{"id":151557,"date":"1993-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993"},"modified":"2016-04-07T15:41:20","modified_gmt":"2016-04-07T10:11:20","slug":"federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993","title":{"rendered":"Federation Of Directly Appointed … vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Federation Of Directly Appointed … vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2422, \t\t 1993 SCR (3)1018<\/div>\n
Author: M Punchhi<\/div>\n
Bench: Punchhi, M.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFEDERATION OF DIRECTLY APPOINTED OFFICERS OF INDIANRAILWAY A\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/06\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nBENCH:\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 2422\t\t  1993 SCR  (3)1018\n 1993 SCC  (3) 364\t  JT 1993 (4)\t 32\n 1993 SCALE  (3)45\n\n\nACT:\n%\nCivil Services:\nIndian Railway Service of Engineers (Class-I)- Absorption of\ntemporary  Assistant Engineers (Officers) into the  service-\nSeniority-Weightage-Half  the  length of  service  prior  to\nabsorption  subject to a maximum of  five  years-Correctness\nof-Dispute  between  parties  in  representative   capacity-\nApplicability of Res-Judicata.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThere were two parallel Services of Engineers in the  Indian\nRailways.  One was the Indian Railways Service of  Engineers\n(Class-(I)  who\t were subjected to competitive\twritten\t and\npersonality  tests and appointed by the President of  India.\nThe  other  Service was the  temporary\tAssistant  Engineers\n(later\tknown as Temporary Assistant Officers) appointed  by\nthe  Railway Board, on selection based (on interview  alone.\nIn addition to the minimum educational qualifications  which\nwas the same for both the services three years experience as\nCivil  Engineer\t was  required for the\tRailway\t Service  of\nEngineers.\nThe  temporary\tAssistant Officers were\t gradually  absorbed\ninto the Indian Railway Service of Engineers and the Railway\nBoard  took a decision\t that they would be given  weightage\nin  seniority  on  the basis of half  the  total  length  of\ncontinuous  service  in working posts in Railways  prior  to\ntheir permanent absorption into Class-I subject to a maximum\nweightage of five years.\nWrit Petitions were filed in this Court by the Federation of\nTemporary Officers Association in a representative  capacity\nseeking relief in their seniority status.\nThis  Court  dismissed the Writ Petitions holding  that\t the\nclassification\tof  temporary, Assistant  Officers  separate\nfrom the Indian Railway Service\n1019\nEngineers Class-I, was neither discriminatory nor  violative\nof  Articles  14 and 16 of the Constitution;  and  that\t the\nobject\tof recruitment, methods of  recruitment,  appointing\nauthority and training imparted being different, no question\nof  their entitlement to equal rights arose fill  they\twere\nabsorbed into the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class-\n1.   This Court also approved ,the measures of\tthe  Railway\nBoard  in regard to giving weightage of half the  length  of\nservice as temporary Assistant Officers subject to a maximum\nof  five years.\t Their claim for equal status for equal\t pay\nand  equal work was also rejected. (Katyani Dayal & Ors.  v.\nU.0.1. [1980] 3 SCR 139).\nIn  the present Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals filed in  a\nrepresentative capacity, the relief claimed were on the same\nlines as in Katyani Dayal,s case.  As directed by this Court\nthe affected parties were impleaded in their  representative\ncapacity,  so  that the decision of this.   Court  would  he\nbinding on every member of both the classes of employees.\nOn  behalf of the Petitioners\/Appellants, it  was  contended\nthat  equal  pay for equal work with equality in  all  other\nconditions  of\tservice including avenues  of  confirmation,\nabsorption,  promotion,\t pension and  security\thave  become\ninflexible postulates of service jurisprudence.\nThe  respondents contended that what was being asked  was  a\nvirtual\t review of Katyani Dayal's case which could  not  be\npermitted.   It\t was  also  contended  that  principles\t  of\nconstructive res judicata would bar the re agitation of\t the\nissues\tdecided\t in Katyani Dayal's case if not\t the  strict\nprinciples  of res judicata ; and that when the\t matter\t has\nbeen  settled in this particular service, its unsettling  by\nmeans of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was\nimpermissible.\nDismissing the matters, this Court\nHELD:\t  1.  The distinction between the two  services\t was\nwell  marked  in  Katyani Dayal's  case\t and  the  important\nquestion  of  equality was once for all\t settled.   To\tfind\nfault with it, at this juncture again on the touch-stone  of\nequality dimension would be to unsettle a settled  position.