S. L. SACHDEV & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 28-10-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

S. L. SACHDEV & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
October 28, 1980 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. 
AND A. C. GUPTA, J.] 
Constitution of India, 
Articles 16, 309 and 32 & The 
l11dia11 Post.v & 
Telegraphs (Clerks in Savi11gs Bank Control and /llfernal Check Organisation) 
Recruirment Rules 1969, Rule 4 and Item 3, Column 10 of Schedule-Provision 
that UDCs drawn from Audit Offices being eligible for promotion to se/ectio11 
Grade on basis of 15% of Posts Head Clerks on basis of 20 ~~ of post.~ held 
by them in SBCO-JCO-Validity o.f. 
Dinctor-General in exercise of powers--Rules made by the President u11der 
Article 309-Whether cna issue direction which is inconsistent wi:h the 
recruitment rules. 
The Government of India created the 
Savin~s Bank Control Organisation 
and Savings Bank Check Organisation (SBCO-ICO). Amongst those who were 
invited to opt for service in the said organisation were UDCs in the Audit 
Offices, LDCs who had qualified for promotion to the UDC cadre in the 
Audit Office·s. employees under 
the Post Master General and those from 
amongst the Time Scale Clerks in the P & T Accounts Organisation. 
By a letter dated May 15, 1964 the P & T Board informed all the Heads 
of the Circles that the 'anction of the President of India was obtained to the 
conversion of 10% posts in the cadre of UDC11 in the SBCO-ICO into Selection 
Grade UDCs. 
But, by his Jetter dated May 29, 1965 addressed to all Heads 
of P & T Cirlces, the Director.-General, Po't & lfel~graphs modified the policy 
of reservation of 10% of the post ·in the cadre of UDCs in the Selection Grade 
by directing, that the total number of Selection Grade Posts available for the 
UDCs who came from the Audit Offices should be 10 of the total number 
Audit Office UDCs working in any particular circle of the Organisation. 
On January 22, 1968, the Indian Poits & Telegraphs (Clerks in Savings 
Bank Control and Internal Check Organisation) Recruitment Rules, 1969 were 
framed regulating the recruitment to the cadre of UDCs and other posts in 
the SBCO-ICO. 
Col. 10 of Item 3 of the Schedule to the Rules provides that 
the appointment to the Selection Grade will be made from amongst UDCs 
with JO years of serfice in that grade in case of Audit Office 5taff, or with 
five years' service in that grade in case of other UDCs. Later, the Supervisory 
Cadre in the SBCO-ICO was recognised. Creating a cadre of Head Clerks in 
place of the Selection Grade posts and fixing the number of posts in the said 
cadre at 20% 
of the posts of UDCi. By letter dated May 16, 1965, the 
Director General howeTer, clarified the po,ition by 
saying that "u.1der the 
new scheme the audit office UDCs will get the post of Head Clerks to the 
extent of 20% of their strength instead of 10% as at present. 
The remaining 
posts of Head Clerks will go to the non-audit UDCs". 
971 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
.., 
[1981] 1 S.C.i 
A 
The two petitioners who belonged to the P & T Audit O'fices and had 
qualified 'the departmental examination for promotion as 
UDCs, joined the 
SBCO-ICO as UDCs. 
They challenged the classification vf UDCs for the 
purposes of promotion to the Selection Grade/Head Clerks cadre on the basis 
of the sources from which they were drawn and the limiting of the promo-
tiopal posts available to them to 10 % in the case of Selection Grade post and 
20% in the case of Head Clerk posts thereby resulting in promotion of their 
B 
Juniors who had joined the organisation from the 
P & T Offices, as 
discriminatory, arbitrary and 
unreasonable. 
According to them 
the only 
criterion for promotion from amongst the UDCs in the SBCO-lCO could be 
the length of service in the cadre of UDCs, ~ubject to fitness: The provision 
in Column 10 of Item 3 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules of 1969 'Iii 
was also challenged. 
1 
C 
The respondents argued that persons drawn from different sources were 
D 
E 
F 
H 
not integrated into a common service and therefore different rules of promotion 
could be applied to the two classes and that the directive of the Director-
General was aimed at further and better implementation of the Recruitment 
Rules. 
Partly allowing the petition. 
HELD I. The Directions issued by Respondent 2 by his letters dated May 
16, 1975 and May 29, 1965 that UDCs drawn from the Audit Offices will be 
eligible for promotion to the Selection Grade on the basis of 10% of the 
posts or to the Head Clerks cadre on the basis of 20% of t

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