R. PRABHA DEVI & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 08-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
< • 
-
~. 
'"" 
'f 
R. PRABHA DEVI & ORS. 
A 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, 
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, 
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS & ORS. 
MARCH 8, 1988 
B 
)•. 
IA.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.) 
, 
Constitution of India, 1950-Central Secretariat Service Rules--
~- Rule 12(2) as amended fixing 8 years approved service for both direct 
recruits and promotees as eligibility condition-Whether arbitrary and 
~-
violative of Articles 14 and 16. 
c 
Service 
Jurisprudence-Promotion-Rule-making 
authority 
competent to frame rules laying down eligibility conditions-Seniority 
relevant for promotion only . when eligibility criteria is fulfilled-
Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility-Mere seniority will not 
D 
entitle a person for promotion-Seniority relevant only amongst eligible 
persons. 
The appellants are direct recruit Section Officers and were 
appointed in substantive vacancies of Section Officers in accordance 
-~ with the quota reserved for direct recruits. The inter-se seniority of the 
E 
direct recruits and promotees is fixed in accordance with the quota and 
rota system. According to the C.S.S. Rules, 1962, the substantive 
vacancies of Section Officers are manned by direct recruits and promo· 
tees and a quota of one-fifth of the substantive vacancies has been 
reserved to be filled up by direct recruits. The remaining substantive 
· ~ vacancies of Section Officers are to be filled up by appointment of F 
~~" persons included in the select list i._e. by promotion. The direct recruits 
on their appointment against substantive vacancies become senior to the 
promotees, as is in the present case. 
The promotion of Section Officers to Grade I post ofC.S.S. Rules 
is made in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule 2 of rule 12 of the 
G 
said Rules framed in 1962. According' to this rule the direct recruits 
were eligible for promotion to Grade I in C.S.S. even though they have 
not rendered 10 years service, when promotee Section Officers junior to 
them are considered for promotion to Grade I. The promotee Section 
Officers had to render 10 years' approved service as Section Officer 
before being "considered for promotion to Grade I. This rule had been 
H 
147 
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.,R. 
A amended from time to time, the last of which was in i 984 by way of 
Notification No. 5/9/80 CS. I dated 29th December, 1984 which 
prescribed 8 years of approved service as Section Officer as condition of 
eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post in C.S.S. 
B 
c 
D 
This amendment was challenged before the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal which dismissed the applications, holding that the 
amended rule is valid, just and equitable and no exception can be taken 
to it, and that it is not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution. 
Aggrieved by the said order three appeals have been preferred 
before this Court, by way of special leave. It was contended that the 
amendment purports to entrench upon the prospects of the directly 
recruited Section Officers for being considered for promotion to Grade I 
in as much as they are left out of the zone of consideration while their 
juniors i.e. the promotee Section Officers are eligible for being con-
sidered for promotion to Grade I. This condition of eligibility has no 
nexus to suitability for promotion to the post and as such is in violation 
of the equality clause in Article 16 of the Constitution oflndia. 
It was contended that for purposes of seniority in service the 
senior will be considered for promotion before those who are junior to 
them in service, and that the condition of eligibility as laid down in the 
E 
said rule has no reference to suitability for promotion to the post and as 
such it is arbitrary and so void. The system prior to the amendment 
worked out satisfactorily and the direct recruit Section Officers who 
were promoted to Grade I post performed their duties attached to the 
higher post duly and satisfactorily, and therefore the amendment is 
arbitrary and inequitable, and that this amendment works out to the 
F 
serious prejudice of the direct recruit Section Officers. 
G 
It was submitted that the effect of the amendment is to neutralise 
and negative the decision of this Court in H. V. Pardasani & Ors. v. 
Union of India & Ors., [ 1985] 2 SCC 468 which held that the rules of 
seniority on the basis of quota-rota basis are unexceptionable. · 
On behalf of the promotee Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.