# COL. A. S. IYER & ORS. ETC v. V. BALASUBRAMANYAM & ORS

- **Citation:** [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1036
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1980
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 1754-1755 of 1975
- **Bench:** Y. V. Ciiandraciiud, V. R. Krishna Iyer, N. L. Untwalia, P. N. Shingiial Ano A. D. Koshal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/col-a-s-iyer-ors-etc-v-v-balasubramanyam-ors-7841
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

c
D
E
(i
G
l:l
Stuve}' of India (Rec.:ruitrne1u /10111 Corps of Engineer Officers) R"les 1950
-Service' consisted of Anny and Civilian Officers-Seniority and promotional
opportunities for Army Officers different from Civilian Officers-Rule if violatn·e
of Articles 14 and 16-of the Constitution.
Rule 5 of the Survey of India (Recruitn1ent from Corps of Engineer Officers) Rules 1950 provided that on first appointment an officer \VOUld be in the
grade of Deputy Superintending Surveyor in Class I Service of the Survey of
India and that seniority of n1ilitary officers inter se will re1nain the same as itI
the Army. Sub-rule 5 of this rule provided that an1ong those allotted to the
same yea(, military officers would rook senior to directly
recruited
civilian
officers.
Rule 11 of the Rules \Vhich dealt with the me~hod of recruitment to
Survey of India Clas& I Service provided that all recruitments to
the Cadre
would be 50% from the Corps of Engineer Officers, 25% from promoted Clas:i
II civilian officers and 25% from direct recn1its by competitive examination
through the· Union Public Service Commission. These Rules- were amended in
1960 and 1970 but the provision relating to military engineers remained the
same as in the 1950 Rules.
In a writ petition filed in the High Court, the civilian officers of the service
consisting of direct recntits and Class II promotees impugned the validity of
the 1950 Rul'es on the· ground that seniority prescriptions were based on irrelevant criteria and that discrimination was writ large in the in1pugned provisions.
The High c·ourt, accepting the contentions of the civilian officers, stiuck
down eertairr rules of the 1950 Rules as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
The High Court did not acc'ept the contention of the Government that the nature and character of the work done by the Survey of India
was essehtially -connected with defence purpose& because th'e work done by the
Department for the Army was done along with several other services carri'ed
on by it, namely, with the development projects, preparation of ma.ps
for
various Ministries of the Central and S;tate Governments, public sector undertakings and other agencies; assuming that the work was related to defence
purposes, civilian officers were employed by the D'epartment to do the same
work and during emergencies, civilian officers were <;ailed upon to serve
in
border areas.
Th1e Department had civilian budget.
For these reasons the
High Court came to the conclusion that there was no ground to justify classification made under the impugned Rules between the Army officers and civilian
officers because th1e recruits from the army could not be said to be
better
qualified than the civilian direct recruits and that there was no jus-tification for
adopting any discrimination iil favour of the Ai:my officers.
The impugned
rules were struck down on the ground that there was no reasonabJe nexus with
the object sought to be achieved.
,
A. S. IYER V. V. BALASUBRAMANYAM
1037
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the State that the
A.
constitutional mandate of \!qual treatment applies only to equals 3lld in the
case of recn1itment to the service the sources of recruitment of Army peroonnei
and civilian entr11nts- are different and remain diffetent; weightage is given only
at the time of entry and thereafter officers are treated as equals for all purposes of promotio'n.· and -the advantage gained by the militarymen is a conse
4
quence of tbe initial advantage of the commissioned service for the purposes
cf seniority.
Assuming that there is a unified cadre, since
thet'eexists
a
I,
ra4ional relation to the object sought to be a'l:hieved Article 16 cannot be said
to have been violated.
Allo,ving the appeals,
HELD: The 1950 Rules are valid in that they have a prominent feature
\vhich is basic namely the military nominees do not- shed their army service
<1nd merge into a ne\v service to undergo partial ;ibsorption but preserve

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 90,108. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

1036
A
COL. A. S. IYER & ORS. ETC.
v.
V. BALASUBRAMANYAM & ORS.
Oclober 24, 1979
I
[Y. V. CIIANDRACIIUD, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALIA,
P. N. SHINGIIAL ANO A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.J
c
D
E
(i
G
l:l
Stuve}' of India (Rec.:ruitrne1u /10111 Corps of Engineer Officers) R"les 1950
-Service' consisted of Anny and Civilian Officers-Seniority and promotional
opportunities for Army Officers different from Civilian Officers-Rule if violatn·e
of Articles 14 and 16-of the Constitution.
Rule 5 of the Survey of India (Recruitn1ent from Corps of Engineer Officers) Rules 1950 provided that on first appointment an officer \VOUld be in the
grade of Deputy Superintending Surveyor in Class I Service of the Survey of
India and that seniority of n1ilitary officers inter se will re1nain the same as itI
the Army. Sub-rule 5 of this rule provided that an1ong those allotted to the
same yea(, military officers would rook senior to directly
recruited
civilian
officers.
