JUDGMENT
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the provisions of column II of the Schedule of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1980 (here in after referred to as the Rules of 1980). He has further prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondent to prepare seniority list of Foremen, Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief Draughtsmen by placing the Foremen block senior to the Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief Draughtsmen and thereafter make the selection to the post of Junior Scientific Officers. He has further prayed that the respondents may be restrained from making appointments to the posts of Junior Scientific Officers on the basis of panel prepared by the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and was appointed as Assistant Foreman in the pay scale of Rs. 700-900 in the year 1979.
3. The service condition of the petitioner is governed by the Rules of 1980. The promotion on the post of Junior Scientific Officer has been made in terms of Rule 5 which says that the post shall be filled in accordance with the provisions contained in column 5 to 13 of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1980. As per the schedule the post is classified as civilians in Defence services as Group ‘B’ Gazetted Non Ministerial Post and carries pay scale of Rs. 650-1200. It is a selection post and it should be filled in by promotion, transfer or deputation from amongst senior Scientific Assistants, Chief Draughtsmen, and Foremen with five years of service in respective grades rendered after appointment there on regular basis. The chart showing the channel of promotion is reproduced as under:
Junior Scientific Officer
——————–
(650-1200)
|
—————————————————
| | |
Foreman Senior Scientific Assistant Chief Draughtsman
---------- -------------------- -----------------
840-1040 (550-900) (700-900)
|
Assistant Foreman
-----------------
(700-900)
4. The promotion for the posts of Junior Scientific Officers pay scale 650-1200 were held through the DPC and the petitioner’s name did not find place in the panel Exbt. 3 dated 25th August, 1984, therefore the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
5. The respondent has filed reply and submitted that the post of Junior Scientific Officer is a selection post and criteria for selection is merit-cum-seniority. The case of the petitioner was considered by the D.P.C. but he was not found suitable in the merit therefore he could not be selected and placed in the panel of the selected candidates for the post of Junior Scientific Officer It has further been submitted that since no quota for promotion to the post has been fixed for each of the three feeder grades, a combined eligibility list was prepared and not a seniority list of all the three feeder grades for the D.P.C. on the basis of length of continuous regular service as Foreman, Chief Draughtsman or Senior Scientific Assistants subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority in each grade. This procedure was explained by the Headquarter in their letter dated 30th May, 1984 (Annexure-R/1).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the combined list which has been prepared for consideration for the post of Junior Scientific Officer by combining three feeder gradelike Foreman, Chief Draughtsman, & Senior Scientific Assistants on the basis of length of continuous regular service in either grade is not correct and this criteria is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, because unequals have been made equal. In this connection the learned counsel submit that the pay scale of Foreman is 840-1040, whereas the pay scale of Senior Scientific Assistant is 550-900 and Chief Draughtsman is 700-900. Thus the persons who are unequals are sought to be made equals by preparing list of these persons on the basis of regular service in that grade meaning thereby that the persons like Foremen, who are in the higher pay scale are sought to be made junior on the criteria of the regular service in the grade concerned from the persons like senior Scientific Assistants who are drawing the pay scale of 550-900 or Chief Draughtsman 700-900. The learned counsel submits that this criteria is wholly illegal and deserves to be quashed. Mr. Joshi appearing for the respondents submitted that the post of Junior Scientific Officer is a selection post and criteria for selection is merit cum seniority. The petitioner has been considered by the D.P.C. on the basis of merit but he has not been found suitable therefore this court should not interfere in the matter.
7. It is true that the petitioner has been considered and he has not been found suitable on the basis of merit. I summoned the original D.P.C. minutes and I have perused the same and I am satisfied the petitioner was considered on the basis of merit but he has not been found suitable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the criteria adopted for preparing list for being placed before the D.P.C. is not correct, because the criteria adopted is continuous length of regular service in the grade, specially in view of the fact that this Court in the case of Amarchand v. State of Rajasthan 1977 WLN(UC) 261 has held that when different feeder grades are combined together then the proper criteria should be pay scale. Approving the judgment of Patna High Court in Nawal Kishore Singh v. Union of India 1973(1) SLR 509 held as under:
While giving two suggestions, the learned Single Judge did not throw a third suggestion to the State which can conveniently be given by us i.e. when the officers are appointed from two different grades one higher from the another, then in that event, the officer appointed from a higher grade should not be placed below one appointed from the lower grade. This principle of fixing seniority has been laid down in Nawal Kishore Singh’s case (supra) by the Patna High Court. We are in agreement with the Patna High Court judgment.
8. In the case of Nawal Kishore Singh v. U.O.I, an identical situation arose and Hon’ble Court observed as under ;
If the officers are appointed from the different grades one higher from the other then surely the officers appointed from the higher grade cannot be placed below those who are appointed from lower grades.
9. Squarely is the present case because the persons like Foreman 800-1040, Senior Scientific Assistant 500-900 and Chief Draughtsman 700-900 are eligible for the post of Junior Scientific Officer 650-1200. The proper course for preparing combined list for the D.P.C. should be, while placing the persons of higher grades above than those of the lower grades but this appears to have not been done. Thus the list has not been correctly prepared by the respondents in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. Thus this criteria adopted by the respondent is not correct and the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to prepare a combined list of persons in accordance with the criteria suggested by the Patna High Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Singh v. UOI (supra) and the same was adopted by this Court in the case of Amarchand v. State of Rajasthan (supra).
10. Since the selection for the post of Junior Scientific Officer is purely on the basis of merit but according to the Rules the eligible candidates for promotion is to be three times the number of vacancies. It is not known that if criteria adopted by the respondent had not been adopted what could be the position. Since I have found that the criteria adopted by the respondent is not correct and which is in contravention of the law laid down by this Court therefore there is only option left is that the respondent should prepare the combined list for promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer by evolving the proper criteria or the criteria laid down by the Patna High Court and approved by this Court and thereafter reconsider the matter for promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer of all eligible persons including the petitioner.
11. On 19th November, 1984 this Court while disposing of the stay application directed as under:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The ad interim stay order passed on October 22, 1984 is modified as under:
The Union of India would be at liberty to make appointments on the post of Junior Scientific Officer subject to the following conditions:
(1) In each order of promotion an express condition shall be mentioned that this is subject to the decision of the writ petition No. 3096 of 1984 Jaswant Raj v. Union of India and Ors.
(2) One post of Junior Scientific Officer shall be kept vacant for the petitioner.
(3) It would not be necessary for the petitioner to join the persons so promoted as parties in this case. However, the promotees would be at liberty to join in this writ petition.
12. Therefore, 1 need not quash any list nor I can do so for the simple reason that all candidates are not parties before me.
13. Thus, in the result I allow this writ petition in part and direct the respondents to evolve the proper criteria for consideration to the post of Junior Scientific Officer and consider the eligible candidates including the petitioner over again. No order as to costs.