# N. C. SHINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA - **Citation:** [1980] 3 S.C.R. 44 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1980-03-19 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-c-shinghal-v-union-of-india-8058 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote B c D E F G H 44 N. C. SHINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA March 19, 1980 LD. A. DESAI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIA!I, JJ.] Central Health Services Rules, 1963 as amended by Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 19.66,-Rule 8(3), Scope of-Promotions to Supertime Grade 11 posts, whether made in accoriance with Rule 8 (3 )-Whether transfers in posts which are in the same grade or cne considered equivalent can be effected on administrative exigencie3--Ref,usg[ tu accept the promotion by an employee. lVhether the employer can offer to next junior to the offeree-Adverse inference agairut partles remaining ex-parte and tkrefore not served, whether can be drawn. The Union of India ha1 enacted Ceutral Government Health Scheme and ID implementation thereof has set up various institutions for medical relief and medical education. A Central Health Service became a necessity for effectively impleme11ting the scheme. With a view to constituting the service, Central Health Service Rules, 1963 were framed aDd brought into operation on May 15, 1963, The Rules envisaged categorisation of ~rsonnel manning the service into five different categories, to wit, category 'A' supertime scale Rs. 1600-2000; C~tegory 'B' supertime scale Rs. 1300-1600; Category 'C' Senior scale Rs. 675-1300, Category 'D' Junior scale Rs. 425-950; and Category 'E' class II s"'1e Rs. 325-800. On account of various imponderables the service could not be constituted and 1963 Rules were amended by Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966. Initial constitution of service was to be on and from September 9, 1966. 1966 Ruleo contemplated again the division of service into four cafegories, namely, Category I comprising supertime scale Grade I Rs. 180022:'0; supertimc scale grade II Rs. 1300-1800, Category II consists of Specialists' grade Rs. 600-1300; Category ill include• General Duty Officers Grade I Rs. 450-1250; and Category f.V comprises General Duty Officers Grade JI Rs. 350-900. 1966 Rules provided the method for initial constitution of the service. Rules 7A(l) and 7A(2) provided for absorbing departmental candidates holding posts in categories 'A' and 'B' under 1963 Rules in supertime Grade I and supertime Grade II respectively of reorganized serviee under the 1966 Rules. Those in service on September 9, 1966 and holding posts in Categories 'C', 'D' a.nd 'E' were either absorbed in specialists' grade or General Duty Officers Grade as the case may be. For the purposes of selection and absorp· t'ion of departmental candidates on the date of initial constitution of reorganised servic'e, a Selection Committee was set up and absorption was made in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. This process of absorption was over in March 1967, but the constitution of the service was deemed to be effective from September 9. 1966. Rule. 2 ( c) defines category to mean a group of posts specified in column 2 of the table under Rule 4. Rule 4 provides for classification categories and scales of pay. Rule 5 of, Rules 1966 provides for authorised strength of the service. Rule 8 prescribes the manner in which future vaca.nc\e.ci,, after appointments have been made to ilie Service under Rule 7 and 7 A shall be filled in Supertime Grade Il. i ' ' ' y \ ~. N. C. SHINGHAL V. UNION 45 The authorised strength of the various categories of the service on the date A ' of commentement of 1966 Rules shall be as specified in the First Sch"edule. The ve1tical promotional channel is from Specialists' grade and General Duty ofli· cers Grade I to supertime Grade II and from thereon to Supertirne Grade I. On the date of initial constitution of seivice there were 27 S permanent and 102 temporary, in all 377 posts in Specialists' grade. Out of this strength of posts in specialists' grade 28 posts were upgraded to supertime Grade II, 19 being classified as unspecified specialists' posts and 9 unspecified posts. B The Central Government converted one post from amongst the 19 unspecified specialists' grad ## Text _Characters 0–39,951 of 82,575. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39951 for what follows._ B c D E F G H 44 N. C. SHINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA March 19, 1980 LD. A. DESAI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIA!I, JJ.] Central Health Services Rules, 1963 as amended by Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 19.66,-Rule 8(3), Scope of-Promotions to Supertime Grade 11 posts, whether made in accoriance with Rule 8 (3 )-Whether transfers in posts which are in the same grade or cne considered equivalent can be effected on administrative exigencie3--Ref,usg[ tu accept the promotion by an employee. lVhether the employer can offer to next junior to the offeree-Adverse inference agairut partles remaining ex-parte and tkrefore not served, whether can be drawn. The