Rule 11 of the Rules \Vhich dealt with the me~hod of recruitment to
Survey of India Clas& I Service provided that all recruitments to
the Cadre
would be 50% from the Corps of Engineer Officers, 25% from promoted Clas:i
II civilian officers and 25% from direct recn1its by competitive examination
through the· Union Public Service Commission. These Rules- were amended in
1960 and 1970 but the provision relating to military engineers remained the
same as in the 1950 Rules.
In a writ petition filed in the High Court, the civilian officers of the service
consisting of direct recntits and Class II promotees impugned the validity of
the 1950 Rul'es on the· ground that seniority prescriptions were based on irrelevant criteria and that discrimination was writ large in the in1pugned provisions.
The High c·ourt, accepting the contentions of the civilian officers, stiuck
down eertairr rules of the 1950 Rules as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
The High Court did not acc'ept the contention of the Government that the nature and character of the work done by the Survey of India
was essehtially -connected with defence purpose& because th'e work done by the
Department for the Army was done along with several other services carri'ed
on by it, namely, with the development projects, preparation of ma.ps
for
various Ministries of the Central and S;tate Governments, public sector undertakings and other agencies; assuming that the work was related to defence
purposes, civilian officers were employed by the D'epartment to do the same
work and during emergencies, civilian officers were <;ailed upon to serve
in
border areas.
Th1e Department had civilian budget.
For these reasons the
High Court came to the conclusion that there was no ground to justify classification made under the impugned Rules between the Army officers and civilian
officers because th1e recruits from the army could not be said to be
better
qualified than the civilian direct recruits and that there was no jus-tification for
adopting any discrimination iil favour of the Ai:my officers.
The impugned
rules were struck down on the ground that there was no reasonabJe nexus with
the object sought to be achieved.
,
A. S. IYER V. V. BALASUBRAMANYAM
1037
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the State that the
A.
constitutional mandate of \!qual treatment applies only to equals 3lld in the
case of recn1itment to the service the sources of recruitment of Army peroonnei
and civilian entr11nts- are different and remain diffetent; weightage is given only
at the time of entry and thereafter officers are treated as equals for all purposes of promotio'n.· and -the advantage gained by the militarymen is a conse
4
quence of tbe initial advantage of the commissioned service for the purposes
cf seniority.
Assuming that there is a unified cadre, since
thet'eexists
a
I,
ra4ional relation to the object sought to be a'l:hieved Article 16 cannot be said
to have been violated.
Allo,ving the appeals,
HELD: The 1950 Rules are valid in that they have a prominent feature
\vhich is basic namely the military nominees do not- shed their army service
<1nd merge into a ne\v service to undergo partial ;ibsorption but preserve a subsl"'1tial separateness. [1054 B-C]
I. Without the military cng!ncers the Survey of In<lia
would
becorne
a
function~1l failure in discharging its paramount duties in times- of war and peoce.
Tue \\'Ork done by the army wing of the Surv'ey of India is far too important
to be played \vith and such work is best done by th<1t \ving.
The military
recruit~ are commissioned officers with three to six years of service with certain
sala1ry scal'es and period of .service.
Giving due \veight to these factors rule
5 lays down the criteria for seniority as betVi'een the military sector and the
civilian sector.
For the very efficiency of the Survey of India a substantial
Army element is 'essential.
Army engineers are invited into this service not
because this department historically belonged to the defence forces but-. because
in hour:5: of crises it cannot minister to one of th'e major objectives of ·its ere~
tion if it doc!:Y not ha\1e engineers \vith n1ilitary training. courage and so· ·on.
It is fairly intelligible and basically equitable to allow military engineers credit
for commissioned service and protection of already
earned higher
salaries.
[1059 E-H 1060 A-Bl
2. To attract engineers into the Survey or India by assuring them all that
th~y were enjoying in their existing service, namely, credit for the y'ears under
commission in recl.oning seniority and fitment of their salary and other benefits
is not di~rimination or favoured ttea.tment but justice to
those
whom.
of
necessity, the service wants. [1060 C-D]
.
3. On.:e it is agreed that at the entrance point the Army engineers are
justly given credit for the commissioned service \\'hich they carTy \vith them
there .is no further discrimination while in service on the score that they come
from the Corps of Engineer Officers.
All that happens thereaffer is merely the
manifest'ltion of initial advantage of credit for commissioned service. [1061 D-E]
li1ohamn1ad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of J11dia &: Ors. [.1975] i SCR 449
at 481: Rani Lal JiVadwa &,Anr. v. The Stal!! of Harya11a & Ors. [1973] 1 SCR
608 at 635; State of Punjab v. Jngindcr Singh [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 169 at 189;
S. G. laisinghan[ v. Union of India & Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 703; Ganga Ram &:
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1970] 3 SCR 481 at 488 referred to.
