GOVIND DATTATRAY KELKAR & ORS. versus CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPORTS & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 01-11-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GOVIND DATTATRAY KELKAR & ORS. 
v. 
CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS & EXPOR1:S 
& ORS. 
November I, 1966 
(K. SUBBA RAo C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. S!KRI, 
R. S. BACHAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 
1950, Arts. 14 and 16(1)-Promotees and 
direct recruits-Fixation of seniority between--Constitutional validity. 
On 30th November 1955, the Assistant 
Controllers in the 
Import 
aAd Export Organisation of the Government of India consisted of 47 
officers appointed before !st January 1952 and 76 departmental pro-
motees appointed between !st January 1952 and 30th November 1955, 
all the appointments having been made on an ad /we basis. 
The Union 
Public Service Commission objected to the appointments. After some 
correspondence the Government decided that the appointments made be-
fore !st January 1952, should be regularised and that after that 
date, 
there should be 75% direct recruits and 25% departmental promotees. 
Pursuant to that agreement the Union Public Service Commi"ision called 
for applications and 57 (75% of 76) Assistant Controllers were selected 
and appointed by 
direct 
recruitment. The 
Departmental 
PrQmotion 
Committee considered the cases of those who were already working as 
Assistant Controllers and selected 25 officers out of whom 19 (25% of 
76) were appointed. 
In November 1961. a seniority list of 
Assistant 
Controllers was prepared in which the 19 promotees' were placed above 
tb.e direct recruits, and later appointees were arranged on the principle of 
rotation in the ratio 25 : 75. The effect of that list was to o1ace the 
petitioners (some of whom were working as Assistant Controllers even 
before the 57 direct recruits were appointed) after the aforesaid 123 (47 
plus 76) appointees. They challenged the list on the following grounds:-
(I) The petitioners were promoted before the new 57 appointments 
were made. subject to the condition that, they were 
approved 
by the 
Union Public :Service Commission and that, therefore, the direct recruits 
could not be placed over them; (2) the ratio of 1 : 3 was embodied in the 
recruitment rules made, by the Government of India under Art. 309 of 
tlle Constitution only in 1962, and as the rules were not retrospective, 
the seniority list was without any authority of law and was violative of 
Arts. 14 and 16; (3) the ratio was arbitrary and violative of Art. 14; (4) 
prior to November 1955, there was only one source of recruitment, name-
ly by departmental promotion, to the cadre of Assistant Controllers, and 
therefore, the decision to relate back the seniority of the direct recruits to 
the period between !st January 1952 and 30th November 1955, was bas-
ed on reservation for those who were not then in existence, and amounted 
to carrying forward of vacancies which was unconstitutional. 
HELD : (I) The petitioners were promoted under orders which stated 
that their appointments were made 
on an ad interim 
basis 
pending 
selection of the officers by the. Union Public Service Commission. 
In 
the context in which the 
petitioners were 
appointed, it was not 
the 
intention of the Government that they were to be appointed subject to 
the 
approval of the Union Public Service Commission. The inteb.tion 
• 
JO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1967] 2 S.C.R. 
of the Government on the contrary was that as the. selection to the posts 
A 
was impending through the usual channel of the Union Public Service 
Commission from all sources of recruitment, the petitioners should only 
be promoted on an ad hoc basis." Therefore. the petitioners had no right 
to the posts of Assistant Controllers. [35 B-E] 
(2) (a) The recruitment to the 76 posts was made from two sources 
with different qualifications, namely, (i) by promotion from the subordi-
nate staff and (ii) by direct recruitment. 
Since the preferential treatment 
of one source was based on the differences between the two sources and 
the differences have a reasonable relation to the nature of the office to 
which recruitment was made. the said recruitment could legitimately be 
sustained on the basis of a valid classification. 
[33 H; 35 HJ 
(b) Where the recruitment to a cadre was from two sources. a rota-
tional system would not violate, the principle of equal opportunity en-
shrined in Art. 16(1). [36 A-BJ 
Mervyn Coutinho v. Th, Collector of Customs, Bombay, [1966] 3 
S.C.R. 600, followed. 
c 
(3) When the recruitment to certain posts is from 
different sources, 
what

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