Union of India ha1 enacted Ceutral Government Health Scheme and ID implementation thereof has set up various institutions for medical relief and medical education. A Central Health Service became a necessity for effectively impleme11ting the scheme. With a view to constituting the service, Central Health Service Rules, 1963 were framed aDd brought into operation on May 15, 1963, The Rules envisaged categorisation of ~rsonnel manning the service into five different categories, to wit, category 'A' supertime scale Rs. 1600-2000; C~tegory 'B' supertime scale Rs. 1300-1600; Category 'C' Senior scale Rs. 675-1300, Category 'D' Junior scale Rs. 425-950; and Category 'E' class II s"'1e Rs. 325-800. On account of various imponderables the service could not be constituted and 1963 Rules were amended by Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966. Initial constitution of service was to be on and from September 9, 1966. 1966 Ruleo contemplated again the division of service into four cafegories, namely, Category I comprising supertime scale Grade I Rs. 180022:'0; supertimc scale grade II Rs. 1300-1800, Category II consists of Specialists' grade Rs. 600-1300; Category ill include• General Duty Officers Grade I Rs. 450-1250; and Category f.V comprises General Duty Officers Grade JI Rs. 350-900. 1966 Rules provided the method for initial constitution of the service. Rules 7A(l) and 7A(2) provided for absorbing departmental candidates holding posts in categories 'A' and 'B' under 1963 Rules in supertime Grade I and supertime Grade II respectively of reorganized serviee under the 1966 Rules. Those in service on September 9, 1966 and holding posts in Categories 'C', 'D' a.nd 'E' were either absorbed in specialists' grade or General Duty Officers Grade as the case may be. For the purposes of selection and absorp· t'ion of departmental candidates on the date of initial constitution of reorganised servic'e, a Selection Committee was set up and absorption was made in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. This process of absorption was over in March 1967, but the constitution of the service was deemed to be effective from September 9. 1966. Rule. 2 ( c) defines category to mean a group of posts specified in column 2 of the table under Rule 4. Rule 4 provides for classification categories and scales of pay. Rule 5 of, Rules 1966 provides for authorised strength of the service. Rule 8 prescribes the manner in which future vaca.nc\e.ci,, after appointments have been made to ilie Service under Rule 7 and 7 A shall be filled in Supertime Grade Il. i ' ' ' y \ ~. N. C. SHINGHAL V. UNION 45 The authorised strength of the various categories of the service on the date A ' of commentement of 1966 Rules shall be as specified in the First Sch"edule. The ve1tical promotional channel is from Specialists' grade and General Duty ofli· cers Grade I to supertime Grade II and from thereon to Supertirne Grade I. On the date of initial constitution of seivice there were 27 S permanent and 102 temporary, in all 377 posts in Specialists' grade. Out of this strength of posts in specialists' grade 28 posts were upgraded to supertime Grade II, 19 being classified as unspecified specialists' posts and 9 unspecified posts. B The Central Government converted one post from amongst the 19 unspecified specialists' grade posts in Supertirne Grade II in Opthalmology speciality in Willingdon Hospital and transferred one Dr. B. S, Jain, respondent 3, who was then working as Chief opthalmoJogist-cum-Associate Professor of Opthalmology, Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Simla, end offered the vacancy to in Super· time Grade II caused by the transfer of respondent 3 to appellant who was next in seniority by way of promotion on ad hoc basis as per Memorandum dated December 7, 1970. As the appellant was prepared to accept only if 1he posting was at Delhi and not in Simla, one Dr. G. C. Sood was promoted to supertime Grade 11 post and was appointed at Simla. Th'e appellant, thereafter filed a writ petition praying for Mandamus that be may be deemed to huld be of no avail to him. [63 F-01 H 7. The word 'category' used in Rule 8(3) has to be understood to mean the post included in that category a~ consequently service in that category would n1tan service in a post included 1n that category. [66 B-C] N. C, SHINGHAL V. UNION 49 It is a well recognised canon of construction that the construction which makes A the Rule otiose or unworkable should be avoided where two constructions are possible ans the Court should lean in favour of the construction which \\'ould 1nake the rule workable_ and further the purpose for which the rule is intended. \Vhile prescribing experience qualification in 1966 Amendment Rul'es, the framers of the Rules could not have intended to ignore wholly the past service. A Specialist who wtas in category 'C' was included in category IT with the designation Specialists' grade officer. Similarly, General Duty Officer grade I in cateII gory 'D·' acquired· the same nomenclature General Duty Officer grade I in category Ill. There was an upward revision of pa.y scales of both the categ:1ries. The change in d'esignation should not be understood to mean that