1966 (11) TMI 89 - SC - Customs

the doctrine of equality in the matter of appointment and promotion If the preferential treatment of one source in relation to the other is based on the differences between the said two sources - the said recruitment can legitimately be sustained on the basis of a valid classification.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the appointment of respondents 4 to 74 by direct recruitment as Assistant Controllers of Imports and Exports.
2. Retrospective application of the 1962 rules and its effect on the seniority list dated November 30, 1961.
3. Legality of relating back the seniority of the direct recruits to the period between January 1, 1952, and November 30, 1955.
4. Validity of the 75% direct recruits and 25% departmental promotees ratio.
5. Appointment of officers from the Ministry of Rehabilitation to posts reserved for direct recruits through the Union Public Service Commission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Appointment of Respondents 4 to 74 by Direct Recruitment:
The petition challenges the constitutional validity of appointing respondents 4 to 74 as Assistant Controllers of Imports and Exports through direct recruitment. The court noted that the Imports and Exports organization, initially a temporary setup during WWII, had its appointments made on an ad hoc basis. By 1955, it was agreed that future appointments would follow a 25% departmental promotees and 75% direct recruits ratio, later formalized in the 1962 recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. The court upheld the validity of these appointments, noting that the classification of employees based on different sources of recruitment (departmental promotion and direct recruitment) was reasonable and had a valid nexus to the nature of the office.

2. Retrospective Application of the 1962 Rules and the Seniority List:
The petitioners argued that the 1962 rules were not retrospective, making the seniority list dated November 30, 1961, invalid. The court found that the appointments of the petitioners were made on an ad interim basis pending selection by the Union Public Service Commission, indicating that they were temporary and subject to regular appointments. The court concluded that the seniority list was valid as the petitioners had no substantive right to the posts of Assistant Controllers.

3. Legality of Relating Back the Seniority of Direct Recruits:
The petitioners contended that relating back the seniority of direct recruits to the period between January 1, 1952, and November 30, 1955, amounted to an unconstitutional carry-forward of vacancies. The court rejected this argument, distinguishing it from the carry-forward rule struck down in T. Devadasan v. The Union of India. The court noted that there was no reservation of vacancies carried forward; rather, vacancies were filled permanently after being temporarily manned, thus not violating Article 16.

4. Validity of the 75% Direct Recruits and 25% Departmental Promotees Ratio:
The petitioners argued that the 75% direct recruits and 25% departmental promotees ratio was discriminatory. The court upheld the ratio, referencing the precedent set in Mervyn Coutinho v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, which validated the rotational system for recruitment from two sources. The court emphasized that the adequacy and equity of the ratio depend on the specific circumstances and needs of the post, and found no evidence that the 3:1 ratio was unreasonable or discriminatory.

5. Appointment of Officers from the Ministry of Rehabilitation:
The petitioners claimed that appointing officers from the Ministry of Rehabilitation to posts reserved for direct recruits through the Union Public Service Commission violated Article 14. The court did not find merit in this argument, noting that the classification and recruitment process were reasonable and had a legitimate basis.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the recruitment process and the seniority list. The court found no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and upheld the classification and ratio of direct recruits to departmental promotees. The petitioners' temporary appointments did not confer substantive rights, and the recruitment process was conducted within the constitutional framework. The court, however, did not award costs to the State, acknowledging the administrative confusion caused by the ad hoc appointments and the petitioners' legitimate pursuit of their rights.

Petition dismissed.

← Previous Next →