4. The 1950 Rules bring Out certain in-cidents of service boldly.
Notwithst~nding the fact thnt they eniered the SurYey of India
service,
the
Army
c
D
E
P)'.'·
G
H
I
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
A.
officers continue tO wear Army uniforms, they get notional promotions in the
Army provided they pass the requis,ite Army tests when they earn corresponding promotions in the Survey of India. They can be recalled by 1he Army and
they continu'e to be under the control of the Commande~-in-Chief. When inefficiency is noticed they can be called back to the Army for being dealt with
appropriately.
A conspectus of the facts and circumstances
govemlng
the
service makes it cl'ear that there is no integiation of the Army personnel into
•
the Survey Service.
\Vithout such complete iritegration Articles 14 and 16
cannot be invoked.
[1064 E-G, 1065 A-Bl
5. Whether 25% or 50% induction from military engineers is enough is
a. matter of policy for which the judiciary has no genius and the administration
has a reach of materials and range of expertise, so that Courts· must keep out
exCept where rational critel,ia, or irrelevant factors ma/a fide motives or gross
C
folly enter the verdict. In the instant case reservation of 50 % of Class I service
for Army Officers cannot be called irrational, impertinent or improvident,
[1065 F-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal Nos. 1754-1755
of 1975.
D
From the Jcidgment and Order dated 5-9-1975 of the Andhra
.Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1269 /75
L. N. Sinha, Atto;rney General for India, E. C. Agarwala and
Girish Chandra for the Appellants (In CA 1755/75).
P. P. Rao, M. S. Ganesh, A. K. Ganguli and T. V. S. Narasimha-
:E chari for the Appellants in CA 1754/75.
G
H
P. Govindmi Nair,
A. K. Sen,
Bishambar Lal, Miss Munisha
Gupta and Mrs. Baby Krishmm for RR 1-2 in CA 1754;75 and CA
17.55/75.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.
These two sister appeals have gamed access
to this Court by certificate under Article 133 and project a 'service
dispute' between the Army and civilian wings (both engineers) of
the Survey of India.
The constitntional missiles used, with success,
in the encounter in the High Court by the 'civilians' to shoot down the
'military men's' preferential claims under the relevant service rules,
are Articles 14 and 16.
And here, in this Court, the Army Wing is
fighting back to repulse the civilian wing by defusing the war-head
of these twoi fundamental rights.
Military imagery vivifies the litigative
havoc when sectors of our public services go to battle against each
other, though there is so much else to wage war against in the service
of the people.
A narration of facts falling within a short compass will unfold the
real issue, revolving round the salary, seniority and de facto promo-
A. s. IYER v. v. BALASUBRAMANYAM (Krishna Iyer, J.)
10 39
tional disparity inter se, which has sparked off the forensic war.
The
Union of India, one of the appellants, supports the stand of the
military sector of the Survey Service, if we may so designate it.
A
survey of the ·,1_ory nf this conflict suggests the sombre thought that
llncnding litigation, affecting the public services with inevitable impact
on morale and cflicicncy, is beco1ning an epidemic in courts even:
among strategic cadres and sensitive sectors-a matter almost
for
constemaiion
which surely must kindle a search for constitutional
alternatives for resolution of service questions without large numbers
of civil servants being locked in long-drawn-out legal struggles. Does
the experience of 30 years under the Constitution indi~ate that, save
where fundamentai constitutional issues arise,
Whitley
Councils,.
Service Tribunals and other specialised adjudicalory agencies, with
the imprimatur of fin~lity, are a morn pragmatic mechanism of Service
Justice?
The factual setting, sufficient to unravel the constitutional contentior, may now be delineated.
Both the appeals against the judgment
of the High Court of Andina Pradesh cover the same subject matter,
although one of them is by the Central Government and the other
by the members of the Survey of India from among tl~e Defence
personnel, and both have been resisted on the same l)asis by the civilian recruits to the Service.
A common judgment will dispose of
both the cases but we must begin from the very beginning to get a
hang of the controversy.
TJie genesis of the Survey of India, its life before bi.rth, its genetic
composition and !1ered1tary characteristics, mould the structural engineeriug of the Service mid, therefore, have a bearing on the issues
delmted before us by both sides.
Whlle the High Court i.as, to some
extent, slurred over the chronicle, both sides have heavily stressed before
us the saga of the Survey of India. each to lend strength to its point
of Yiew.
So, a peep into the bicentennial biography of the Survey
of India is a necessary exercise as a starting point. To blink at history
is to lose jhe living link with the Past and to stumble in the Present.
Yet strangely, none such, i.e. history of the Service, to serve ns a
,
iucic background is given in their statement by either party, save
incidentally.