the service rendered as specialist or as General Duty Officer is wholly wiped out for any future promotion. Even after change of designation the duties nev'er underwent any change. Same duty was performed ai day prior to September 9, 1956 and the day thereafter by both the categories in the respectiv~ po.:ils. Furth'er this C change was with a purpos~ in as much as when certain qualifying servl~ is prescribed for being eligible for promotion in a category the emphasis is on service rendered in a post irrespective of the grade. A Specialists' grade officer belonging to category II was a Specialists' grade officer in category C. He was even then eligible for promotion to supertime grade II. It was never intended that a Specialists grade officer belonging to category 'C' under 1963 Rules who had put in more than 8 years of service but who was not promoted prior to Sep. D tember 9, 1966, the date of initial constitution of service, or on the date of initial constitution of service, would be ineligible for promotion for a period of 8 years simply because the designation of the category changed. It was never intended that there should be a complete hiatus for a period of 8 years in pr°" rooting Specialists' grade officers to supertime grade Il and for a period of 10 years in case of General Duty Officers grade I. There is no warrant for such an inference from the Rules. [65 A-H, 66 A-CJ E 8. The contention that ex'ecutive instruction cannot run counter to the statu· tory rule is untenable in the facts of this case. Service rendered in equivalent post prior to the date of initial constitution of servic'e could be taken into account in calculating qualifying service for next promotion. [66 E-F] 9. The need for the post or the requirements of the hospital or the neeJ for an ad hoc or additional appointment is a matter which the Government is com· petent to decide and in the absence of requisite material the Court cannot inter· pose its own de.cision on the necessity of creation or abolition of posts. Wheth'er a particular post is nece&Sary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative n'ecessity. The Government is a better judge of the interests of the· general public for whose service the hospitable are set up. And whether a hospital catering to the nc'eds of general public providing mr.dical relief in different specialities has need for a particular post in a particuiar speciality would be better judged by th'e Government running the hospitol. If Government is a better judge it must have the power to create or abJlish the posts depending upon th'e needs of the hospital and the requirements of gene:·al public. [67 C.E] Creation and abolition of posts is a matter of Government policy and every sovereign Government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration. The creation or abolition of post is dictated by policy decision, F G B A B c D E F so SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R. exigencies of circumstances and administrativ'e necessity. The creation, the continuance and the abolition of post are all decided by the Government in the interest of administration and general public: The Court would b'e the least competent in the· face of scanty material to decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from niala fide, legal or factual. In this background it is difficult to entertain the contention of the appellant that posts were created to accommodate sonre specific individuals ignoring the requir'ements of the hospital or the interests of the general public at large. [67 F-H] · M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kera/a and Anr., [1974] 1 S.C.R. 515 at 520; followed. 10. No adverse inferenc'e could be drawn against a patty unles~ they appear before the Court and they are served with necessary papers. [68 C-D] In the present case, Respondents 9 and 23 had not appeared in the High. Court and there fa no evidence that the subsequent 2fil.davit of the appe11ant was served on them. It m·ay be that the· Government may not be interested in either d.enying or admitting this averment which directly and adversely affects respondents 9 and 23. However, in view of the fact that they were !l;elected by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the promotion WaB approved by the U.P.S.C. it is difficult to enfertain the contention at the hand of the appellant who is not in any way going to be benefited by the invalidation of their promotion. (68 B, D, El 11. Once the challenge on merits fails in a case, the second string to the bow need not \:'e examined. The appellant here, is least competent to challenge th'c p10motions of Respondents 4 to 24. [69 B·C] Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 413 @ 420. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIJICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 1979. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 11-1-1979 of the Delhi High Court i11 L.P. A. No. 46/73. S.R. Srivastava for the Appellant and Dr. N.C. Shinghal (in person) P.P. Rao, ~nd Miss A. Subhashini for Respondents I & 2. B.R. Aggarwal for Respondent No. 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G DESAI,).