LexSOM RAJ AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-l SOM RAJ AND ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. FEBRUARY 23, 1990 [RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16 Service Law- Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service-Directorates of Agriculture -Subordinate Offices-Employees non-maintenance of common seniority-Held not arbitrary. Civil Services-Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules, 1933: Rules 3, 4, 7, 9, IO-Appendix-Sections 6 and 7-Directoratespf - - - Agriculture (Head Office)-Subordinate Offices--,Ministerial service- Employees-Whether entitled for common seniority. Administratiye Law-Executive authority-Discretion-Must be guided by law. Rule of Law-Absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate. A B c D Service Law-Selection list-Employer has no power and discre- E tion to pick and choose candidates-Appointment should be in order of merit. 'Cadre'-Government can constitute different cadres in any particular servce-Head _Office-Subordinate office-maintenance of common cadre not necessary. F The al'l"'llants belonging to the ministerial service in the subor- / - --- - dinate offices of the Directorates of Agriculture of the States of Punjab and Haryana filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking_ a direction that subordinate offices and the Directorates should be treated as one unit and common seniority of all the employees should G be maintained. The High Court dismissed the petitions. Hence these appeals by special leave. In these appeals it was contended that the appellants are entitled.to common seniority with their counterparts in the Directorates because their service conditions, pay scales and qualificatio'ns were same. In H 535 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) I S.C.R. A order to show similarity with their counterparts in the Directorates it was also pointed out that though a common selection was made for Directorates and subordinate offices yet the appointing authority picked up some candidates out of the select list and appointed them in the Directorates thereby deviating from the order of merit prepared by the Selection Board. B c Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: J. The Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules 19 33 themselves made a distinction between the persons appointed in the Directorate and the Subordinate Offices as separate cadres and the subordinate cadre in some cases is the feeder cadre for promotion to the post in the Head Office. In this view by no stretch of imagination, the appellants can be considered to be equally placed for treating them at par with the Directorate employees for being treated as being in a common cadre. There is reasonable nexus to differentiate the two cadres. Therefore, the classification can not be said to be arbitrary D violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [543A-B) E I. I The fact that the office of the Directorate and the subordinate offices have been compendiously shown in section 6 of the Appendix to Rules does not by itself mean that office of the Directorate and Subor- dinate Offices are treated under the rules as one unit or at par. [542A) 2. It is open to the Government to constitute different cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to its administrative convenience and expediency. [54lE) 2.1 The office of the Director is the apex office obviously to con- 'y F trol and oversee the functioning of the subordinate offices and the other allied departments under his control monitoring the implementation of the Government's agricultural programmes. It may not be necessary to maintain a common cadre of the employees of the Directorate and the Subordinate offices. Each cadre is a separate service or a part of the service sanctioned for administrative expediency. Therefore, each may G be a separate unit and the posts allocated to the cadre may be per- manent or temporary. [541F-G] 't-· 2.2 Accordingly the appellants are not entitled to be treated at par with the employees working in the respective Directorates for giving direction to the respondents to maintain common seniority between the H employees of the Directorate and Subordinate Offices. [543D I ., SOM RAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 537 3. Normally the order of appointment would be in the order of merit of candidates from the list and must be in accordance with rules. The exercise of power should not be arbitrary.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.