Unfortunately, the fine and fruitful art of presenting a
luscent written brief is still in the long Indian Year of the Infant and
we have to cull out and piece together materials whicl1 should have
been set out as a scenario of meaningful developmwt
If the High
Court has gone wrong the blame must fall in part on the Central
Government which could and should have projec!ed the storv of the
Survey of India, its functional complexion and recruitment ~ationale
A
•
c
D
E
F
G
H,
A
•
D
E
I'
G
H
1040
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
instead of leaving judges to run around the corridors of padded paper
books or launch on speculative sunnises.
The State·, the largest and
resourceful and most affected public litigant, leaves much to be desired
in tlie written presentation ol ·its cases.
The other parties fare no
betler, though.
And instalments of additional information during the
progress of the l1earing has had to make-do for a
comprehensive
unfoldment.
Better late than never !
The story ol the Survey of India has been narrated in its brief
autobiography, 'O.ir Department', produced on the e•c of its bicentennial in 1967. Tlris department was born during the days of Lord
Clive under happy Anny stars, had a military upbringing and, in its
brilliant career, achieved lustrous exploits.
Starting from an accident
ol history-the request of a historian, Robert Orlll'~, to an East India
Company administrator, Lord Clive, for a map of Bengal-the Survey·
of India spranp: to life in embryonic form when Ma1or Renne! was
appointed to execute this survey and, thereafter, was cradled by the
Army but spread out to become a dynamic department and development instrument in the decades ahead. In war and in peace, in
building the nation and defending its security, in 'civilian' ventures
and military operations the Survey of India has become a National
Service in the role of adviser on survey data and kindred adventures.
lnueed, almost ail ministries of the Central Government and i:nany
States ha\·e used the services of the Survey of India during the several
Five-Year j>la,ns.
'Lcok before you leap' becomes in development
terms, survey before you start, and so it is that 111 1967 this great
department of strategic importance is able to
write its story and
conclude :
"25. In short, in its ever increasing sphere
of vast,
diverse anll widely scattered work, Survey of Indi:t has
built up a unique reputation both within the country and
outside as a sound, distinguished, and great Survey Organisation
of the w9r]d,
progressively mm·ching forward.
expnnrling, adapting and modernising itself and continuing
its contribuLions to Science, security and develop1nent.
The -personnel of Survey of India can legitimately take
pride in the fact that' they belong to this ancient and great
org:::nisation, to whom a noble, rich and priceless heritage
has been bequ~athcd-inspiring and beckoning
them
to
greater heights of achievement, honour and glory."
When the history of Free India comes to be written the proud
contribution of the Survey of India may be printed in bold and bright
1•
)
'
A. s. IYER v. v. BALASUBRAMANYAM (Krishna Iyer, J.)
1041
characters because almost every Department of gcvernmental activity
with we1fare pctential has the imprint of the Survey of India at some
stage or the other, as disclosed in the various materials which have
come into our hands, through counsel, in the course of their submissions.
The flattering fact that the tallest peak in the World, Mount
Everest, was named after the eminent Surveyor General Sir George
Everest shows that even in: the geological discovery er India. this
Department has had a hand, The different dimensions and directions
in which the :O.urvey of India has served the nation and science a• a
whole are perhaps a fall-out of its adventurous alliance with military
activity.
During British days, it was not an accident that the Survey of India
was under the Army. It was an inalienable companion of conquest
anrl consolidation of defence and development-a
versatile
genins
which was put to greater good in the era of Freedom and After.
"12. It is perhaps not so well known that the work of
the Survey of India has special significance in matters of
conntry's defence.
The Survey of India has
to
organise
surveys and work well ahead ·to provide maps at the rl1:>hi
time and of the right places where campai!'ns might ~be
fought in war.
The Chinese threat along the northern borders of the
country since 1959 necessitated diverting immediately a
very large potential of the Department to carry out the
work of special topographical surveys for defence purposes
in one of the most inhospitable and rugged terrains of the
world--.:,m assignment which cost the Department many
precious lives and many yeaJ"s of hard work.
~-
The bul.k of military survey and mapping requirements
are met by Survey of India.
Though the milil:lry survey
iiervice exists. it is small and has insufficient personnel, who
carry out limited technical work and such staff duties as
army requires in peace time.
13. There have, thus, been many occasions for the
Survey of India to be commended for its work for defence
and_ development in war and peace •. and for provi_ding the
basic knowledge of the land for all its users."(!)
(I) Survey oflndia, A Background Inforrnation-'Ou;; Department' Departmental
Paper. No. 19) PP 8·9.
12-743 SCl/79
A
c
E.
G
B.
I
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
A
The Surveyor General, for reasons of functional i:nportance, is also
the Director of Military Survey.
Topographical Mapping states :
"When corrections and additions to maps
of military
importance ·are suggested by the Director, Military Survey,
they should, as a general rule, be accepted by ·the Survey
:B
of India."