\nThat  venture is neither in the interest of justice  nor  in\nthe  interest  of  service.  When there\t has  been  complete\nabsorption  of the personnel of one service into the  other,\nand  the seniority of the absorbers is to he  reckoned\tfrom\ntheir date of absorption as stipulated in their\t appointment\nletters with weightage of half the length of\n1020\nservice\t subject  to  a maximum (of  give  years,  it  would\notherwise be imprudent now. at this point of time to dig  up\nold  issues,  The  rule\t or weightage  also  appears  to  be\nreasonable and this is a pattern which has been noticed\t and\napproved  In  many a Service.  Similarly  when\tthe  dispute\nraised between the Officers in a representative capacity and\nEngineers riot so represented, still it was a dispute raised\nbefore this Court which has been decided finally. (1026\t  B-\nD)\nKatyani Dayal Ors. v. Union of India & Ors,<\/a>[1980] 3 SCR\t 139\nreferred to.\n2.   The dispute now sought to he raised under Article 32 of\nthe  Constitution between the Officers in  a  representative\ncapacity  and  Engineer.%- across also in  a  representative\ncapacity is barred by principles of res judicata as also\nby the rule of Constructive res judicata. (1026 D-E)\n3.  It\tcannot\the said that the State\tis  prohibited\tfrom\ncreating   separate  channels  of  service.   Equally\twhen\nabsorption  had\t been made possible and its  pace  quickened\nwith  weight-age,  it is difficult to find  fault  with\t the\nscheme at this point of time to look for a substitution,  as\nthat  would  unsettle a settled position,  established\tmore\nthan a decade ago. (1026 E-F)\nDirect Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association  v.\nState of Maharashtra & Others<\/a> [1990] 2 SCC 715, followed.\nRaghunandan   Prasad  Singh  v.\t Secretary,  Home   (Police)\nDepartment  Government of Bihar and Ors. [1988] Suppl.\t SCC\n519  & Dr. O.Z Hussain v. Union of India,<\/a>[1990]\t Supp.\t SCC\n688, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  ORIGINAL\t JURISDICTION: Writ  Petition  (Civil)\tNos.
\n7900-02 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\nWrit Petition Nos. 837 & 853 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t    Civil Appeals Nos. 3137-38 of 1993.\n<\/p>\n
1021<\/span><\/p>\n
From  the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.84 & 27.7.84 of\t the
\nRajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 182 &
\n184 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n  C.M.P. Nos. 19643-45 of 1988 & C.M.P.-No. 8272 of 1986.
\nR.K.  Garg, Aruneshwar Gupta, R.K. Kamal and S.K. Gupta\t for
\nthe   Petitioners   in\tW.P.  Nos.  7900,   7902\/82,   SLPS.
\n12682\/84,830\/85.  and  for the Respondent No.  4  in  CA.No.
\n1649\/78.\n<\/p>\n
T.  Sridharan for the Petitioner in WPs.  Nos. 837 & 853  of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
M.K. Ramamurthi, and Parijat Sinha for the Appellants in CA.
\nNo. 1649\/78 and for the Respondent No, 4 in WPs.  Nos. 7900-
\n82\/82.\n<\/p>\n
R.   F.\t Nariman and P.H. Parekh for the intervenor in\tWPs.
\nNos. 7900-02\/82.\n<\/p>\n
V.R.  Reddy,  Additional Solicitor  General,  V.C.  Mahajan,
\nMs.B.  Sunita Rao, V.K. Verma and Ms. A. Subhashini for\t the
\nRespondent in U.O.I.\n<\/p>\n
C.V.S.\t Rao,\t(NP)  for  the\tRespondent   in\t  SLP\tNos.
\n12682\/84,830\/85.\n<\/p>\n
C.V.  Rappai  for the Respondent No. 14 in WP.\t Nos.  7900-
\n02\/82.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nPUNCHHI,  J.  These  are a handful  of\twrit  petitions\t and
\nspecial leave petitions which, on grant of leave hereby, and
\nhaving become appeals, can conveniently be disposed of by  a
\ncommon judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The  fulcrum  of the controversy herein, and the  shadow  in
\nwhich it works is a three-judge Bench decision of this Court
\nin  Katyani Dayal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a>  [1980]  3
\nSCR 139 decided on March 26, 1980.  Before adverting to\t the
\nfacts  and  circumstances  in  which  this  cause  has\tbeen
\npresented to this Court it would be fruitful to give a broad
\noutline\t  of  Katyani  Dayal’s\tcase,  in  the\t immediately
\nsucceeding, paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
Connected  with\t Katyani Dayal’s case  were  writ  petitions
\nfiled in a represen-\n<\/p>\n
1022<\/span><\/p>\n
tative\tcapacity,  purporting  to  represent  all  temporary
\nAssistant  Engineers  (on  a later point of  time  known  as
\ntemporary  Assistant  Officers)\t appointed  by\tthe  Railway
\nBoard,\tpursuant to the authority given by the President  of
\nIndia,\ton the recommendations of the Union  Public  Service
\nCommission; selection based on interview alone.\t There was a
\nseparate   classification  of  such   temporary\t  Assistant.
