UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SHRI PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 05-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 5, 1993 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND R.M. SAHA!, J.T.J 
Service law: Ordinance Factmies-Apprentices-Post- training employ-
ment-Supe1visor Grade 'A' and higher post of chargeman Grade-II on the 
basis of gradation in Examination conducted-Border line cases-Gradation 
C as chargeman Grade- II-Scheme granting one more opportunity to such 
Supe1visors Grade 'A' to appear in 01e ne.rt Exan1ination-W!1ether dis-
c1i1ninatol),_lnter-se senio1ity-Directions gi.ven. 
In 1950 the Union of India introduced Apprenticeship Training 
Scheme for supervisory posts, in Ordinance Factories for efficient working 
D and better supervision. The apprentices were offered post-training employ-
ment by the Director General (D.G) to various posts including the posts 
of Supervisor Grade 'A' and Chargeman Grade II on the basis of grada-
tion secured by them in the examination. In November 1965 D.G. suggested 
that in border line cases of apprentices graded as Supervisor Grade 'A' if 
E would be fair to give them another chance to appear within six months in 
the next examination for grading as Chargeman Grade II since they might 
have been grading as Supervisor Grade 'A' due to slightly different stand-
ards of marking. Though formal instructions were issued in 1967 the D.G. 
permitted some of the apprentices graded as Supervisor Grade 'A' in the 
F examination conducted in 1965, to appear in the next examination in 1966, 
in which many succeeded and were appointed as Chargeman Grade II. 
Some of the Supervisors Grade 'A' who were working even prior 
to 1965 and who satisfied the eligibility criteria and others who were 
denied similar opp<J"tunity to appear in the 1966 Examination ap-
G proached the High Court by way of writ petition. The-High Court held 
that the action of the appellant in denying similar opportunity to 
Supervisor Grade 'A' who had appeared in the examination prior to 1965 
or even thereafter and were in the field of eligibility as provided by the 
modified scheme was discriminatory and violative of Article 16(1) of 
H the Constitutfon. No examination was held conse'luent to the High 
496 
U.0.1. v. P. MUKHOPADHYAY 
497 
Court's order and the respondents approached the Central Administra-
A 
tive Tribunal in view or the change in jurisdiction. The Tribunal held . 
that the appellant is not calling the respondents for the examination 
acted discriminately and since it was conceded that it was not possible 
to hold the examination, a direction was issued tO the authorities to 
re-fix the notional seniority or the respondents and fix their pay and all B 
benefits attached thereto as per rule on the basis that all the applicants 
came out successrul in the selection tests for the post or Chargeman 
Grade II. This appeal is against the said order or the Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. Despite appointment or every Supervisor Grade 'A', 
Chargeman Grade-II, the discrimination which occurred due to enforce· 
ment or the modified scheme since 1965 permitting only few Supervisors 
Grade 'A' to appear in the next examination persisted in respect of these 
Supervisor Grade 'A' appointed prior to coming into force of this scheme 
and they were denied similar opportunity eventhough they came in the field 
c 
D 
of eligibility. If the policy of permitting Supervisors Grade 'A' to improve 
their grade would not have been introduced then the seniority amongst the 
Supervisors would have remained the same and these appointed in one 
year would have remained senior to those appointed in I3tter year. It is 
E 
not the appointment of petitioners as Chargeman Grade-II from 1980 but 
also the determination of their seniority which was material as it is 
admitted that the higher posts are available for promotion on the basis of 
seniority-cum-merit. The question of seniority therefore was of utmost 
importance and unless there was some such difficulty which could not be 
resolved, the appellant should have taken care to see that the order of the 
High Court was complied with. In any case there is no error of law in the 
Tribunal directing grant of notional appointment as chargeman Grade-II 
to the appellants. This was the only possible manner in which the injustice 
could have been remedied. [501-D-H] 
2. The placement of all those Supervisors Grade 'A' who came in the 
field of eligibility i.e. securing less than 5% marks in aggregate fixed for 
selectio

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