# DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNtON OF INDIA & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2015] 15 S.C.R. 194
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-03-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2485-2490 of 2010
- **Bench:** Jagdish Singh Khehar Ands. A. Bobde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dhole-govind-sahebrao-others-v-unton-of-india-others-30636
- **Pages:** 65

## Headnote

Service Law- Inter se seniority- Promotion - Customs
and Central Excise Department - A separate cadre was
C constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for
discharging electronic data processing responsibilities -
After the computerization project was fully implemented, the
separate cadre so created, was sought to be re-amalgamated
with the existing ministerial cadre - The bifurcation and reD amalgamation, resulted in a co-incidental career
advancement, for those who had accepted to break away from
the original ministerial cadre - Controversy on account of
reconstitution of cadres -
Seniority dispute amongst
employees - Held: Chances of promotion do not constitute
E a condition of service - In that view of the matter, the High
Court erred in recording its eventual determination on the
basis of the fact that the promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003
and the STA Rules, 2003 was discriminatory and arbitrary
with regard to the fixation of the inter se seniority, since the
F same seriously prejudiced the chances of promotion of the
erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre, namely, those
members of the original ministerial cadre, who had not opted
for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry
Operators, with reference to and in comparison with, those
G members of the original ministerial cadre who had opted for
appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry
Operators- On facts, consequent upon the merger of posts,
upon promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003, and the STA Rules,
2003, the nature and duties of the two cadres were combined
H - There was no serious difference between the two merged
194
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
195
INDIA & OTHERS
cadres, either on the issue of nature of duties, or on the
A
subject of powers exercised by the officers holding the post,
or the extent of territorial or other charge held, or
responsibilities discharged by them, or for that matter, the
qualifications prescribed for the posts - On account of the
aforesaid, the merger of the cadres, and the determination
B
of the inter se seniority on merger, were justifiably determined,
on the basis of the different pay-scales of the cadres merged,
under the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003 - By the
mandate of the above Rules, all posts in equivalent payscales were placed at the same level - Posts in the higher c
scale of pay, were given superiority on the subject of inter se
seniority, with reference to posts in the lower scale of payThe above determination, at the hands of the rule framing
authority, cannot be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory
- The provisions of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 D
of the STA Rules, 2003, cannot be faulted on the touchstone
of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution -Appeals filed by those
who moved to the cadre of Data Entry Operators from the
ministerial cadre, and were thereupon amalgamated in the
cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants, allowed -
E
Authorities to give effect to Rules 4 and 5 of the TA Rules,
2003 and the STA Rules, 2003, respectively, without any
further delay-: Central Excise and Customs Department Tax
Assistant (Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (TA
Rules, 2003) - Central Excise and Customs Department F
Senior Tax Assistant (Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003
(STA Rules, 2003)-Constitutionoflndia, 1950-Arts. 14and 16.
Service Law - Promotion - Chances of promotion -
Held: Chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of
service, and as such, mere alteration of chances of G
promotion, would not per se calf for judicial interference -
However, the above general proposition would not be
applicable, in case the chances of promotion are altered
arbitrarily, or on the basis of considerations which are shown
to be perverse ormala fide.
H
196
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
Om Prakash Sharma v. Union of India (1985)
Suppl. SCC 218- held inapplicable.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant
Kulkarni & Ors. (1981) 4

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 122,428. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

A
B
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 194
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS
v.
UNtON OF INDIA & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2485-2490 of 2010)
MARCH 26, 2015
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.J
Service Law- Inter se seniority- Promotion - Customs
and Central Excise Department - A separate cadre was
C constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for
discharging electronic data processing responsibilities -
After the computerization project was fully implemented, the
separate cadre so created, was sought to be re-amalgamated
with the existing ministerial cadre - The bifurcation and reD amalgamation, resulted in a co-incidental career
advancement, for those who had accepted to break away from
the original ministerial cadre - Controversy on account of
reconstitution of cadres -
Seniority dispute amongst
employees - Held: Chances of promotion do not constitute
E a condition of service - In that view of the matter, the High
Court erred in recording its eventual determination on the
basis of the fact that the promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003
and the STA Rules, 2003 was discriminatory and arbitrary
with regard to the fixation of the inter se seniority, since the
F same seriously prejudiced the chances of promotion of the
erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre, namely, those
members of the original ministerial cadre, who had not opted
for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry
Operators, with reference to and in comparison with, those
G members of the original ministerial cadre who had opted for
appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry
Operators- On facts, consequent upon the merger of posts,
upon promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003, and the STA Rules,
2003, the nature and duties of the two cadres were combined
H - There was no serious difference between the two merged
194
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
195
INDIA & OTHERS
cadres, either on the issue of nature of duties, or on the
A
subject of powers exercised by the officers holding the post,
or the extent of territorial or other charge held, or
responsibilities discharged by them, or for that matter, the
qualifications prescribed for the posts - On account of the
aforesaid, the merger of the cadres, and the determination
B
of the inter se seniority on merger, were justifiably determined,
on the basis of the different pay-scales of the cadres merged,
under the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003 - By the
mandate of the above Rules, all posts in equivalent payscales were placed at the same level - Posts in the higher c
scale of pay, were given superiority on the subject of inter se
seniority, with reference to posts in the lower scale of payThe above determination, at the hands of the rule framing
authority, cannot be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory
- The provisions of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 D
of the STA Rules, 2003, cannot be faulted on the touchstone
of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution -Appeals filed by those
who moved to the cadre of Data Entry Operators from the
ministerial cadre, and were thereupon amalgamated in the
cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants, allowed -
E
Authorities to give effect to Rules 4 and 5 of the TA Rules,
2003 and the STA Rules, 2003, respectively, without any
further delay-: Central Excise and Customs Department Tax
Assistant (Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (TA
Rules, 2003) - Central Excise and Customs Department F
Senior Tax Assistant (Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003
(STA Rules, 2003)-Constitutionoflndia, 1950-Arts. 14and 16.
