S. K. GHOSH AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 02-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
S. K. GHOSH AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
April 2, 1968 
[V. RAMASWAMI, J.M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Rules for recruiunent to the grade of Directors of Postal Services in 
Indian Postal Service, Class I, in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, 
r. 3-Pronzotion tis Directors froni time Scale of Class I service based on 
selection ar.d not senioritJ-Re1·ision of their seniority in the ti111e sccle 
of Class J Service later-Seniority of Directors inter se if could be revised 
~_uch revision if 1·iolatire of Art. 16 of Constitution. 
The petitioners were promoted 
from 
the Postal 
Superintendents 
Service Class II to the time scale of Class I Service, and, respondent. 3 
to 7 were direct recruits to the time scale of Class I service. 
On 30th 
January 1957. Government fixed the inter se seniority between them by 
showing the petitioners as senior to respondents 3 to 7. 
Subsequently, 
the petitioners were promoted as Directors of Postal Services, and some 
time later, respondents 3 to 7 were alSo promoted as Directors, so that, 
the petitioners were seniOr to respondents 3 to 7 even in the grade of 
Directors. On 5th June 1965 Government revised the seniority of these 
officers in the time scale of Class I ,sc·rvicc, by shmving respondents 3 to 
7 as senior to the petitioners, and on 17th January 1966, their seniority in 
the gra<lc of Directors y,·as also revised placing respondents 3 to 7 as. 
senior to the petitioners. 
The petitioners challenged the ty,·o orders in a petition ·under Art. 32. 
The Government justified its orders on the grounds. that. the order. of 
30th January 1957 was pass~d by mistake as a relevant 'rule. 
namely, 
Supplementary r. 2(15) \Vas not given effect t<i, and. since the revision 
of seniority in the time scale of Class I Service was justified, the conse· 
quential revision of seniority in the grade of Directors was also valid. 
HELD: The revision of seniority in .the grade of Directdrs by order 
dated 17th January 1966 was not based on any rule or applicable princi-
ple. It was therefore arbitrary and violative of Art. 16 and must be.struck 
down. Once that order was quashed, the petitioners would not be affected 
by the order dated 5th June 1965, and therefore, it Was not necessary to 
decide on its validity. [638 E-G]. 
Rule 3 of the Rules for recruitn1ent to the grade of Directors of 
Postal Services in Indian Postal Services Class L in the Posts and Tele-
graphs Department, shows that appointment to the grade of Directors is 
made by selection and not on the basis of seniority in the time scale. It 
must therefore be presumed tha:t the promotion and appointment of the 
Oetitioners and respondents 3 ·to 7 as Directors was based on merit, whic.b 
was to be taken into account at the time of selection and not on seniority 
in the time scale of Class I Service. Once a member of Class I Service 
in the time scale was selected for promotion to the grade of Directors 
and given seniority over another officer selected later, the seniority so 
determined _as_ a result of selection could not be made dependent' on the 
senioritv in the time scale. Therefore, even if there was iustification for 
revisipg the seniority inter se .of the petit~O!lers and respondents 3 to 7 in 
the time scale of Class I Sernce, that rev1s1on could not in any way affect 
their order of seniority in the grade of Directors to which they were pro-
moted' on the basis of selection is accordance with the Rules. [637 G-H: 
638 A-C]. 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968) 3 S C.R. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 131 of 1966. 
Petition under An. 32 of the Constitution of India for th~ 
enforcement of fundamental rights. · 
A. K. Sen and K. B. Mehta, for the petitioners. 
B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
B. P. Maheshwari and S. M. Jain, for respondent No. 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargava, J. S. K. Ghosh and A. M. Narula, the two petition-
ers in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, appeared 
for the examination held in October, 1945 for recruitment to the 
Indian Audit and Accounts Service and other Allied Central 
Services. On the basis of the result of the examination, both of 
them were selected for appointment to the Postal Superintendents' 
Service Class II. 
Petitioner No. I, S. K. Ghosh, joined a post 
in that Service on probation with elfect from 9th April, 1947, 
while petitioner No. 2, A. M. Naruja, .ioined as a

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