S. RAMASWAMY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 17-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

} 
.> 
,.._ 
221 
S. RAMASWAMY 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
August 17, 1976 
LY. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.J 
8 
Directorate General of Technical Development (Class l Posts) Recruitment 
(Amendment) Rules, 1974, Rule 2, interpretation of-Whether officer 011 special 
duty is in the same grade as Develapmellf Officers. 
Two vacancies arose for the selection posts of Industrial Advisers in the 
Directorate General of Technical DevelOpment, for which some Development 
Officers including respondents Nos .. 6 to 11 applied. 
The;;e respondents filed 
a wri~ petition against the promotion of the appellant to these posts. The 
Government oppo8ed the same. During the pendency of the petition wnich was 
later dismissed; the appellan~ made a representation to the Departmental Promo-
tion Committee for' considerinQI his preferential claim, but the same was not 
placed before the Committee. The appellant made further representa.tion to the 
Government, but the Committee decided to recommend respondents Nos. 6 and 
7 for the appointment. The appellant filed a writ petition against the imple-
mentation of the recommendation, but the same was dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal and directing that the appellant's name be included in 
the list of eligible officers to be considered for promotion, the Conrt, 
HELD: Under Rule 2 of the Directorate General of Technical Development 
(Class I Po:!ts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1974, a person belOnging to 
the first category, failing which, persons belonging to the 2nd category; and 
persons in the 3rd category are, all and together, eligible for being considered 
for promotion, subject to the fixation of the field of choice under the Home 
Ministry's Memorandum dated May 16, 1957. Tk amended rule does not 
mean that Development Officers can be considered for promotion to the post 
of Industrial Ad vi;ier only ih the event that qualified persons f'rom the first 
two categories are not ayailable. [224 D-F] 
(2) The Amendment Rules of 1974, contemplate on their plain language 
and are framed on the basis th~t the officer on special duty. is in a separate; 
grade from the grade of Development Officers. In the particular context ih 
whkh the words "in the grade" occur, they mean "in that particular grade", 
indicating thereby that the two grades are different although their scale of pay 
may be identical. The practice by which an integrated list of officers is prei-
pared accordin!?! to the date on which they acquire eligibility, not having the 
authority of law, is ,vitiated ih the in9tant case because of the 1974 recruitment 
rules. 
[225 E, 227 B-C, G] 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 381 of 1976. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
31.10.1975 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 1077 of 1975). 
F. S. Nariman and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant. 
Shyamala Pappu and Girish Chandra, for respondents 1-3. 
Sobha Dikshit, for respondents 6-7. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J.-On February 7, 1959 the appellant, S. Rama-
s~amy, was appointed as an Assistant Development Officer in 
the 
Drrectorate General of Technical Development in the Ministry 
of 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
Industry and Civil Supplies, Government of India. In 1964 he was 
appointed as a Development Officer on an ad hoc basis and that 
appointment was regularized in May, 1966. On December 1, 1966 
the post of Officer on Special Duty was created in Lhe Directorate in 
order to deal effectively with the development of agro-based food pro-
cessing industries. 
The Director General (Technical Development) 
recommended the appellant for appointment to the post and in comse 
of time the appointment was duly made. 
In 1974 a question arose regarding promotion to the selection 
post of Industrial Adviser in the Directorate. 
Respondents 6 to 11 and 
some others who were working as Development Officers filed 
writ 
petition No. 612 of 1974 in the Delhi High Court asking that the 
Government of India be restrained from promoting the appellant to 
the post of Industrial Adviser and that their claims to the post be 
considered in preference to the appellant's claim. That petition was 
dismissed on September 17, 1975. 
During the pendency of the writ petition filed by respondents 6 to 
11, the appellant had made a representation to the Departmental 
Promotion Committee for consid

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