It is necessary to notice the role of the Survey Department under the
Director of Military Survey who is also the Surveyor General thus
bringing ont the interlacing of activity. Obvionsly, there is not merely
sensitivity and confidentiality but also a high degree of skill which
cannot be relaxed and an instant sense of discipline, which cannot be
liberalised, in view of the fact that military operntions of national
significance depend, in part, on the Survey of India and its service.
While it is fair to emphasise that considerable peace-time developmental work is rendered by this Departn\ent, its adventurous spirit of
climbing mountains, penetrating wildernesses and entering into forbld0
den regions cannot be minimised.
Lt. Col. Sandes writing on 'The
Military En~ineer in India' states :
B
"History has shown that there is something in the training which the Survey of India, imparts to its officers which
makes them peculiarly valuable in war.
Their work develops
not only self-reliance and initiative, but a sense. of responsibility. Everything centres on the example set by the leader
of an isolated party. As a rule, he is the only Furcpean in
the small country.
He must have powers of organisation and
observation : courage, determination and endurance.
In the
ordinary cours~, he must be precise to the point of pedantry,
never satisfied with unchecked work and abhorring the
smallest error; yet at other times he must fling theory and
practice to the winds to improvise means of, rapid reconnaissance when danger threatens."( 1)
The Military history which has moulded the character of this
Department has relevance and so we quote again Lt. Col. Sandes :
"As the war spread, ·the survey officers from India were
scattered over the face of the earth; some on mllitary dutv
with engineer units other flash-spotting, ~ound-ranging and
triangulating in France and Belgium : and others again
reconnoitring and surveying in any or all of three continents.
They worked in Salonika, North and South Russia, Italy
Gallipoli, East Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria, Persia,
(!) Lt. Col. E.W.C. Sandes, The Military Engineer in India. Vol. II p. 215.
A. s. IYER v. ·v. BALAST.JBRAMANYAM (Krishna Iyer, J,)
1043
.
.
and on the shores of the Caspian. One commanded a origade
in North Russia, another Jed' a Persian army. Ten officers of
the Survey of India we.re killed in Action, or died on service,
during the Great War, and tbi.rteen were wounded.
Many
casualties occuJred in the lower ranks. Such were the contributions of the Department towards victory in the greatest
struggle of all time.
T11ey form a fitting climax to its record
in the frontier wars of India.;'(1)
. If we may sketch a few lines to indicate the trait of the Corps of
Indian Engineers with a view to' illumine the points canvassed before
us, we have to refer ta. the book by. Major Verma and Major Anand.
The authors state : (")
"Before the war, Military Survey as such did not exist;
though for generations past, Survey of India had provided
detachments for practically every military campaign or
expedition.
But these parties werel considered to be civilian,
including their military officers-in-command, and they were
only attached to the Armv for supplies and transport. Even
in the First World War (1914-18), Survey of India detachments went out and worked in Macedonia, Mesopotamia and
Persia.
But at no time before 1940 did India have any
military units like the Field Survey Companies or Battalions.
Between the wars, survey and mapping for the Army was
done by the Sur;ey of India, which except for the Artillery
Survey Section, Royal ArtiJ!ery, was the sole military survey
agency. It had a semi-military tradition, the Surveyor General held the rank of a Brigadier and his principal officers
were .·Royal Engineers with specialist survey qualifications.
There was no survey representation at GHQ."
Again
"For the Department. the military responsibilities in
1938-39 were:-
(a) Liaison with the Armed Forces ou survey and mapping.
(b) Provision of maps required by the Defence Services,
covering India, Burma, Afghanistan and. Iran.
A·
B
c
D
F
G
OJ~.m.
H
(2) Maj. S. Verma & Maj. V. K. Anand, The Corps ofTndian Engineers 1939-47.
p.198.
••
c
D
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 s.c:11.
(c) In the event of a war; to provide and equip firstly
two Fd Survey Compani~s and two Survey HQs fof
service in the NWFP, and secondly one Survey
Report ( admn.)
·
(d) To carry out annually a small amount. of training in
military survey."(!)
In many· Circles, Directors of the Survey of India have been Office
Advisers to the 'Commander-in-Chief' an.ct the work done by this
Department has had in many cases military meaning.
This was ·
reflected in the past in the officer situation and personnel complexion.
Class I Officer~ were all military men while Class. II met\ were civilian
graduates.
Brig. Wheeler, writing of the officer situation in British
India, summed up thus :
"Perhaps the greatest single factor affecting military
.organisation was that whereas there were nearly 60 military
officers in 1925, there were only 30 in 1939; to train a civilian to be sound and efficient soldier takes a considerable time,
to train a non-survey soldier to become an efficient surveyor,
1
much longer, very much 'longer."
The military commitments of the Survey of lndia in the World War II
made it a strategic instrument invisible to the lay but invaluable to the
esoteric.