Service Law - Promotion - Chances of promotion -
Held: Chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of
service, and as such, mere alteration of chances of G
promotion, would not per se calf for judicial interference -
However, the above general proposition would not be
applicable, in case the chances of promotion are altered
arbitrarily, or on the basis of considerations which are shown
to be perverse ormala fide.
H
196
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
Om Prakash Sharma v. Union of India (1985)
Suppl. SCC 218- held inapplicable.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant
Kulkarni & Ors. (1981) 4SCC130: [1982) 1 SCR
665 ; Palaru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. v. Union of
. India & Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 541 : [1989) 2 SCR
92; Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 575: [1992) 3 Suppl.
SCR 180 ; S.S. Bola & Ors. v. B.D. Sardana &
Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 522: [1997] 2 Suppl. SCR
507 ; Union of India & Ors. v. Colonel GS. Grewal
(2014) 7 SCC 303; SP. Shivprasad Pipalv. Union
of India & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 598 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1985) Suppl. sec 218
held inapplicable
Para 14
[1982) 1 SCR 665
referred to
Para 22
[1989) 2 SCR 92
referred to
Para 22
[1992) 3 Suppl. SCR 180 referred to
Para 22
[1997) 2 Suppl. SCR 507 referred to
Para 22
(2014) 1 sec 303
referred to
Para 22
(1998) 4 SCC 598
referred to
Para 34
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos.2485-2490 of 2010.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 8388
of 2004.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2491-2503, 2577 & 10386 of 2013.
K. Radhakrishnan, V. A. Mohta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Sushma
Manchanda, A. K. Srivastava (for B. Krishna Prasad), K.
Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Mrs. RanjaniAiyagari,Advs. for the
H Appellants.
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
197
INDIA & OTHERS
Fakhruddin, Sr.Adv., Raj KishorChoudhary, Ms. Neeru
A
Sharma, Ms. Divya Mishra, Ms. Sadaf Rehman,
Ms. V. Mohana, B. Raghunath, Vijay Kumar, Vikas Mehta,
C. K. Chandrasekhar, S. R. Setia, Jayanth Muth Raj,
C. K. Sasi, P. Narasimhan, Devadatta Kamat, Rajesh lnamdar,
Rauf Rahim, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, P. V. S. Giridhar, Advs.
B
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1.The present
controversy is yet another seniority dispute amongst C
employees of the Customs and Central Excise Department.
The controversy herein has emerged on account of a
reconstitution of cadres. In the first instance, a separate cadre
was constituted, out of the existing ministerial cadre, for
discharging electronic data processing responsibilities. This D
was necessitated by the decision of the department to introduce
computerization, in its functioning. The instant computerization
project, which commenced in 1991-92, seems to have been
fully implemented in or around 2002-03. Consequent upon
achievement of the above objective, the separate cadre so
E
created, was sought to be re-amalgamated with the existing
ministerial cadre. The above noticed bifurcation and reamalgamation, resulted in a co-incidental career advancement,
for those who had accepted to break away from the original
ministerial cadre. Some of those who were originally placed
F
at inferior positions in the seniority list of the original ministerial
cadre, acquired superiority over their counterparts (in the
original ministerial cadre), consequent upon their promotion
within the cadre of data entry operators, which resulted in their
acquiring a higher position in seniority, over and above those
G
who were senior to them in the original ministerial cadre. Before
embarking upon the niceties of the seniority dispute, it is
imperative to delve upon the reasons of the afore-stated
bifurcation, and re-amalgamation of cadres. The instant aspect
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A
of the matter is accordingly being dealt with, in the following
paragraphs.
