P. C. SETHI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 17-01-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
·C 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. C. SETHI & ORS. 
v. 
·UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
· January 17, 1975 
[M. H. BEG, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P .. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
201 
Constitution of India, Art. 16-Civil Service-Ctntral Secretariat Service (Re· 
organisation and Reinforcement) Scheme-Home Ministry circular dated 22nd 
June, 1949-Whether subsequent direct 
recruits can supersede tliose who . are 
absorbed in service earlier-Delay and /aches. 
. . 
Petitioners are Assistants in Grade IV Class II of the Central Secretariat 
Service. Petitioners were appointed as Assistants during the period 1944-54. The 
respondent Union of India appointed a large number of persons as Assistants by 
direct recri.itment and many of those appointed after the petitioners have been 
confirmed in the grade and have since been promoted to the next higher grade of 
Section Officer. In 1948, the Government framed a Scheme known as the Cen-
tral Secretariat Service (Reorganisation & Reinforcement) Scheme. Thereafter· 
instructions for the initial constitution of the Assistants Grade were issued In 
March, 1949. Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued Office Memoran-
dum dated June 22, 1949, dealing with ti:~ qu.estion of seniority. Para 2 of the 
office memorandum provided that the rule of seniority on the basis of length of 
service should be takeq as a model in framing the rules of seniority for other Ser-
vices. The main question to be determined in the present petition is whether the 
office memorandum of June, 1949 is applicable in determining seniority of the 
petitioners.· . 
· 
'· 
HELD·. Office Memorandum of June 22, 1949 is no bar to the Government 
making separate provision for the mode of constitution and future maintenance 
of the service of Assistants. The classification made in the instructions cannot be 
characterised as unreasonable. There is no discrimination amongst equals nor 
any arbitrary exercise of powers by the Government. In the abse~e of any sta-
tutory rules prior to the Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962 it was open to 
G,overnment in exerc.ise .of its executive .PO'Yer to issue ad~inistrative instructio'!s 
with regard to constitution and reorganisation of the. Service· as long as there IS 
no violation of ArtS. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The instructions of the Gov-
ernment issued from time to time do not violate any fundamental rights of the 
petitioners. In the present petition, the Civil List of 1962 has not been challenged 
as invalid. Only office Memorandum of 1971 is challenged. The said Memoran· 
dum of 1971 is based on the civil list of 1962. The validity of which is not speci-
fically challenged in the petition. There is no infirmity in the Memorandum of 
1971 simply because it is not in conformity with the Memorandum of 22-6-1949. 
[207H; 208B-EJ 
HELD FURTHER : Once the temporary Assistants have been absorbed in the 
Service after they are found to be eligible in accordance with the instructions their 
claim for seniority cannot be superseded by the direct recruitment if appointed 
after the farmer's absorption in the service. It appears that the quota of direct · 
recruitment was not enforced and perhaps for good reasons. Administrative in· 
structions if not carried into effect for obvious and good reasons cannot confer a 
right upon entrants on later recruitment to supersede the claims of others already 
absorbed in the service in. accordance with the appropriate and valid instruction.,, 
Nothing has been brought to our notice which could justify such a wholesale 
or en bloc discrimination in favour of those who suddenly enter the same Rtade 
of service by direct recruitment. It could if 11ermitted be violative of Art: 16 of th·e 
Constitution. The direct recruits who are appointed after the absorption of the 
Assistants in conformity with the instructions on tile initial constitution or in the 
regular temporary establishment. shall rank junior to the l~tter. [209B; 0] 
HELD FUR.'I'HU : Jn view of the entire circumstances of the case and the 
hopes held out by the Government from ~me to time we are not prepared to 
dismiss the petition on account Qf delay and· !aches. [210B] 
I 
20~ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975) 3 s:.c.R. 
ORIGINAL JuR1s01cr10N : Writ Petition No. 163 of 1972. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. 
S. S. Javali and B. P. Singh, for the petitioners. 
M. N. Phadke and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. L 
P. P. Rao and A. K. Ganguli, for respondent No. 2 & the int
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.