We have pressed this part of the career of the Survey of India to
knock out the impression that its military component is purely a concession to the historical staffing pattern and the lack of avenues for
promotion to Army engineers. It is an in-built necessity of the department in national interest.
We agree with counsel for the respondents,
Sri Govindan Nair, that the early history of the Survey c1f India as a
child of the Army cannot become an obsession to distort or debunk
the enormity of its purely developmental undertakings. It is a Civil
Service which serves in national reconstruction al\ the time, but,' at the
call of the country, is ready to switch to Defence, risk anywhere and
do surveys as commanded.
We must set our sights right about the
civil and military range of the versatile department and not swallow the
brash version that it is all 'brass'.
Its bearing on the conclusions in
•
the case is that the court should not blindly accept all the preferences
to the Army recruits as against their civilian brethren .under the impression that everything in the Survey of India is De.fence operation and
civilian must therefore accept the crumbs as shudras of the Service. Nol
Most of its work is peace-time activity of a fundamental. though invi-
. (1) The Corps of Indian Engineers (Ibid) p. 199.
1
•
A. s. IYER v. v. BALASUBRAMANYAM (Krishna Iyer,!.)
1045
sible character to promote development in its multitude and magnitude
A
ahd, indeed, in its panoramic magnificence.
But we cannot get away from the historic fact-not merely the fact
of history-that the Survey of India is, first and foremost, an instrument of military strategy for the defence o[ the country although its
talents are not allowed to grow into thistles but to serve, wherever
needed. U competing demands come, it opts for and is therefore
geared to Defence goals. That is its first charge and, in that sense, it
is Defence-oriented, has an Army bias and. cannot afford to ignore the
indispensibility of a military component.
The history of a nation is
never written by the military but its history ceases to be, if its reserves
of military manpower cannot be mobilised for active duty at an instanfs
notice.
The Survey of India, with its signal service to the pbnned
progress of the people, has a tryst with national security and an everready commitment to the country's defence requirements.
This may
look over-drawn but embeds a core of truth cardinal to the issue in the
case-why weightage to the 'uniformed' recruits as against their counterparts in 'mufti' ?
Let us thus place accent Cliil what is essential but not miss what
exists as a reality.
From this angle, a legal raconteur may re-tell the
story slightly differently.
·
•
!'
c
D
The Army in British India had, as one of its strategic operations,
E
to undertake the survey of the interior and frontier of the country and .
had, therefore, under it a department wholly manned by military personnel.
After Independence and the enactment o[ the Constitution,
this military limb separated from the Defence Forces, was constituted
into a Civil Service with the Surveyor Genera!' at the. apex and a hierarchy below of triple components together making up the Class I
F
service.
The Service, in its new dimensions, was manned by civilian
and military personnel due to functional imperatives.
The entry into
the service was at the point of Deputy Superintending Surveyors, save
for a category of promotees from Class II, with provision for spiralling
up to higher positions.
The posts we.re filled according to Rules
framed under the proviso to Art. 309 on a 50 : 50 basis, as between
G
Army engineering personnel dovetailed into the Survey of India and
civilians .recruited or promoted or otherwise appointed.
We miss the service perspective if we do not take · a functional
glimpse at the operational scale and range of the Survey of India.
What· was a wholly military department previously reincarnated as
B
the Survey of India, with a civilian inter-mix, retained its meta-military
personality, functionally and personnel-wise.
In budgetary c!assifica-
A
••
c
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] l S.C.R.
tion and administrative charge, the Survey of India was a member of
the Agricultu.re Ministry, of the Education Ministry and
currentlf,
perhaps, correctly belongs tc/ the Ministry Qf Science and Technology
which is pervasive enough to embrace Defence and Development.
It
is· not right to regard this Service as a 'uniformed' service, for it
is,
ambidexterous.
But that is not really decisive of the issue before us .
What we have to understand is not so much its genetic transmigratim;1
· as such or pedigree table but the nature of the service the $urvey of
India is expected to render, its basic functional characteristics, operational capabilities, futuristic uses and, consequentially, its meaningful
personnel policy and the conditions of service dictated by the compelling necessities of these demands on the Service.
In brief, the emphasis is not on the administrative r,igeonhole in which the Survey is
placed for secretariat or budgetary purposes; nor on its lineage, nor,
indeed on the label 'civil' or 'Defence' but on the nature of its duties
and. the relevant pattern of manpower and, most importantly,
the
concrete conditions of recruitment and principal career requirements
while in service, having regard to the strategic essence of the goals the
Service must sub-serve.
So viewed, the Survey of India is
armyoriented.
Not merely because of heredity but markedly because of
the nation's potential de!llands and perennial expectations frO!ll this
specialised Service, not merely in emergency but to be always on tJie
qui vive.
