N. S. MEHTA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 664 · Decided: 20-04-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
664 
N. S. MEHTA & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
April 20, 1977 
[M. H. BEG,.C.J., A. C. '1VPTA AND P. S. KAILASA'.1, JJ.] 
Seniority-1-Yliether the decision in Union of India v. M. R«~'i Vermcr &: 
Ors, etc. (1972) 2 S.C.R. 992 contained an invariable nzechanicc..l rule of senio-
rity applicable to all classes of services so t!tat nothing beyond length o/ sen11ce 
in a particular t::rade could determine seniority-Central Secretariat Sen1ice 
Rules, 1962, Rule 17-Whether placing those who have passed tht type1vrili11g 
test lvitlzin t1vo years of the fixed date in separate category for the purpose of 
pro1notion violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 
Under the scheme which culminated in the promulgation of the 
Central 
Secretariat Clerical Service Rules, 1962 (effective from 1-5-1954), it was pro· 
vided that those officers who were otherwise eligible for confirmation in the 
services at the initial constitution should also pass a typewriting test to be held 
by the Union Public Service Commission within a period of two years from 
1-5-1956. 
The names of the petitioners who had not passed the typewriting 
test did not figure in the gradation list dated 7-2-1972 prepa1ed for making pro~ 
motions to the next grade of Assistants. The petitioners. challenged the orders 
on several grounds, namely, (i) The principle of seniority contained in the 
IVIinistry of Home Affairs' O.M. dated 22-6-1949 as interpreted by this 0Jurt 
in 1972 (2) SCR 992 had not been applied to them; (ii) The impugned list 
was formulated in an arbitrary fashion; (iii) Their seniority must date back 
to their dates of promotion as Upper Division Clerks; and (iv) Rule 17 of 
Central Secretariat Clerical Service Rules, 1962 being inconsistent with C~.M. 
dated 22-6-1949 and 22-2-1959 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
The respondent raised three objections to the petitioners' case in their returns, 
namely, (i) There was a reasonable criterion for the difference made bet~reen 
the cases of the petitioners and those placed on the itnpugned list of 7-2-1972 
who are above the petitioners because they have passed the prescribed ~ype­
writing test so that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution could not be saijd 
to have been violated in this case whatevcrelse may have been infringed; (ii) 
The petitioners not having assailed the order of confirmation of the scheme: on 
1-5-1958 prescribing a reasonable ground for distinction between the clasi1 of 
cases in which typewriting tests have been passed 
to which the contes,ting 
respondents in the impugned list below and the class of the petitioners which 
had not passed the test. the petitionern could not challenge the impugned 
scheme of 1972 at all; (iii) A number of persons have been promoted and put 
above the petitioners since 1962 acting under the scheme providing the type-
writing test so that there was inonfinate delay in filing the· petition. 11nder Art. 32 
of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court, 
HELD: (1) The alleged violation of the rule of seniority according 
to; 
length of service was not decisive even according to the Ministry of Home 
Affairs' o·.M. dated 22~6-1949. This memorandum shov1s that it \Vas Dnly 
directory laying down a general rule of seniority which was presumably subject 
to other exceptional factors which could also be taken into account. 
[666 A I 
P. C. Sethi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1975) 3 S.C.R. 21, follo\¥ed. 
(2) A rule prescribing a typing test cannot be said to be unconnected with 
the duties of clerks who desire a promotion to the next grade. 
A discrirrtina-
tion made on such a ground could not violate ArticJes 14 and 16 of the <:on· 
stitution \Vhateverelse it may be said to, violate. 
[668 E] 
(3) A violation of statutory or other kind of rule in a particular case 
cannot amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There 
may also be cases in \Vhich a rule made is ultra vires for unreasonablen~s or 
, 
N. S. MEHTA V. UNION (Beg, C.J.) 
665 
on any other ground and should not be deemed to exist. In such a: case, if the 
rule is enforced it may on the facts of the particular case amount to a violation 
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution also. 
The petitioners' case is not 
such a case at all. [668 E-F] 
(4) The principles laid down by this Court in Joginder Nath and Ors. v. 
Union of India & Ors. [1976] (2) S.C.R. 553 and in Amrit Lal Berry v. Collec

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