\nOfficers when compared with India Railway Service  Engineers
\n(Class 1).  Direct recruits to the Indian Railway Service of
\nEngineers  (Class 1) were subjected to\tcompetitive  written
\nand  personality tests and in the nature of things only\t the
\nvery best could emerge out successfully.  On the other\thand
\ntemporary   Assistant  Officers,  (hereafter   referred\t  as
\n‘Officers’ at places) were neither subjected to written\t nor
\nto a personality test but, as said before, were selected  on
\nthe  basis  of interview.  Besides the\tminimum\t educational
\nqualification,\twhich  was the same for\t both  the  services
\nthree years experience as a Civil Engineer was. additionally
\nrequired for the aspirants to the Indian Railway Service  of
\nEngineers   (Class   1)\t (hereafter  referred  to   as\t the
\n‘Engineers’  at\t places).   While  the\tPresident  was\t the
\nappointing authority of the Engineers, the Railway Board was
\nthe appointing authority of the Officers.  Both the  members
\nof  these  services  on selection  were\t due  for  different
\ncourses of training earmarked separately.  There were a host
\nof  other  factors  which  distinguished  the  quality\t and
\ncharacter  of the personnel of the two parallel services  as
\nelaborately detailed in Katyani Dayal’s case (supra).
\nBetween\t the  years 1955 and 1964, as many as  553  officers
\n(temporary  Assistant  Engineers)  were\t appointed  by\t the
\nRailway\t Board through the Union Public Service\t Commission.
\nThough in the letters of appointment the officers (temporary
\nAssistant Engineers) and others concerned were told that six
\nof  them, would be absorbed into the Indian Railway  Service
\nof  Engineers  (Class  1) every year,  this  figure  in\t the
\nsubsequent  years  was increased from time to time  when  in
\n1975, the figure as increased stood at 25 per year.  The net
\nresult\t was  that  after  absorption,\t107  Officers\twere
\nresidually  left unabsorbed in the year 1976 by the time  of
\nthe  filing  of\t the connected\twrit  petitions\t in  Katyani
\nDayal’s\t case and they too were finally absorbed in 1979  by
\nWhat  was  described as a “blanket order”.  Before  hand  on
\nSeptember  17, 1965, the Railway Board had taken a  decision
\nto the effect that the Officers so absorbed into the  Indian
\nService\t of Engineers would be given weightage in  seniority
\n“on the basis of half the total years of continuous  service
\nin  working  posts  in Railways\t prior\tto  their  permanent
\nabsorption into Class. 1, subject to a maximum weightage  of
\nfive   years”.\t The  then  writ   petitioners,\t  describing
\nthemselves  as\tmembers\t of  the  Federation  of   Temporary
\nOfficers  Association,\tIndian Railways joining\t with  them,
\ntheir\tPresident,  Vice-President  and\t Secretary  of\t the
\naforesaid  Federation  as writ petitioners  approached\tthis
\nCourt
\n1023<\/span>
\nin  a  representative  capacity\t to  seek  relief  in  their
\nseniority status.\n<\/p>\n
The  principal\tclaim  of  the\twrit  petitioners  was\tthat
\nOfficers  were appointed to temporary posts on the cadre  of
\nEngineers and that their seniority had to be reckoned on the
\nbasis  of  their length of continuous service,\tthough\tthey
\nconceded that in any given year, the candidates appointed as
\nEngineers  on  the basis of the results of  the\t competitive
\nexaminations were placed above those appointed on the  basis
\nof  selection by the Union Public Service  Commission.\t The
\nchallenge  was\tto  the authority of the  Railway  Board  to
\ncreate\tsuch  an unclassified  parallel\t service,  something
\noutside\t the  preview of the  Indian  Railway  Establishment
\nBoard.\t Notwithstanding  the  procedure  of  selection\t  so
\nadopted\t the  writ  petitioners\t contended  that  they\twere
\nrecruited  in Class I service and supported their  claim  on
\ndiverse\t grounds  so  as  to  obtain  the  result  that\t all
\nAssistant  Engineers  formed  one  class  under\t the  Indian
\nRailway\t Establishment\tBoard.\tChallenge was  made  to\t the
\nclassification\tof personnel into those that were  recruited
\non the basis of the competitive examinations and those\tthat
\nwere  recruited\t by  selection, but  both  by  Union  Public
\nService\t  Commission,  terming\tit  as\tarbitrary  and\t not
\npermissible  under the equality clause in the  Constitution.