We gather from the affidavit of the Senior Director,
on
behalf of the Union of India, that the army component is an inalien-
• able requirement of the Survey of India if it is to fulfil its role.
He
swears :
"Some of the reasons for corps of Engineers being: one·
of the sourc.es of recruitment are as follows :
(a) Survey of India may need mobilisation in the event
of any emergency of war.
(b) The Corps of Engineer Oftlcers in Survey of India
form the nucleus around which mobilisation can take
place quickly.
(c) The small element in the Army cannot cater for training and experience, and hence Corps of Engineer
Oftlcers are kept in Snrvey of India which provides
the ideal ground for training and experience of these
oftlcers during peace so as to keep the!ll fully competent technically in the event of a war or emergency.
In order to maintain· an adequate balance between military and civi~ian officers, and to attract the higher type of
Corps of Engineer Officers to the Survey of India, 50% of
A.~. IYER v. v. BALASUBRAMANYAM (Krishna Iyer, J.)
1047
the total nnmber of posts in the. Class I Cadre were earA
marked for the Corps of Engineer Officers.'"
What, then, is the raison d' etre. of this department ?
War means
advance into or withdrawal from territory.
Operations involve ·identification of topography, climatology, environmentology, location
of
d~fence positions, marking of marching and retreating positions
and
artillary targets and paratroop landing positions, keeping secret strategic centres and sealing them off as out of bounds--and a host
of
otlie,r surveys invaluably informational and immediately available for
national defence. It is obvious that if this be the functional relevance
of the Survey of India, some
divi_sions of it have to ·be fighting fit,
always on the alert, ready to rush to the risk zones and technically
capable of teaming with the ground forces in seasons of eiuergency
and occasions of external aggression, before and after.
Tpe Survey
of India must be geared to the goal of national security if it i~ to
justify itself in a large country of extensive mountain frontiers, border ·
disputes, history of hot war, interior defence lines and military routes.
Of course, our imperial masters could afford, at the expense of people's
welfare, to keep such a department as a section of the Armed Forces,
idle for long stretches of time but keeping their tools sharp for eventualities.
Free India could not.
Naturally,
the country's leaders,
entrusted with gubernatorial responsibilities in this behalf, hit upon a
golden mean olf forming a separate Survey of India, no more a wing
of Army.
The object was undersrandable.
A permanent yet considerable number of technical personnel vi.rtually idle during peace time
was a luxury.
Nevertheless, an instrument was forged which pre.-
served the military mood of active duty but expanded and expended its
sophisticated expertise during years' of peace on national needs of other
Ministries or States' requirements.
It reflected the duo-dexterous
roles and mosaic of manpower in its recruitment policy.
Unique
functional imperatives demand nnique service anatomy as an administrative experiment in the Darwinian art of survival of the fittest.
We
see nothing strange in~ this unorthodox composition, although attempt'i
to interpret the new scheme by familiar Service moulds may mislead,
as has happened in the High Court.
The Senior Director with reference to current conditions. deposes
as· affiant of the Central Government :
"Reasons for seniority and pay protection for the Corps of
c
G
Engineer Officers are as follows :-
9.
(a) They suffer due to lack of higher opportunities
of promotion to Brig. Major General, Lt. General
B
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 1 S.C.R.
and General by their volunteering for the Survey of
India.
(b) They can utmost expect to get military pension as a
Cofone! but not as Brig. and higher which are substantially higher.
( c) They lose other perquisites like house rent, concessional electricity and furniture facilities, concessional
Form 'D' facilities, and many other concessions.
Unless therefore, they are given protecti011L of seniority
and pay in order to partly compensate their losses, no Corps
C
of Engineec Officer would ever volunteer for the Survey of
India.
These were the considerations for the seniority and
pay protection for Corps of Engineer Officers.
Even if, for argument's sake, it is admitted that preferential treatment is given to Corps of Engineer Officers
D
(which it is not), it is done under the rule• whicbi have been
framed based on the differences between the various sources of re.cruitment, and the said differences have a reasonable relation to the nature of the office to which recruitment
is made.
Thus, the appointment, and terms and conditions
of the Corps of Engineer Officers can legitimately be subIE
stantiated on the basis of valid classification."
H
At this point we must eye at close quarters the Survey of India
(Recruitment from Corp~ o:f·Engineer Officers) Rules, 1950. Primarily,
it relates to the recruitment from the Corps of Engineer Officers. The
relevant part of Rule 2 runs thus :
"2. Recruitment : A Corps of Engineer Officer for
appointment to the Survey of India should at the time of
appointment normally have not less than three and not more
than six years commissioned service, but this rule may be
relaxed in exceptional cases.
Corps of Engineer
Officers
shall apply for appointment to the Survey of India to the
Military Secretary, through the Engineer-in-Chief, who will
transmit the applications to the Surveyor General.
The
Surveyor General will
maintain a list of such
applicants,
as, after making the due. enquiries, he considers to be suitable for appointment.
