-Interference whether artises. 
f!D 
Indian Foreign Service, Branch·•n• (Recruitment, Cadre," Seniority and 
Promotion) Rules 1964, 
Rules 13,21 (4) and 25 (i) (ii) & 2F and 29(a). 
Pro1notees and direct recruits-Fixation of seniorty-Promotees promOted to 
substantive vacancies on temporary 
basis-Continuous officiation whether 
confers advantage of seniority over-later recruits. 
E 
Power of relaxation of statutory 5ervice rules-Fai/Ure to record reasons 
-:Whether quota fixed for direct recruitment catJ be' r"elaxi!d. 
The Indian Foreign Service Branch 'B' was constitued in 
1956~ The 
statutory rules Indian Foreign Service Branch 'B' (Requitment, Cadre, Seniority 
and Promotion) Rules, 1964 came into force from May 6, 1964. 
Commencing 
from the advent of the Rules, recruitment from three sources were made (i) 
direct recruitment on the result of a competitive examination held by the Union 
Public Service Commission, 
(ii) substantive appointment of persons included 
in the selective list promoted on the basis of a limited· c9mpetitive examination 
held by the U.P.S.C. and (iii) Promotion on the basis of seniority. 
Rule 13 provided for recruitment to posts in the integrated Grades II 
and III of the General cadre, and that temporary vacancies shall be filled by 
appointment of persons included in the selec"t list. 
Rule 21 laid down a 
general. provision for fixing of seniority, while sub-rule (4) thereof, prOvided 
that persons promoted or recruited on the basis of an earlier selection or recuit-
roent; shall be senior to those promoted or recruited on the basis of an earlier 
,F 
G 
'H 
B 
'F 
·~G 
.,H 
.>. 
SuPR~Mll COURf R~POR fs 
ti 9~51 3 s c.fL 
selection or recruitment, shall be senior to those promoted or recruited. on the 
basis of a subsequent selection or recruitn1ent. 
Rule 22 to 24 provided for 
seniority inter-se of direct recruits, and seniority inter·se of officers promoted 
to a grade on the recommendations of a departmental promotion committee. 
Rule 25 provided for seniority inter-se of the officers appointed to a grade from 
different sources. 
By a notification dated February 12, 1975, Rule 13 was amended to 
provide that recruitment to the three different sources of integrated Grades 
II and III to be: (i) !/6th of the 
sub~antive vacancies to be filled in by direct 
recruitment, (ii) 33!% of the remaining 5/6 of the vacancies to be filled on 
the basis of results of the limited competitive examination, and (iii) the remai· 
ning vacancies to be filled in by promotion on the basis of seniority. 
The petitioners in the Writ Petitions were selected by the Union Public Ser 
vice Commission according to the merits obtained at the examination of Assis~ 
tants conducted for the purpose for appointment to the post, and ·allocated to 
the _Ministry of External Affairs. 
After the initial constitution of the service in 
.1956, they \\'.!?re offered. an Option whether they would like to join the I.F.S. 
Branch 'B' in grade IV. 
They opted and were inducted into the service. Later, 
they were promoted between 1976 and 1979 ffom grade IV to the- integrated 
grades II and III . 
The Government of India published a seniority list of the 
integrated grades II and III as on June 25, 1979 and before objections taken by 
.the petitioners to the seniority list were dealt with, another seniority list was 
. published on June 30 1983. 
The petitioners assailed· the aforesaid seniority lists as violative of the 
constitutionally guaranteed equality of opportunity in the matter of public 
service in asmuchas direct recruits who crune into the .service long after the 
dePa.rtmental . pre:m~t~s ~ere regularly promoted have been assigned seniority 
over the earlier prornoted departmental promotees. 
It was further contended, 
that the seniority list of June 30, 1983 was objectionable as it leaves blank 
spaces for fliture recruits either as direct recruits or by limited departmental 
. examination and who are yet to come into the service to be placed over promo· 
tees·like,the petitioners _wJ:io were already in service for a

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