2. The ministerial cadre as it originally existed, comprised
of posts of Deputy Office Superintendents (Levels 1 and 2),
8
Upper Division Clerks, Lower Division Clerks, Stenographers
(Senior Grade and Ordinary Grade), Draftsmen etc.
Conditions of service of members of the original ministerial
cadre, were regulated by the Central Excise and Land Customs
Department Group 'C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979
C (hereinafter referred to as, the 1979 Rules). Members of the
original ministerial cadre regulated by the provisions of the
1979 Rules were eligible for rromotion to the post of Inspector
(Ordinary Scale) - an executive cadre post. And thereupon,
even further promotion, in the executive cadre.
D
3. Consequent upon the recommendations made by the
Fourth Central Pay Commission in paragraph 11.45 of its
report, the Government of India took upon itself the
responsibility to examine the rationalization of pay scales for
posts responsible for discharging work relating to data entry.
E The task sought to be undertaken was to prescribe uniform
pay scales and designations for electronic data processing
posts, in consultation with the Department of Personnel.
Consequent upon the suggestions made by a committee set
up by the Department of Electronics in November, 1986, the
F
Government of India decided to introduce the following uniform
pattern for Electronic Data Processing Posts:-
- .
Desi9nation of ,~--Pay Scaie -
-
- - --
-· -- - ---- -----
S.No~
post
G
Data Entry Operators
1.
Data
Entry -Rs-:1 150-1 500
This will be entry
Operator
grade for higher
Grade 'A'
I secondar~
with
knowledge
of
data entrv work
H
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
199
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
----
-· --- -
~ "
-··-- - ---- -- -
··--
-
--
- ·--
2.
Data
Entry Rs.1 350-2 200
This will be entry
A
Operator
grade
for
Grade 'B'
graduation
with
knowledge
of
data entry work or
promotional
grade
for Data
Entry
Operator
B
Grade 'A'
3.
Data
Entry Rs.1400-2 300
Promotional
Operator
Grade
Grade ·c·
4.
Data
Entry Rs.1 600-2 660
Promotional
Operator
Grade
c
Grade ·o·
5.
Data
Entry Rs.2 000-3 500
Promotional
Operator
Grade
Grade 'E'
Data Processing/Programming Staff
1 _
Data Processing
Rs.1600-2660
Entry grade
for
D
Assistant Grade
graduates
with
'A'
Diplo ma/Certificat
e
in
Computer
Annlication
2.
Data Processing
Rs.2 000-3 200
Pro motiona I
Assistant Grade
Grade
E
'B'
3.
Programmer
Rs.2 375-3 500
Direct
entry
for
holders of degree
in Engineering or
post-graduation in
Science/Maths
etc.,
or
postF
graduation
in
Computer
Applica lion
Or
By
promotion
from
Data
Processing
G
Assistant
Grade
'B'
4.
Senior
Rs.3000-4 500
Promotional
Proarammer
Grade
H
200
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
In continuation of the aforesaid office memorandum
dated 11.9.1989, the Government of India issued a further
memorandum dated 8.1.1990, suggesting job descriptions for
various levels of data entry operators and programming staff,
which could be adopted by different ministries/departments
B
of the Government of India, with suitable modifications to meet
their individual requirements. The suggestions incorporated
in the annexures appended to the office memorandum dated
8.1.1990, revealed five categories of data entry operators,
c
D
E
F
G
H
differentiated and distinguished as under:-
"1. Data Entry Operator-A:
1150-25-1500
All types of data preparation and validation including
alpha-numeric data entry, graphic data entry, voiceentry, optical entry etc., and associated verification,
and pre-programmed validation, text processing etc.,
on any type of machines/equipment/instrument
endowed with facilities for data entry and/or
preparation for data entry and/or pre-programmed
validation of entered data including key punching
machine, key to magnetic media machine, key to
optical media machine, any type of computer/EDP
equipment, any computer based equipmenUcomputer
based instrumenUcomputer based online or real time
systems/computer network based systems.
2. Data Entry Operator-B:
1350-30-1440-40-2200
In addition to those jobs mentioned for Data Entry
Operator-A, Pooling, Counting, Collating, Coding,
Console Operation, assisting in the preparation of
Statistics, billing, inpuUoutput handling etc., on any type
of machine/equipment/instrument endowed with
facilities for data entry or preparation for data entry
and/or validation of entered data as specified under
the description for Data Entry Operator-A.
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
201
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
3. Data Entry Operator-C:
A
In addition to those jobs and machine equipment
instrument mentioned for Data Entry Operator-8,
training of operators, scheduling of jobs and more
skill-based validation of alpha-numeric or graphic
data as determined by the needs of the organization.