\nGrievance  was\tvoiced\tthat the right of  absorption  of  a
\nhandful\t of temporary Engineers (Officers) every  year\tinto
\nthe  Service  of  Engineers was\t arbitrary  and\t inequituous
\nresulting in grave injustice rendering decades of service of
\nthe Officers to a mere waste.\n<\/p>\n
Unfortunately  the  then writ petitioners did  not  sue\t the
\nrespondents  across  in a representative capacity.   In\t the
\nfitness\t of  things it would have been appropriate  for\t the
\nthen  writ  petitioners to either involve  all\tparties\t who
\ncould  possibly have an interest or a likely affectation  in
\nthe litigation, or to sue them in a representative  capacity
\nif not individually.  However some people did get  impleaded
\nas parties in that case to project their. point of view\t and
\ndue  to\t the  nature of\t dispute  those\t predominantly\twere
\nmembers of the Indian Railways Service of Engineers Class 1.
\nThis Court while dismissing the writ petitions held that the
\nclassification\tof temporary Assistant\tOfficers  separately
\nfrom  the  Indian Railway Service Engineers of Class  I\t was
\nneither\t discriminatory nor violative of Articles 14 and  16
\nof the Constitution, for the reason that it had nexus to the
\nobject sought to be achieved, which mainly was efficiency of
\nservice,  and that both the services had started  separately
\nand  never became one.\tThis Court further viewed  that\t the
\nobject\tof  recruitment\t being\tdifferent,  the\t methods  of
\nrecruitment  dissimilar, the appointing authority being\t not
\nthe  same,  the\t training imparted to the  two\tunlike,\t the
\ntenure of temporary Assistant Officers being precarious, and
\ntheir maximum aspiration being only to be absorbed into\t the
\nIndian Railway Service of Engineers Class
\n1024<\/span>
\nwere  distinctive  features and, therefore, no\tquestion  of
\ntheir entitlement to equal rights arose until and unless the
\ntemporary  Assistant Officers got absorbed into\t the  Indian
\nRailway Service of Engineers Class-1.  This court also ruled
\nthat  the.  seniority of  the.absorbed\ttemporary  Assistant
\nOfficers  would\t ordinarily reckon from the  date  of  their
\nabsorption  into  the Indian Railway  Service  of  Engineers
\nClass I as stipulated in their letters of appointments\tWith
\nregard to the time factor, this Court also took into account
\nthe  long  wait\t involved in the process but  all  the\tsame
\napproved  of the measures of the Railway Board in  lessening
\nthe Iona wait by giving them weightage of half of the length
\nof  service as temporary Assistant Officers subject  to\t the
\nmaximum\t of five years.\t And lastly this court rejected\t the
\nclaim of the temporary Assistant Officers asking for  “equal
\nstatus\tfor equal pay and equal work” leaving a ray of\thope
\nthat  such  goal might be achieved in the  not\ttoo  distant
\nfuture.\n<\/p>\n
The instant batch of matters is virtually on the same  lines
\nas of Katyani Dayal’s case claiming the same relief and this
\ntime  by  the Temporary Assistant Officers  through  a\tbody
\nstyled\tas  the Federation of  Directly\t Appointed  Officers
\n(Suppressed)  of  Indian  Railways and a few  others,  in  a
\nrepresentative capacity across which stand arrayed the Union
\nof  India and the Railway Board as respondents.\t  When\tthis
\nmatter came up for hearing on 15 March, 1990 before a three-
\njudge  Bench in which one of us (Punchhi, J.) was a  member,
\nit  was It that the affected parties should be impleaded  in
