S. K. BHATE & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 20-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
758 
S. K. BHATE & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
November 20, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG, R. s. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Indian Ordnance Fcctories (Recruitment and Conditions of Servic1• of 
Class Ill Personnel) Rules, 1956-Appointment to various cadres and )ntcr se 
seniority-Principles. 
The Ordnance Factory in which the petiti~ers were employed hold four 
cadres. 
In the 2nd cadrn of non-gazettc;,d officers there were four grades-
Foremen. Assistant Foremen, Chargeµren Grade I and Chargemen Grade Jl, 
The 3rd cadre of non-industrial empioyees had 2 grades Supervisor 'A' Grade 
and 'B' Grade, and were governed by the Jndian Ordnanc-e Factories (Recruit-
ment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956. 
Appoint-
ment was on 1he basis oi' 20% of. the qnota for direct recruits and 80% for 
promotees. 
In answer to an advertisem.ent for appointment by direct recruitment to 
the 4 grades of the 2nd cadre, the petitioners, all of whom except petitioner 
No. 12, were serving as Supervisors 'A' Grade, applied. 
Petitioner No. 12 was 
not in ~rvice. They were _interviewed but no_ne of the petitioners, except peti-
tioner No. 12, received orders of appointment. Petitioner No. 12 was appOinted 
Chargeman Grade II. 
Between April, 1963, and November, 1963, the other 
petitioners were promoted as Chargemen Grade II. Respondents 5 to 16 who 
were apprentices, were also promoted as Chargemen Grade II, and were later 
promoted to the grade of Assistant Fore=n. Treating this order as an order 
of supersession, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Art. 32 claiming to 
be promotees, and seniority on the basis of statutory rules 10( 1) (i) to (iv) 
contained in S.R.O. 4. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD: (1) There was a justifiable ground for distinction between the peti-
tioners, who were direct recruits, and the respondents who were promotees, and 
hence, there was no violation of Arl 16. 
[762-G] 
The petitioners were really direct recruits and not promotees despite the 
wrong description in thefr service records and even wrong orders conveying 
the impression that they were promotees, even though they had not teceived 
intimation of their appointments as direct recruits. 
Promotions are only made 
under i;. 8 of the Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of 
Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956, as amended in 1961, to Charge-
men Grade II, on tlie basis of a selection list prepared by the appropriate 
Departmental Promotion Commit~e. The Committee had prescribed a normal 
minimum qualification oj 3 years' service in the post of Supervisor Grade 'A' 
before promotion except in exceptional cases of ex-apprentices. The petitioners 
did not belong to the class which had any exceptional qualification, and, since 
they had not satisfied the 3 years' condftion, they could not be considered 
for prdmotion in the (10% quota reserved for promotees, to the post of Charge-
men, Grade IT. 
[762 B, C, 761 E-H] 
(2) The petitioners have no.t established that they have been denied 
their 
seniority in violation of any right under Art. 16 nor that the seniority Ji~t bad 
been nrep.ared in violation of an,y fU]e or principle of justice. The aue~tion 
of inter se seniority is also based upon the 4: 1 (80% : 20%) ratio and it was 
for the ·petitioners to satisfy the Court that they were not given the ~enior 
+ 
• 
• • 
... 
.. 
>· I 
S. K. BHATE v. UNION (Beg, I.) 
759 
orade altbough they satisfied all the required conditions, and that others, who 
A 
~vere promoted, were given unjustifiable preference over them. [763C) 
1t111rit Lal Berry v. Collector of Cemral Excise Central Revenue & Ors., 
AIR 1975 S.C. 538 @ 546, followed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDiCTION: Writ Petition No. 469 of 1971. 
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
V. M. Tarkunde, V. N. Ganpu/e and P. C. Kapoor for the peti-
B 
tioners. 
G. L. Sa11ghi and S. P. Nayar for respondents 1-4, respondents 
5 to 16 not .represented . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J.-Twenty two petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion, have come to this Court with the following assertion : ( 1) They 
are employed as civilian non-gazetted 
0fficers 
holding 
posts 
of 
Chargeme;n Grade-II (Chemists) in high explosives' Factory, Kirkee, 
which is one of the 28 Ordnance Factories, located all over India, 
con.trolled by Opposite party No. 2, the Director General of Ord-
nance Factories, with h

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