When a military post falls
vacant
and the Military quota has not been filled the Surveyor
General shall nominate an Officer or Officers
from
the
above list."
'
A. s. IYER v. v. BALASUBRAMANYAM (Krishna Iyer, J.)
1049
This Rule postulates a military quota which takes us straight to
A
Rule 11 :
·
"11. Method of recruitment to Survey of India Class I
Service.
All 'future recruitment to the Survey of India Class I
Cadre will be as follows :
1. From Corps of Engineer Officers
50%
2. From promoted Class II Civilian Officers
25%
3. From direct recruits by competitive examination through the U.P.S.C.
25%
The military recruits to Class I Service enter the Deputy Superintending Surveyor's (hereinafter referred to as D.S.S.) position in
the
Service from where they rise on promotion as• Superintending Surve)orS (hereafter referred to as SS) Deputy Directors and Director,
tbe top post being of Surveyor General. These promotion posts are
available for all categories of entrants as has been clarified in the
later set of Rules called 'The Survey of India (Class I Recruitment)
Rules, 1960.'
Before we part with the 1950 Rules, it is necessary to place accent
on some aspects of the military officers and their ~areer in the Survey of India.
Their sojourn in this new Department is not an exit
from the Army but a long furlough, as it were.
For all practical
purposes, they retain their military position and reD)ain under military control and are liable to be called back for regular army service.
It is a kind of provisioual adoption into a different family but with the
•ties in the natural family kept in-tact.
A Corps of Engineer Officer will be qualified for recruitment only
if he is in commissioned service for between three and six years.
The1i he is to go through a two-year period of probation during which
he is to pass tests.
If he is not good, he gets back to military duty
and even if he makes good, he has an ·option to revert to military!
employment.
Even after confirmation, the officer may revert duringr
the first 20 years of commissioned service on his own request. Even
thereafter, with the approval of the Government he may revert permanently to military duty, save in the case or' those who fall under
Rule 4(c). If an officer retires from the army that will involve
retirement from the Survey of India too, save in the case of those
who are Colonels or Lt. Colonels, covered
by Rule 4(c), and
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
c
D
E
G
H
·1oso
·SUPREME. COURT REPORTS
(1980] 1 5.C.R.
retires from the army only for the reason that they have
attained
the regnisite age limit.
Such persons m1der Rule 4( d) may continue
in the\Survey of India until the age of superannuation from
civil
employment. It is important to note that an officer may be reverted
perman<.tit!y to military duty if he is no longer needed in the Survey
of India ·on account of reduction in strength or unsatisfactory work.
Be may also be reverted temporarily to military duty for
grounds
given in Rule 4{f).
Another remarkable tule is Rule 8 which speaks of wearing military uniform while in civil employmet1t if the incumbent is
willing
to observe the courtesies due to military officers of superior ranks.
Rule 9 is extremely significant and read~ thus :
9. Military Promotion : A military officer in the Survey of India is expected to keep hin'!self efficient as an army
officer and will have to pass such promotion examinations,
etc. as may be laid down for other military officers of his
rank and corps; snch military confidential reports will be submitted on him as may be. required by the military authorities.
Military Confidential Reports will be initiated and
submitted in acco~dance with the procedure laid down iD
Special Army Order 24/S/51 as amended from time to time.
Mt1itary officer in the Survey of India will be co~ered ·
for military substantive promotion in tum "ith others in
their corps and their fitness for such
promotion will be
judged by their confidential reports.
After completing his normal period as a Lt, Colonel an
officer will be eligible for promotion to full Colonel and
above provided that :
(i) he is a substantive Director or above in the Survey
of India;
· (ii) there is a vacancy iu the number of posts for full
Colonel and above reserved for military officers in
the Survey of India.
Rule 10 is also meaningful because the army officers in the
Survey of India when they rise to higher positions get equivalent rise
in the Army.
There are a few more aspects which perhaps ma,y
A. s. IYER v. v. BALASUBRAMANYAM (Krishna Iyer, !.)
1051
complete the story but the thrust of the submissions made by the
learned Attorney General on the strength of these rules is that the_
Army Engineers are not integrated with or incorporated into the
Survey of India Class I Service i11 toto. There is a partial assimilation hut a substantial separation persists. Once an Army Engineer,
always an Army Engineer, is the gist.
Absent integration, Art 14
is out of bounds-such is the cnmulative effect of the S-ervice Rules,
1950 according to the learned Attorney General.
We will presently
examine his claim which has been rejected by the High Court.
Indeed, the pivotal point of this case is perhaps the nature of the
Service with special reference to Articles 14 and 16, viz., the integration
of the two sources into a common pool and the impermissible de
facto bifurcation of the two strands in promotional streams in the
years ahead.
Also, the myth of Defence needs and consequent preferences for military recruits.