\ntheir representative capacity so as to make the decision  of
\nthis  Court binding on every member of both the\t classes  of
\nemployees.   The  requisite  direction\twas  thus  made\t and
\ncarried\t out.  Pursuant thereto some private respondents  on
\nrecord\trepresent  the\tentire\tbody  of  similarly   placed
\nEngineers,  Thus both sides have sued and are being sued  in
\ntheir representative capacity.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners has spear
\nheaded the claim of the temporary Assistant Officers on\t the
\nbasis  of the so called developing concept of Article 14  in
\nthe  years gone by, especially in the field of the right  to
\nequality in matters relating to employment on appointment in
\nservice.  He asserts that the development of law has gone  a
\nlong  way  so  as to shed the  views  expressed\t in  Katyani
\nDayal’s\t case  justifying  demolition  of  the\t demarcation
\nbetween\t the two services made as it was in Katyani  Dayal’s
\ncase   examining  the  question\t afresh\t in  the  light\t  of
\nRaghunandan   Prasad  Singh  v.\t Secretary,  Home   (Police)
\nDepartment, Government of Bihar & Ors [1988] Supp.  SCC 519,
\nDr.  O.Z Hussain v. Union of India<\/a> [1990] Supp.\t SCC 688  at
\n691,  &\t Direct\t Recruit Class II  Engineering\tof  officers
\nAssociation  v. State of Maharashtra & Others [1990]  2\t SCC
\n715 and-\n<\/p>\n
1025<\/span><\/p>\n
other  cases.\tIt was contended that Katyani  Dayal’s\tcase
\nupholding  the\tcreation  of  temporary\t posts\toutside\t the
\nservice\t was  on the basis which has since been\t eroded\t and
\n“equal\tpay  for  equal work” with  equality  in  all  other
\nconditions  of\tservice including avenues  of  confirmation,
\nabsorption,  promotion,\t pension and  security\thave  become
\ninflexible  postulates\tof service  jurisprudence.   On\t the
\nother hand, learned counsel for the respondents has  opposed
\nsuch method contending that what is being asked is a virtual
\nreview\tof Katyani Dayal’s case which is not permissible  by
\nmeans  of  successive writ petitions.  Addedly it  is  urged
\nthat  principles of constructive res judicata would bar\t the
\nre-agitation of the issues decided in Katyani Dayal’s  case,
\nif not the strict principles of res judicata.  Lastly it was
\nurged  that  when  the\tmatter\thas  been  settled  in\tthis
\nparticular  service, its unsettling by means of\t a  petition
\nunder Article 32 of the Constitution is impermissible.
\nWe  were  taken through Katyani\t Dayal’s  case\textensively.
\nWhat we find is that the distinction and the  classification
\nof  the\t temporary  Assistant Officers and  members  of\t the
\nIndian Railway Service of Engineers Class I fell clearly  to
\nbe identified and marked.  The only method of fusion was  by
\nmeans  of a phased absorption as noticed in paragraph  9  of
\nthe  Report  detailed  above.  The scheme  having  met\twith
\napproval  of  this Court cannot by mere passage of  time  be
\ntaken to have become vulnerable by subsequent exponence\t and
\ndimension of Article 14 of the Constitution.  This Court  in
\nKatyani\t Dayal’s  case\tspecifically  said  that  relief  of
\nequality was being denied to the then petitioners because of
\nthe  history,  origin, and structure of\t the  Services.\t  No
\nopinion\t was  expressed however as to the  validity  of\t the
\ngiven  weightage of half the length of service to  Temporary
\nAssistant  Officers.  subject to a maximum  of\tfive  years,
\nbecause of its being questioned elsewhere.
