UNION OF INDIA versus SURESH KUMAR NAYAK

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 25-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 660 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SURESH KUMAR NAYAK 
(Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2005) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service law: 
c 
Cadre - Trifurcated cadres - Four units of Directorate 
General of Security comprising of joint cadres -
Administrative control of two units of Directorate General of I 
Security transferred from Cabinet Secretariat to Ministry of 
Home Affairs - Trifurcation of Directorate General of Security 
0 into three units - Apportionment of staff on "as is where is" 
basis - Challenged by respondent-employee on the ground 
that he was denied the right to seek a/location to unit of his 
choice -
Held: Challenge not tenable -
There was no 
infringement of any fundamental right or any other right of the 
E respondent - The entire two units were .shifted to the Ministry 
of Home Affairs and, therefore no individual option was given 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16. 
Merger of dissimilar cadres - Factors to be taken into 
consideration in determining the equation of posts - Re-
F iterated. 
Promotion - Right to be considered for promotion is a 
term of service, but mere chances are not - Reduction in 
chances of promotion does not tantamount to a change in the 
G condition of service. 
The Special Service Bureau, the Aviation Research 
Centre, the Special Frontier Force and the Chief 
Inspectorate of Armaments (CIOA) were the four units of 
the Directorate General of Security un'der the Cabinet 
H 
660 
' 
UNION OF INDIA v. SURESH KUMAR NAYAK 
661 
Secretariat. These four units had a common and A 
combined Directorate General of Security (Secretarial) 
Service comprising of four cadres, namely Secretarial, 
Mlnisterlal, Accounts and Stenographers Cadres with 
lnter-se seniority and Inter unit transfer liability. 
The Union of India took a policy decision on 
15.1.2001 to transfer the administrative control of the 
Special Service Bureau and the Chief Inspectors of 
Armaments from the Cabinet Secretariat to the Ministry 
B 
of Home Affairs and merged the mlnlsterlal staff of the C 
Chief Inspectorate of Armaments with that of Special 
Service Bureau. As a consequence of transfer of Special 
Service eureau and the Chief Inspectorate of Armaments, 
on 23.8.2001, two units of the Cabinet Secretariat were 
transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thereafter, the 
Office of Directorate General of Security (Secretarial) D 
Service was trifurcated into Special Service Bureau 
(including Chief Inspectorate of Armaments) (Secretarial) 
Service; Aviation Research Centre (Secretarial) Service; . 
and Special Frontier Force (Secretarial) Service. The 
Secretarial/Ministerial Staff of the Directorate General of E 
Security (Secretarial) Service was apportioned on "as is 
where is" basis. 
The respondent who was working in Special Service 
Bureau filed an original application before the Central F 
- Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the 
trifurcation orders of the Directorate General of Security 
(Secretarial) Service on the ground that no opportunity 
was provided to the staff of erstwhile Directorate General 
of Security (Secretarial) Service to exercise option for G 
choosing an organization out of the three organizations 
which violated his fundamental right under Articles 14 
and 16 of the Constitution. The Tribunal allowed the OA. 
The Union of India filed a writ petition before the High 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding 
that an opportunity to exercise the option had to be 
granted to the respondent. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
8 
Instant appeal were whether the High Court was justified 
in setting aside the policy decision of the Government of 
India of trifurcation of the Directorate General of Security 
(Secretarial) Service Into three organisations on the 
principle of "as is where Is" basis only on the ground that 
the said decision did not provide opportunity to the staff 
C of erstwhile Directorate General of Security (Secretarial) 
Service to exercise option for choosing an organisation 
of their choice; and whether the High Court was right in 
relying upon the circular issued by the Ministry of 
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, in May, 1994 
D at the time of bifurcation of Ministry of Communication, 
which provided for an opportunity to the staff concerned 
to exercise option for choice between t

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