MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus A. GEETHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 12-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
A. GEETHA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1997 
B 
(S.C. AGRA WAL AND G.T. NANA VA TI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 Sec. 7 (1)-
C Standing Instructions dt. Dec. 15, 1979-Clauses 9 and 10-Promotion-
Quality Supervisor-Group 'B' Posts in Channel I/I-Direct recruits appointed 
to the posts making Representation to change the channel as more number 
of promotional post available in other channels-Claim Rejected on the 
ground that option to change channel available only at the stage of promotion 
D from Group 'C' to Group 'B' Post-On challenge High Court held that the 
Standing instructions are violative of Constitution-On appeal, Held-Right 
to option conferred only at the stage of promotion from Group C to Group 
B-Sub-clauses (I) to (4) of Clause JO of Standing Instructions to be read 
as part of the Scheme-Standing Instructions do not suffer from vice of 
di.<crfmination--Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 14. 
E 
The appellant-Authority was established under the provisions of Marine 
Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972. The service conditions of 
the employees were governed by Standing Instructions dated Dec. 15, 1979. 
The respondents were appointed as Quality Supervisors in Group B Category 
F by direct recruitment. Clause 10 of the Standing Instructions provides the 
channel of Promotion. The post of Quality Supervisor falls in Channel III 
where there were two promotional posts of Asstt. Directors while such 
promotional posts were more in number in other channels. Therefore, the 
respondents made a representation for exercising option to change their 
channel. The representation was rejected by the Executive Committee on the 
G ground that under sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Clause 10 of the Standing 
Instructions tht> right to choose option was available only at the stage when a 
person was promoted from Group C to Group B posts but no such right was 
available at the stage of promotion from Group B to Group A, when the 
employees had already been appointed in a particular channel. Aggrieved by 
H the decision of the Executive Committee, the respondent-employees filed a writ 
104 
-
MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. A. GEETHA 
105 
petition before the High Court The Single Judge of High Court while allowing A 
the petition held that the channel system of promotion laid down by Standing 
Instructions was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeal of the 
Authority was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court Hence the 
present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant was that the right to exercise the option B 
for the channel was available to employees falling in Group C who would be 
promoted to Group B, and for the purpose of such promotion they could 
exercise their option for the channel in which they want to be considered for 
promotion to a Group B Post. It was also contended that sub-clauses (2) and 
(3) of clause 10 were to be read together and, if so read, the said clauses C 
would mean that the right of option was available only to employees referred 
to in sub-clause (3) and there was no independent right of option given to 
employees other than those referred to in sub-clause (3). 
The contention of the respondents was that the High Court had rightly 
construed sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Clause 10 of the Standing Instructions D 
to mean that under sub-clause (2) a general right had been conferred on all 
employees while under sub-clauses (3) a special provision was made with 
regard to employees who were working on the posts in the pay scale of 425-
700. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. The conferment of right to exercise the option in respect of 
the channel of promotion under clause 10 of the Standing Instructions does 
not suffer from the vice of discrimination. [113-D) 
2.1. Under clause 10 of the Standing Instructions, which deals with the 
"channel of promotion'', the right to option has been conferred only at the F 
stage of promotion from Group C to Group B. Therefore, it cannot be said 
that the respondents who were holding posts in Group B, having been directly 
appointed on the post of Quality Supervisor, can exercise the right of option 
after they have already been appointed on a post in a particular channel. 
• 
[111-D-EJ G 
2.2. A person who is promoted from a post in Group C to a post in Group 
B has been given the right to exercise the

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