8
4. Data Entry Operator-D:
In addition to those jobs mentioned for Data Entry
Operator-C, programming relating to data
preparation and/or validation, and for a few staff who C
are considered to have the required aptitude and
depending upon the need, supervision of the work of
Data Entry Operator-A, Band C.
5. Data Entry Operator-E:
D
Supervision of the work of data preparation,
scheduling and distribution of jobs among other Data
Entry Operators, planning, scheduling, coordination
and implementation of interrelated and integrated
data preparation jobs, programming relating to data E
preparation and/or validation traction and if
necessary to do supporting job of data entry,
verification, validation etc. depending on exigencies
of work."
4. In order to implement the recommendations made by
F
the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the Central Board of
Excise & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, framed the Electronic Data Processing Posts (Group
'C' Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992 (hereinafter
referred to as, the 1992 Rules). The aforesaid rules were G
framed by the President of India in exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India. Rule 5 of the 1992 Rules provided, that all persons ·
holding the ministerial posts of Key Punch Operators, Terminal
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 158.C.R.
A
Operators and Lower Division Clerks, who were performing
the duties of Terminal Operators prior to the commencement
of the 1992 Rules, would be deemed to be appointed as Data
Entry Operators Grade 'I\. Rule 5 of the 1992 Rules further
postulated, that all Data Entry Operators Grade 'I\ appointed
B at the time of the commencement of the 1992 Rules, would
rank en-block senior to those appointed after the
commencement of the Rules.
5. Rule 7 of the 1992 Rules authorized, the Central
Government to relax any other provision of the rules with
C respect to any class or category of persons. On 2.2.1993, in
exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Government,
the Central Excise Department permitted its erstwhile
employees, to apply for posts of Data Entry Operator Grade
. '!\,subject to the condition, that they had completed 3 years'
D regular service and satisfied the conditions of eligibility
stipulated in the 1992 Rules. On 9.9.1993, the Customs
Department, issued a circular informing the employees who
had exercised their option for appointment to the post of Data
Entry Operator Grade 'I\, that their option was final and could
E not be revoked. A number of employees holding ministerial
cadre posts in the Customs and Central Excise Department,
accordingly came to be appointed as Data Entry Operators
Grade 'A'.
F
6. Under the mandate of the 1992 Rules, the post of Data
Entry Operator Grade 'A' was assigned the pay scale of
Rs.1150-25-1500. It was the lowest post under the 1992 Rules.
The Schedule appended to the 1992 Rules provided, that to
be eligible for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator
Grade 'I\, an individual should have qualified the 121h standard
G or equivalent examination. Additionally, he/she should possess
a speed of not less than 8000 key depressions per hour, for
data entry work. The onward promotion from the post of Data
Entry Operator Grade 'A' was to the post of Data Entry Operator
H Grade 'B'. The said promotional post was in the pay scale of
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
203
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Rs.1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200. To be eligible for A
promotion to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B', the
schedule stipulated 6 years' regular service as Data Entry
Operator Grade 'A'. The post of Data Entry Operator Grade
'B' was liable to be filled exclusively by promotion, failing which,
on transfer by deputation. Onward promotion from the post of B
Data Entry Operator Grade 'B', was to the post of Data Entry
Operator Grade 'C'. The said promotional post, was in the
pay scale of Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300.
Data Entry
Operators Grade 'B' with 3 years' regular service in the grade,
were considered eligible for promotion to the post of Data Entry c
Operator Grade 'C'. The schedule appended to the 1992 Rules
provided, that the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'C' would
be filled up exclusively by promotion, failing which, on transfer
by deputation. The highest post under the 1992 Rules, was
the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'D'. The said post was D
to be filled up by promotion from amongst Data Entry Operators
Grade 'C', with 4 years' regular service in the grade. The post
of Data Entry Operator Grade 'D', was earmarked the pay
scale of Rs.1600-50-2300-EB-60-2660. Just as in other cases
referred to hereinabove, promotion to the post of Data Entry E
Operator Grade 'D' was to be made exclusively by promotion,
failing which, on transfer by deputatiol").