-A highly qualified ophth''lmic surgeon feeling aggrieved that he has not been justly treated in the matter of promotion to a post in Supertime Grade JI seeks redress of his grievance praying for a mandamus that he may be deemed to have been promoted from February 18, 1971, failing which more out of frustration and less by any justification he seeks quashing cf the promotion of resB pondents 4 to 24 though convinced that even if the Court were to accede to his request he is in no way likely to be b~nefited by tliis. bizarre exercise. ~ ) N. c. SHINGHAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) 51 First to the fact situation. The Union of India has framed Central Government Health Scheme and in implementation thereof has set up various institutions for medical relief and medical education. A Central Health Service became a necessity for effectively implementing the scheme. With a view to constituting the Service, Central Health Service Rules 1963 ('1963 Rules' for short), were framed and brought into operation on May 15, 1963. The Rules envisaged categorisation of personnel manning the Service into five different categories, to wit, category 'A' supertime scale Rs. 1600-2000, category 'B' supertime scale Rs. 1300-1600, category 'C' senior scale Rs. 675-1300, category 'D' junior scale Rs. 425-950 and catego1y ·E' class II scale Rs. 325-800. On account of various imponderables the Service could not be constituted and· 1963 Rules were amended by Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 1966, ('1966 Rules for short). Initial constitution of Service was to be on and from September, 9, 1966. 1966 Rules contemplated again the division of Service into four categories, namely, category I comprising supertime grade I Rs. 1800-2250; supertime grade II Rs. 1300-1800; category II consists of Specialists' grade Rs. 600-1300; category III includes General Duty Officers grade I Rs. 450-1250; and category IV comprises General Duty Officers grade II Rs. 350-900. 1966 Rules provided the method of initial constitution of the Service. Rules 7A(l) and 7A(2) provided for absorbing departmental candidates holding posts in categories 'A' and 'B' under 1963 Rules in posts in supertime grade I and supertime grade II respectively of reorganised Service under the 1966 Rules. Those in service on September 9, 1966, and holding post in categories 'C', 'D' and 'E' were absorbed either in the the Specialits' grade or General Duty Officers, grade as the case may be. For the purposes of constitution and absorption of departmental candidates on the date of initial constitution of re-organised service a Selection Committee was set up and absorption was made in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee This process of absorption was over in March 1967, but the constitution of the Service was deemd to be effective from September 9, 1966. There were some promotions to supertime grade II up w 1971 but as they are not the subject-matter of dispute in this app.,:il th:y may be ignored. There was also direct recruitment to the Service between 1966 and 1971. Between February 1971 to July 17, 1978, when the appellant came A B c D F G to be promoted to supertime grade II, respondents 4 to 24 were pro- ~ moted on different dates to supertime grade II, The promotion of respondents 4 to 24 is challenged by the appellant on diverse grounds A B c D E F G H 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. but the principal contention is that their promotions are in contravention of rule 8 of1966 Rules. Rule 8 provides for future'maintenanceof the Service. Relevant for the present appeal is rule 8(3) which provides for recruitment to supertime grade II both by promotion and nomination by direct recruitment. As the appellant claims promotion to supertime grade II from February 18, 1971, and simultaneously questions promotion of respondants 4 to 24 to supertime grade II.on various dates after February 18, 1971, and before July 17, 1978, when he was actually promoted, on a certain interpretation of the relevant rule, it may be here extracted : xx xx xx "8. Future maintenance of the service-After appointments have been made to the Service under rule 7 and rule 7 A, future vacancies shall be filled in the following manner, namely:- xx xx xx (3) Supertime Grade I - (a) Fifty percent of the vacancies in Supertime Grade II shall be filled by promotion of : (i) General Duty officers, Grade I, with not less than ten years of service in that ca ta gory; or (ii) Specialists' Grade officers with not less than eight years of service in that category; in the ratio of 2 :3 on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of merit and seniority of the officer's concerned; Provided that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any such post unless he possesses the qualifications and experience requisite for appointment to such post. Provided that where the case of an officer appointed to any post in the grade of Genenal Duty Officer, Grade I or the Specialists' Grade, as the case may be, is considered for the purposes of promotion to any posts in Supertime Grade II under this sub-rule, the cases of all persons senior to such officer in the grades of General Duty Officer, Grade I or Specialists' Grade, as the case may be, shall also be considered, notwithstanding that they may not have. rendered 10 years or 8 years of service, respectively, in those grades". To appreciate the contention of the appellant as to how he claims promotion to supertime grade II on February 8, 1971, it may be noted ' N. c. SHINGHAL v. UNION (Desai, !.) 