LexWING COMMANDER J. KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- WING COMMANDER J. KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS March 5, 1982 [A.O. KosHAL, V. BAL>.KRJSHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 453 A B Defence Restarch and Development Organisati•n Giid Government of India 0.M. dated November 23, 1919, Rule 16-"Senlority after permanent second- C ment"-R & D Cadre-Intake of service officers-Seniority after 'permanent secontlment'-Based upon seniority of substantive rank held by the officer in the grade of major or equivalent rank-Such principle for determination whether valid.l "Secondment" of an officer-Whether constitutes a tra_nsfer. Constitution of India · 1950, Art, 309 proviso-Statutory rule covering seniority-Rule to take effect from date of promulgation-Whether element of retroactivity involved in operation of rule. Administrative Law-Prineip/~ of natural justice-Applicability of-In promu/gati'on of statutory rule governing seniority. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (R & D) was set up under th! Ministry of Defence for carrying out scientific and technological research and development work on projects or vital importance to the defence forces. Its personnel consist or large number of civilian scientists as well as a smaller number of service officers drawn Crom the three wings of the Armed Forces who have operational experience of weapon systems. The policy followed in regard to the intake of service officers was that they were initially taken on , a tenure basis a·nd subsequently absorbed in the organisation on a permanent basis in the event of being found suitable and willing. Since the Office.rs from the three services came to the R & D cadre with different lengths of service and at different-levels, it became imperative to evolve a reasonable principle for the determination or their inter~se seniority arter their secondment to the _organisation. In November 197P in supersession of an previous Rules and Orders on the subject, rules were mado under the proviso to Art. 309 laying down the pro· ccdure for the intake of service officers in the R & D organisation and the terms and conditions of service of those permanently retained therein. Rule 16 dealt D E F G with "Seniority after permanent secondment" and provided that "seniority or H all service Officers permanently seconded to DRDO will continue to be based upon th~ir s~0iorit~ of substantive ran~ of Major/S~n. Ldr./Lt. Cdr ... , .. , a~d th~ 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982} 3 s.c.R. A seniority or officers with substantive ranks higher than Major/Sqn. Ldr./Lt. Cdr. will after their permanent secondment, al~o reckon vis·a-vis other officers in the R & D Cadre, for future promotioa/confirmation, from the date of their subs· tantive rank or Major/Sqn. Ldr./Lt. Cdr ........ ". B c The appellant who was commissioned in the Air Force was seconded to the service. In hiS writ petition -he contended that the principle for determina· tion of seniority laid down in Rule 16 was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and as he had been permanently seconded to the R & D Organisation in 1971 long prior to the proclamation of the rule his rights regarding seniority and promotion could not be affected by the provisions of this rule. By taking the date of substantive appointment to -the rank or Major/ equivalent as the basis for reckoning seniority, officers who had obtained subs- tantive promotions to higher ranks in the oarent service earlier than some of their seniors who ·were ~onl)' subsquently. promoted to such higher ranks, suffer - 11erious prejudice because the latter gain over the earlier promotees and supersede them ·in the matter·of 1en'iority in. the R & D -Organisation, and that subsequent inductees in the R & D Organisation cannot be legally assigned seniority above those already borne on the cadre, irrespective or the substantive rank held by them at the time or their intake Into the R & D. D The Single Judge rejected all the contentions and declined to grant relief. E F G The.R & DOrganiS11tion was however directed ·to issue .the tentative seniority list drawn up in accordance with Rule 16. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appe1lant was dismissed in limlne. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : l. Since officers from different sources are taken into the R & D Organi<sltion for meeting the disciplinewise requirements arising therein from time to time and they are brought into a common pool
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.