7. A perusal of the cadre of posts evolved under the 1992
Rules would reveal, that the Customs and Central Excise
Department created a four-level cadre of Data Entry Operators,
F
i.e. Grades 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. This was in contradistinction
to the five-level cadre of Data Entry Operators suggested in
the deliberations carried out by the Government of India (as
already noticed above). A perusal of the 1992 Rules further
reveals, that the cadre of Data Entry Operators, was separate G
from the original ministerial cadre. Persons from the original
ministerial cadre were not eligible for promotion to the different
levels of posts created under the 1992 Rules. Likewise,
members of different levels in the cadre of Data Entry
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A
Operators, were no longer eligible for onward promotion to
any post of ministerial cadre. Most significantly, an incumbent
holding a ·cadre post under the 1992 Rules was no longer
eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector (Ordinary Scale)
in the executive cadre. And therefore, not eligible for any
B
onward promotion in the executive cadre. Accordingly it is
inevitable to conclude, that after the promulgation of the 1992
Rules, the Customs and Central Excise Department comprised
of a separate and distinct ministerial cadre, as also, a separate
and distinct cadre of Data Entry Operators.
c
8. The factual position depicted in the pleadings filed
before this Court reveals, that throughout India only 211, 52
and 17 employees got promoted to the posts of Data Entry
Operator Grade 'B', Grade 'C' and Grade 'D' respectively,
under the 1992 Rules. The remaining individuals inducted into
D the cadre of Data Entry Operators from the original ministerial
cadre, have continued to occupy the post of Data Entry
Operator Grade 'A', even after having rendered services for
more than 10-15 years i.e., without obtaining a single
promotion. As against the aforesaid career progression under
E the 1992 Rules, the administration found that the ministerial
cadre employees holding the posts of Lower Division Clerk,
Upper Division Clerk, and erstwhile Tax Assistant etc. were
. promoted (during the same period of service) to the post of
Inspector (Ordinary Scale), and even further up to the post of
F
Commissioner on the executive side, and up to the post of
Chief Accounts Officer on the ministerial side, on account of
better promotion avenues available to the ministerial cadre.
In order to resolve the distinction in the two cadres of
employees, the Central Board of Excise & Customs invited
G suggestions from all the Commisionerates for the re-merger
of cadres. The matter was examined also in the light of the
fact that the purpose for which the cadre of Data Entry
Operators was created, had been achieved. The deliberations
lead to restructure/re-amalgamation, by abolishing the cadre
H
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
205
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
of Data Entry Operators. To give effect to the executive
A
determination the President of India, in exercise of the powers
conferred on him by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India, framed two sets of rules for the Customs and Excise
Department, namely, the Central Excise and Customs
Department Tax Assistant (Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules,
B
2003 (hereinafter referred to as, the TA Rules, 2003) and the
Central Excise and Customs Department Senior Tax Assistant
(Group 'C' Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred
to as, the STA Rules, 2003). In order to understand ·the remerger/re-amalgamation of the cadres in the Customs and C
Excise Department, it is imperative for us to delve upon the
effect of the TA Rules, 2003, as also, the STA Rules, 2003.
We shall examine the aforementioned two sets of rules, in the
following paragraphs.
9. The TA Rules, 2003 provided for the initial constitution D
of the cadre of Tax Assistants, through Rule 4 thereof. Rule 4
of the TA Rules, 2003 is being extracted hereunder:-
"4. Initial Constitution.- (1) The person appointed
on regular basis and holding the post of Upper
Division Clerk and Data Entry Operator Grade A
on the commencement of these rules shall deemed
to have been appointed as Tax Assistant under
these rules and the service rendered by such
persons in the respective posts before
commencement of these rules shall be taken into
account as regular service rendered on the post of
Tax Assistant forthe purpose of promotion etc.
(2) The person holding the post of Data Entry
E
F
Operator Grade-A appointed under these rules as
G
Tax Assistant shall, within two years from the date
of such appointment as Tax Assistant, pass the
Departmental Examination as conducted by the
competent authority, failing which he shall not be
entitled to get any further increment.
H
206
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
(3) Any person, who holds a post of Lower Division
Clerk on regular basis and falls within the seniority
list as determined by the appointing authority at the
commencement of these rules shall, on passing the
Departmental Computer Proficiency examination
conducted by the appointing authority, be deemed
to have been promoted with effect from the date of
passing such examination on the post of Tax
Assistant.
(4) The Upper Division Clerks and Data Entry
Operators Grade-A shall be placed en-block senior
and, their inter se placement shall be fixed in
accordance with the date of regular appointment
to the respective grade subject to the condition that
their inter se placement in respective grade shall
not be disturbed.
(5) Lower Division Clerks shall be placed below
Upper Division Clerks and Data Entry Operator
Grade-A."