53 that effective from that date the Central Government converted one post from amongst unspecified specialists' Grade posts in supertime l Grade II in Ophthalmology Speciality at Willingdon Hospital and transferred}Dr. B.S.'Jain, responden(3,jwhowas then ;working as Chief Ophthalmologist-cum-Associate Professor of Ophthalmology,[Himachal Pradesh:Medical;College,_Simla, and offerred the vacancy in)rnper-time grade II caused by the transfer of respondent 3, to appellant who was next in seniority bylway of promotion on ad hoc basis as per memoran· dum dated December 7, 1970. Appellant responded to this offer as per his letter dated December 9, 1970, wherein after putting forward various personal inconveniences and a possible loss in emoluments even on promotion, he concluded his response to the offer as under : "In view of my personal problems and in the public interest I most humbly request that this promotion may kindly be granted to me while in Delhi." fhereafter the Government offered the post to Dr. Radha Natarajan A B c but she declined the offer. Subsequently the Government offered D Oie post to Dr. M. C. Sharma who accepted the same but he was not appointed and ultimately Dr. G.C. Sood was promoted to supertime grade II post and was appointed at Simla. Appellant contends that when a post in Opthalmology at Willingdvn Hospital was created on February I, 1971, by conversion of one B post from amongst unspecified Specialists' grade posts in supertime grade II that post could only have been filled in by promotion from amongst those holding the post in Specialists' grade in ophthalmology specialit) and he being the seniormost and otherwise qualified, he should ba ve been promoted from that date. Simultaneously he contends that filling in the post so created in supertime grade II at p Willingdon Hospital by transfer of respondent 3 Dr. B. S. Jain was in violation of the statutory rule and hence invalid. He also contends that as he was not qualified to hold the post of Chief Ophthalmologistcum-Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Himacbal Pradesh Medical College, Simla, because it was a teaching post and he lacked teaching experience which was an essential qualification, the offer of G that post to him was merely an eye wash and he could not have accepted the same. It is necessary to examine three different limbs of the submission separately. Rule 5 of 1966 Rules provides for authorised strength of the Service. The authorised strength of the various categories of the H service on the date of commencement of 1966 Rules shall be as specified in the first schedule. Part A of the first schedule deals with supertime A G 54 SUPREME COURT REPCYRTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. grade I and Part B deals with supertime grade II. Part C deals with Specialists' grade. The vertical promotional channel is from specialists' grade and General Duty Officers Grade I to supertime grade II and from thereon to supertime grade I. On the date of initial constitution of Service there were 275 permanent and 102 temporary, in all 377 posts in specialists' grade. Out of this strength of posts in specialists' grade, 28 posts were upgraded to supertime gradeH, 19 being classified as unspecified specialists' posts and 9 unspecified posK To that extent the permanent strength of posts in specialists' grade was reduced by 28 so as to leave it at 247. There is no dispute that 19 unspecified Specialists' posts and 9 unspecified posts were upgraded to supertime grade II. The controversy is how these posts were to be filled in, Appellant contends that as these 28 posts were in Specialists' grade and the strength of Specialists' grade posts was reduced by 28, whenever any post out of these 28 posts added to supertime grade II is required to be filled in, it can only be filled in by promotion from amongst those originally belonging to specialists' grade, i.e. category 'C' under 1%3 Rules. Simultaneously he contends that as these unspecified specia• lists' grade posts and unspecified posts, 28 in number, can:be filled in from those belonging to specialists' grade, ipso facto they can only be ·filled in by promotion and not either by direct nomination or by transfer. In support of this submission reliance is also placed on an affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India in a petition filed by Dr. B.S. Jain wherein it was in terms stated that these 28 posts could only be filled in by promotion and in no other manner. The raison d'etre for upgrading the 28 posts from specialists' grade to supertime grade II yet dividing them in two separate categories each having its own nomenclature, viz., 19 posts designated as unspecified Specialists' grade posts and 9 designated as unspecified posts is not difficult to discern. Unlike other professions, medical profession has developed branchwise expert specialised