ROSHAN LAL TANDON versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 14-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 17 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
ROSHAN LAL TANDON 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
August 14, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO, 
C. J., R. S. 
BACHAWAT, 
V. 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
185 
RAMASWAMI, 
Constitution of India, 1950-Arts, 14 and 1&-Discrimination-
Recruitment to Lower Grade from two sources-Favourable treat-
ment to recmits from one source reaarding promotion to Higher 
Grade-If Discriminatory, 
Oivi! Servant-Legal position-If one of status or of contract. 
Vacancies in grade 'D' of Train ExaminatiQlls were filled by (a) 
direct recruits i.e .. apprentice train examiners who had completed 
the prescribed period of training, and (b) promotees from skilled 
artisans. Promotion from Grade 'D' to 'C' was on the basis of seni<r 
r>'ty-cum-suitability. In October 1965 the Railway Board issued a 
notification by which it was prov!ded that eighty per cent of \he 
vacancies in Grade 'C' were to be filled up from apprentice train 
D examiners-recruited on and after April 1, 1966 and the remaining 
twenty per cent by train examiners from Grade 'D'. The notification 
further provided that apprentice train examiners who had already 
been absorbed in Grade D before April 1966 should en bloc be accom-
modated in Grade 'C' in the eighty per cent of the vacancies without 
under<going any selection and with regard to twenty per cent of " 
vacancies, reseryed for the other class promotion was to be on selec-
E tion basis and not on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability, 
The petitioner who entered Railway service in 1954 as a skilled 
artisan and was selected and confirmed in Grade 'D' filed a Writ Peti-
tion in this' Court challenging that part of the notification which gave 
favourable treatment to apprentice train examiners who had already 
been absorbed in Grade 14 'D' as arbitrary and discriminatory 
and violative of Acticles 14 and 16 of the CQ!lstitution. It was 
also contended that the earlier order laying down that promo-
r tion to grade 'C' was to be based on seniority-cum-suitability had be-
come a contractual condition of service and could not be altered to 
the prejudice of the petitioner. 
HELD: (i) The impugned part of the notification violated the 
guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 af the Constitution. 
Once the direct recruits and promotees were absorbed in one 
G cadre, they formed one class and they could not be discriminated 
against for the purpose of further promotion to the higher grade 
'C'. Before the impugned notification was issued there was only one 
rule of promotion applicable to both di1"Ect recruits and promotees. 
By the impugned notification a discriminatory treatment was made 
in favour cif the existing apprentice Train Examiners who had al-
ready been absorbed in grade 'D' because, the notification provided 
that this group of apprentice train examiners should first be accom-
JJ m_odated en bloc in ~ade 'C' up to eighty per cent of the vacancies 
reserved for them without undergoing any selection; whereas in the 
twenty per cent ?f the vac~n.cies available to the category of Train 
Examiners to which the petitioner belonged the basis of recruitment 
was selection on merit and the previous test of senior;ty-cum""3uitabi-
lity was abandoned. [192 D-G]. 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] l S.C.R. 
Mervyn v. Collector, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 600: relied on. 
(ii) The petit!oner had no vested contractual right in regard to 
the terms of his service. The legal position of a Government servant 
is more one of status than of contract. Once appoii:ted. to his post ~r 
office a Government servant acquires a status and his ~;ghts and obh-
gations are no longer determined by consent of parties, but by statute 
oc statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by 
the Government. (195 B-C]. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Writ Petitions Nos. 154 and 203 of 
1966. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of fundamentals rights. 
A 
B 
S. K. Mehtu, and K. L. Mehta, for the petitioners (in both the c 
petitions). 
N. S. Bindra, A. Sreedharan Nambiar, R. H. Dhebar for R. N. 
Sai'hthey, for respondent No. I (in W. P. 154 of 1966). 
I. M. Lall and E, C. Agrawala, for respondent No. 2 (in W.P. 
No. 154 of 1966). 
R.H. Dhebar for R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. I and 
2 (in W.P. No. 203 of 1966). 
II. R Gok/za/e and E. C. Agarwala, for respondent No. 6 (in 
\V.P. No. 203 of 1966). 
D 
Respondent No. IO appeared in person (in W.P. No. 203 of E 
1966). 
The J ndgment of the Court was delivered by 
Writ petiti

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