E
A perusal of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 reveals, that
persons holding the posts of Upper Division Clerk and Data
Entry Operator Grade 'A' would be re-designated as Tax
Assistants. The service rendered by them as Upper Division
Clerk and Data Entry Operator Grade'!'\ respectively, would
F be taken into consideration as regular service rendered on
the post of Tax Assistant (for purposes of promotion etc.). In
addition to the above, Lower Division Clerks falling within the
seniority list, as determined by the appointing authority at the
commencement of the TA Rules, 2003, on passing the
G departmental computer proficiency examination, would be
deemed to be promoted as Tax Assistants (from the date of
passing such examination). Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003
expressly postulates, that Upper Division Clerks and Data
Entry Operators Grade'!'\, would be placed en-block senior
H to others appointed as Tax Assistants, and further, that their
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
207
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
inter-se seniority would be determined from the date of their A
regular appointment to the respective grade. For their interse placement, Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 further postulated,
that Lower Division Clerks would be placed below the Upper
Division Clerks and Data Entry Operators Grade 'P\. A perusal
of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 reveals an amalgamation of B
three posts, namely, Upper Division Clerk, Data Entry Operator
Grade 'A' and Lower Division Clerk. All these posts were
· amalgamated into a freshly created cadre of Tax Assistants
under the TA Rules, 2003.
10. While deliberating on the TA Rules, 2003, it is also C
imperative to notice, that Rule 5 of the TA Rules, 2003 provided
for the methods of recruitment, G1ge limits and other
qualifications, for appointment to the post of Tax Assistant. The
details of the aforesaid particulars are found in the schedule
appended to the TA Rules, 2003. A perusal of the above D
schedule reveals, that 90% of the appointments made to the
post of Tax Assistant were to be by direct recruitment, and
10% by way of promotion. For promotion, the following
conditions of eligibility were stipulated in column 12 of the
schedule appended to the TA Rules, 2003:-
E
"From amongst the Lower Division Clerks. and
Head Havaldars who have rendered seven years
of service in the Grade on regular basis and
possess the following qualifications, namely:-
(a) Matriculation or equivalent q1,Jalification from
a recognized institution, and
(b) Data Entry Speed of 5000 key depression
per hour and passed the Departmental
examination with knowledge of typing in Hindi
or English at a speed of 25 wpm and 30 wpm
respectively."
F
G
It is apparent from the perusal of Rule 5, coupled with the
schedule appended to TA Rules, 2003, that the initial merger H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15S.C.R.
A
of the ministerial cadre and the cadre of Data Entry Operators
was made, against the post of Tax Assistants. In sum and
substance, therefore, irrespective of the post (in ministerial or
Data Entry Operators' cadre) occupied, the lowest level of
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
amalgamation was, against the post of Tax Assistant.
11. Insofar as the STA Rules, 2003 are concerned, the
initial constitution therein was postulated in Rule 5 thereof. Rule
5 aforementioned is being extracted hereunder:-
"5. Initial Constitution.-(i)All the persons appointed
on the regular basis at the time of commencement
of these rules to the Grade of Assistant, Tax
Assistant, Upper Division Clerk (Special Pay), Data
Entry Operator Grade 'B' and 'C' shall be deemed
to have been appointed as Senior Tax Assistants
under these rules. The service rendered by them
before commencement of these rules shall be taken
into account for deciding the eligibility for promotion
to the next higher grade.
(ii) Assistants (Rs.5000-8000) and Data Entry
Operator Grade 'C' (Rs.5000-8000) are being
redesignated as SeniorTaxAssistants in the same
scale of pay. Therefore, the Assistants and Data
Entry Operator Grade 'C' shall be placed enblock
senior to the other categories. However their interse-placement shall be done according to the date
from which they had actually been appointed to
these grades on regular basis subject to the
condition that their inter-se placement in their
respective category shall not be altered.
(iii) The Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' (4500-7000)
and TaxAssistants (4500-7000) have been placed
in their 'iigher scale of 5000-8000 and they shall ·
be placed below the Assistant and Data Entry
Operator Grade 'C' and their inter-se placement
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
shall be fixed in accordance with the date of regular
appointment to the respective grade subject to the
condition that their inter-se placement in respective
category shall not be disturbed.
(iv) Upper Division Clerk with special pay shall be
placed below Assistant; Data Entry Operator Grade
'C', Data Entry Operator Grade 'B', Tax Assistants.
(v) The present employees would be required to
pass the required or suitable departmental
examination, as specified by the Competent
Authority, from time to time, in Computer application
and relevant procedures within two years failing
which they would not be eligible for further
increments."
209
A
B
c
A perusal of Rule 5 of the STA Rules, 2003 reveals, that D
at the initial constitution of the cadre the posts of Assistant,
T-ax Assistant, Upper Division Clerk (Special Pay) and Data
Entry Operator Grades 'B' i?nd 'C' were merged as Senior
. Tax Assistants. The aforesaid merger contemplated the
merger of posts belonging to the ministerial cadre, and posts
E
belonging to the cadre of Data Entry Operator. Rule 5 of the
STA Rules, 2003 also expressly provided for the manner in
which the above merged posts would be ranked in the
integrated cadre of SeniorTaxAssistants. The inter-se ranking
was provided for as under:-
F
(i) Assistants and Data Entry Operators Grade 'C' were
placed above all other posts which constituted the cadre
. of Senior Tax Assistants, on the promulgation of the STA
Rules, 2003. This was purportedly sought to be done,
as is evident from Rule 5(ii) of the STA Rules, 2003,
G
because the posts of Assistant and Data Entry Operator
Grade 'C' were in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, and ·
thereby, were enjoying the hfghest scale amongst the
posts merged, to constitute the cadre of Senior Tax
H
210
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
Assistants. In order to regulate the inter-se seniority
between the merged posts of Assistants and Data Entry
Operators Grade 'C', Rule 5(ii) of the STA Rules, 2003
further provided, that the inter-se placement of persons
holding such posts, would be based on the date on which
such persons had been actually appointed in the pay
scale of Rs.5000-8000, on regular basis.