\nWe  are\t unable\t to  make any headway  or  act\tin  judicial
\nindiscipline towards widening the scope of these matters  in
\nthe  face  of  the Constitution\t Bench\tdecision  of  Direct
\nRecruit’s  case (supra).  Amongst the conclusions summed  up
\nby  the Constitution Bench conclusion (J) and (K)  seal\t the
\nfate of these matters.\tThese are:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(J)  The\t decision  dealing  with   important
\n\t      questions\t concerning  a\tparticular   service
\n\t      given  after careful consideration  should  be
\n\t      respected rather than scrutinised for  finding
\n\t      out  any\tpossible error.\t It is\tnot  in\t the
\n\t      interest\tof  service to\tunsettle  a  settled
\n\t      position.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (K)That  a  dispute raised by  an\t application
\n\t      under Article 32 of the
\n\t      1026<\/span>
\n\t      Constitution  must  be held to  be  barred  by
\n\t      principles of res judicata including the\trule
\n\t      of  constructive res judicata if the same\t has
\n\t      been  earlier decided by a competent court  by
\n\t      a judgment which became final.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The distinction between, the two services was well marked in
\nKatyani\t Dayal’s case (supra) and the important question  of
\nequality  was once for all settled.  To find fault with\t it,
\nat  this  juncture  again on  the  touch-stone\tof  equality
\ndimension  would  be to unsettle a settled  position.\tThat
\nventure\t is  neither-in the interest of justice nor  in\t the
\ninterest   of  service.\t  When\tthere  has   been   complete
\nabsorption  of the personnel of one service into the  other,
\nand  the seniority of the absorbers is to be  reckoned\tfrom
\ntheir date of absorption as stipulated in their\t appointment
\nmatters and as held by this Court with weightage of half the
\nlength\tof  service subject to a maximum of five  years,  it
\nwould  otherwise be imprudent now, at this point of time  to
\ndig up old issues.  The rule of weightage also appears to us
\nto  be\treasonable  and this is a  pattern  which  has\tbeen
\nnoticed and approved in many a Service.\t Similarly when\t the
\ndispute\t raised\t between the Officers  in  a  representative
\ncapacity  and  Engineers  not  so  represented,\t in  Katyani
\nDayal’s\t case (supra), still it was a dispute raised  before
\nthis  Court which has been decided finally.  A\tdispute\t now
\nsought\tto  be raised under Article 32 of  the\tConstitution
\nbetween\t the  Officers\tin  a  representative  capacity\t and
\nEngineers  across also in a representative capacity must  be
\nheld  to be barred by principles of res judicata as also  in
\nthe   rule   of\t constructive  res  judicata.\t The   cases
\naforementioned\trelied\tupon  by  learned  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioners\/appellants\tdo not remove this hurdle,  however,
\nbroadly may Article 14 and 16 be viewed and expanded.  It is
\nthus unnecessary to elaborate those cases and discover their
\nratio.\t The  are  argument  of\t learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  that the State is prohibited to  create  separate
\nchannels of service and create discrimination by making\t one
\nas  an\tisolated  one, and  not\t providing  for\t promotional
\navenues\t reasonably, falls to the ground in view of the\t bar
\nof  re-agitation erected by Direct Recruit’s  case  (supra).
\nEqually when absorption had been made possible and its\tpace
\nquickened with weightage, it is difficult to find fault with
\nthe scheme at this point of time to look for a\tsubstitution
\nat  our\t end,  as that would unsettle  a  settled  position,
\nestablished more than a decade ago.  We also do not see\t any
\ncompelling reasons to deviate from the principles enunciated
\nin the judgment.  At this point of time the bars erected  by
\nDirect\tRecruit’s case (supra) appear to us to have  further
\nthickened  goading  us to refrain from the exercise  of\t any
\nundoing.  We thus leave the matter as it is.\n<\/p>\n
It needs mentioning that the appeals being decided instantly
\nare  against  the  judgments and orders of  the\t High  Court
\nrejecting writ petitions of the petitioners
\n1027<\/span>
\nbefore it on the basis of Katyani Dayal’s case (supra).\t  No
\ndetails\t of  these cases are necessary to dispose  of  these
\nappeals for the reasons stated above.\n<\/p>\n
As  a result these petitions and appeals tail,\tbut  without
\nany order as to costs.\tIn view of the dismissal of the main
\nmatters, no orders are necessary on all the C.M.Ps.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\tMatters dismissed.\n1028<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Federation Of Directly Appointed … vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2422, 1993 SCR (3)1018 Author: M Punchhi Bench: Punchhi, M.M. PETITIONER: FEDERATION OF DIRECTLY APPOINTED OFFICERS OF INDIANRAILWAY A Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFederation Of Directly Appointed ... vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federation Of Directly Appointed ... vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-07T10:11:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Federation Of Directly Appointed … vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-07T10:11:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2740,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993\",\"name\":\"Federation Of Directly Appointed ... vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-07T10:11:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Federation Of Directly Appointed … vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Federation Of Directly Appointed ... vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federation Of Directly Appointed ... vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-07T10:11:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Federation Of Directly Appointed … vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993","datePublished":"1993-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-07T10:11:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993"},"wordCount":2740,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993","name":"Federation Of Directly Appointed ... vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-07T10:11:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-directly-appointed-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-etc-etc-on-18-june-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Federation Of Directly Appointed … vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 18 June, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}