(ii) In the same fashion as Assistants and Data Entry
Operators Grade 'C', Rule 5(iii) of the STA Rules, 2003
provided, that Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' and Tax
Assistants, who were earlier placed in the pay scale of
Rs.4500-7000, and thereafter placed in the higher scale
of Rs.5000-8000, would be placed en-block below
Assistants and Data Entry Operators Grade 'C'. In other
- words, the posts of Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' and
Tax Assistants which had an inferior position adjudged
on the basis of pay scales, vis-a-vis Data Entry
Operators Grade 'C' and Assistants, prior to the·
promulgation of the STA Rules, 2003, were placed enmasse below Data Entry Operators Grade 'C' and
Assistants, so as to preserve the 5aid inferior position in
the cadre of SeniorTaxAssistants. Insofar as the interse placement between the Data Entry Operators Grade
'B' and Tax Assistants is concerned, Rule 5(iii) of the STA
Rules, 2003 provided, that the date of their regular
appointment in their respective grades, would determine
their inter-se seniority in the cadre of Senior Tax
Assistants.
(iii) For exactly the same reasons as have been
indicated in (i) and (ii) above, namely, the pay scale in
which the respective posts were placed prior to the
creation of the cadre of Senior Tax Assistants under the
STA Rules, 2003, the posts of Upper Division Clerk were
placed at the bottom of the cadre of Senior TaxAssistants,
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
211
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
at the initial constitution of the said cadre, under the
A
mandate of Rule 5(iv) of the STA Rules, 2003.
12. It is imperative to point out here, that the erstwhile
ministerial cadre was primarily engaged in discharging duties
of a procedural nature, whereas those engaged in the cadre
of Data Entry Operators were considered to be primarily B
engaged in discharging duties in the field of computer
applications. It is, therefore, that Rule 5(v) of the STA Rules,
2003 provided, that all employees appointed as Senior Tax
Assistants, at the initial constitution of the aforesaid cadre,
under the STA Rules, 2003, would be required to pass C
departmental examinations, so as to achieve the proficiency
required in discharging duties relating to the application of
relevant procedures, as also, with reference to computer
applications.
D
13. It is in the background of the aforesaid factual and
legal position, that we would venture to adjudicate upon the
controversy raised in these connected civil appeals.
14. It is relevant to mention, that in the first instance, a
challenge to the rules referred to hereinabove, was raised at
E
the hands of the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre,
namely, those members of the original ministerial cadre, who
had not opted for appointmenUabsorption _into the cadre of
Data Entry Operators. In their challenge raised before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai
F
(hereinafter referred to as, the Administrative Tribunal), a
common order dated 30.12.2003 was passed, while disposing
of Origin.al Application nos. 558, 538 and 909 of 2003, and a
common order dated 30.4.2004 was passed while disposing
of Original Application nos. 462 and 639 of 2003. Another G
order dated 24.6.2004 was passed, while disposing of Original
Application no. 1025 of 2003. And likewise, an order dated
2.8.2004 was passed, while disposing of Original Application
no. 1150 of 2003. And finally, an order dated 14.10.2004 was
H
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A passed while disposing of Original Application no. 71 of 2004.
It would be relevant to mention, that the solitary contention
raised at the hands of the erstwhile members of the ministerial
cadre (who had not opted for the appointment/absorption into
the cadre of Data Entry Operators) was, that the process of
B bifurcation of cadres followed by the re-amalgamation thereof,
had adversely affected their seniority. Accordingly, the erstwhile
members of the ministerial cadre, claimed restoration of the
position of their seniority as it originally existed, with reference
to such other members of the ministerial cadre who had opted
c for absorption into cadre of Data Entry Operators, and who
had thereafter, as a matter of re-amalgamation (under the
provisions of the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003)
been appointed as Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants·
respectively. The instant claim raised by the erstwhile members
D of the ministerial cadre, came to be accepted by the
Administrative Tribunal vide orders dated 30.12.2003,
30.4.2004, 26.4.2004, 2.8.2004 and 14.10.2004, on the basis
of the law laid down by this Court in Om Prakash Sharma v.
Union of India, 1985 (Supp.) SCC 218.
E
15. The orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal
referred to in the foregoing paragraph were assailed through
Writ Petition Nos. 8361, 8388, 17208, 17257, 21692 to 21694,
29468, 34708, 38622 of 2004 and Writ Petition Nos. 2723,
3302 and 8606 of 2005. They were also assailed through
F Writ Petition MP Nos. 9866, 20444, 20497, 26220, 26221,
35789, 35791, 41879, 46155 of 2004; 12236 and 9286 of
2005; 17258 and 17508 of 2006; and WPMP No. 864 of 2004.
The instant challenge was raised at the hands of the Union of
India, as also, the members of the cadre of Data Entry
G Operators, who were merged into the cadre ofTaxAssistants
and SeniorTaxAssistants, consequent upon the promulgation
of the TA Rules, 2003 and STA Rules, 2003. All the above
mentioned writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court
H
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
213
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as, the High
A
Court) by a common judgment and order dated 13.4.2007.
While adjudicating upon the aforesaid controversy, the High
Court, in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment and order
dated 13 .4.2007, framed the questions arising for
determination. Paragraph 24 is being extracted hereunder:-
B
"24. The contesting respondents have not
challenged the entire rules relating to the restructure
of the cadres and the merger/integration of
ministerial cadre and technical cadre before the
Tribunal. It is only the rules relating to the fixation of
inter se placement of the erstwhile ministerial ~adre
staff and the erstwhile technical cadre staff in the
restructured cadre which are challenged before the
Tribunal. The contesting respondents, who are
presently working as Preventive Officers on ad hoc
basis, claim that for determining the inter se
placement of the ministerial cadre staff and the
technical cadre staff in the restructured cadre, the
date of initial appointment in the services of the
Central Excise and Customs Departments should
be taken into consideration. On the other hand,
the writ petitioners claim that the fixation of inter se
seniority should be on the basis of the date of
regular appointment in the respective grades, but
subject to the condition that inter-se placement in
the respective category, is legal and reasonable."
It is, therefore apparent, that the issue agitated before
c
D
E
F
the High Court was the same as had been agitated before the
Administrative Tribunal. While adjudicating upon the
propositions canvassed before it, the High Court in paragraph G
35 of the impugned judgment and order, observed as under:-
"35. We have no quarrel with the proposition of law
enunciated by the Apex Court. But, in the cases on
H
214
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
hand, all the parties emerge from the same cadre
of LDC and only by virtue of option, some parties
have opted to the post of Data Entry Operators and
by virtue of the impugned Rules they were afforded
fortuitous advantage that too without any stringent
conditions like passing the Departmental Tests like
the case of a LDC who is required to pass the same
to seek promotion to the next category of UDC,
while the rest of the LDCs. who have not opted for
the post of Data Entry Operators and were stick on
to the much higher responsible position, were put
in a most disadvantageous position. The inter se
seniority has been fixed by the impugned Rules only
based on the pay and giving a go-bye to all the
norms prescribed by the Apex Court. Since the
impugned legislation suffers from the vice of
discrimination and unreasonableness, we hold that
the impugned Rules are arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since they
give unreasonable advantage and a steep forward
for an otherwise low category persons like Data
Entry Operators as against the LDCs/UDCs/Tax
Assistants, who perform highly responsible and
complex duties unlike mere entering a data by the
Data Entry Operators."
Thereupon, the High Court considered the controversy
in the following perspective:-
"38. It was shown, by instances, by the learned
senior counsel for the respondents that while in a
short span of time, that too, without any condition
like passing out any Departmental Test, the Data
Entry Operators moved from one Grade to other
with higher pay structure, the LDCs, who have not
opted for the post of Data Entry Operator, have
remained and stagnated as LDCs. itself and
DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS v. UNION OF
215
INDIA & OTHERS [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
because of the impugned Rules, the position has
A
further worsened, since it blocked their further
promotional avenues, by placing persons like Data
Entry Operators, who have already enjoyed the fruits
of promotion more than once, over and above
LDCs/UDCs/TaxAssistants in the inter se seniority
B
list. It is to be mentioned that promotion is an
incidence of service.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
43. A forcible argument was advanced on the part
of the respondents demonstrating how by virtue of
the impugned Rules, the LDCs, who have not opted
to be posted as Data Entry Operators were severely prejudiced and how the restructured cadres
have paved way for the junior DEOs to have a
march over the other senior employees of the erstwhile ministerial cadre and get fortuitous advantage. It has also been demonstrated by materials
how the impugned Rules are working hard against
the senior eligible candidates without any
promotional avenue, since being blocked by the
far junior Data Entry Operators.