knowledge referrable generally to number of parts in which human anatomy is divisible. General medicine and general surgery are two broad genus but under each one of them there are numerous specialities and there is intensive study and research in speciality for being qualified for the speciality. Being an expert in any one speciality simultaneously results in being excluded from other specialities even though the specialities may be species of a genus like ' general medicine or general surgery. Again, in each speciality there will be a post of a Lecturer, an Assistant Professor, an Associate Professor and a Professor with a vertical movement by way of promotion. In a non-teachipg hospital there will be posts like Junior Surgeon, \. N. c. SHINGHAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) 55 Senior Surgeon, Head of the Department and so on. In a profession so compartmentalised specialitywise, ex hypothesi it is difficult to provide for promotional avenue by way of a general seniority list integrating different specialities categorywise, cadrewise or gradewise. If such a general seniority list including persons belonging to different specialities albeit in the same grade is drawn up for purposes of promotion it might lead to a startling result because the need may be of a promotional post in a speciality and the man at top of the seniority list may not belong to that speciality but may belong to a different speciality ap.d if any promotion was to be given to him to a post in a speciality for which he is neither qualified nor eligible it would be impossible to give vertiCiii promotions by referring to such general seniority list. If the promotion is to a post generaffy called administrative post in a hospital a general seniority list including experts belonging to different specialities may be helpful but when promotions are to be given to posts in different specialities a •general seniority list is not only unhelpful but may really impede the process of promotion. Again, demands of different specia· lities for additional strength may differ from hospitaI;to hospital, from area to area and even from time to time. In order to meet such un - foreseen eventualities the rules provide for an addition to the strength of supertime grade II by keeping 19 posts designated as unspecified Specialists' grade posts and 9 unspecified posts in a pool. Whenever a demand came for providing a higher post in supertime grade II in any particular speciality ordinarily where the strength of the service is prescribed a post will have to be created which any one familiar with bureaucratic jagornot would immediately realise how time consuming it is. Anticipating such a situation and to meet with the demands of sipecialities within a reasonable time it was provided that there would be a pool of 19 unspecified Specialists' posts in supertime grade II and 9 unspecified posts also in supertime grade II. This would facilitate conversion from the pool of unspecified Specialists' posts of an un· specified Specialists' post to a specified Specialist post in a speciality where a need has been felt. Once the need is felt and a post is con· verted from an unspecified post to a specified post in supertime grade II it becomes an addition to the strength of that speciality and the post can be filled in, in accordance with the relevant rule. But it is im· plicit in this arrangement that the person to be appointed to such a post would be one who is eligible to be appointed to that speciality and not some one who is on top of the general seniority list in Specialists' grade or general duty officers' grade from which promotion is to be made. If promotion has to be made from a general seniority list which includes all Specialists in the Specialists' grade the one at the top may be a Cardiologist and the post may be converted into Anaesthesiology and it A B c D E F G H A B c E F G B 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. does not require long persuasive argument to hold that a Cardiologist cannot be appointed as an Anaesthetic. It is, therefore, crystal clear that when a post from amongst unspecified Specialists' posts is converted to a specified post which means specified in the speciality in which a need has been felt from amongst those in the specialists' grade belonging to that speciality and in order of their interse seniority a promotion could be given. This position is inescapable and it is difficult to comprehend a position contrary to this. In fact, this situation has been expr~ssly recognised by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. S. B. Kohli & Another (1), wherein it was held that for being appointed as a Professor ~n a particular speciality in that case ~Orthopaedics, the condition that a person must have a post-graduate degree in Orthopaedics would not result in any .classification without reference to the objectives sought to be achieved and this would not' result in any dis- 'crimination nor would it be violative of Article I 6. . In passing a contention of the appellant that all 28 posts which were deducted frcm the strength of permanentrposts in Specialists' grade and ac'ded to supertime grade II must' on that account alone be filled in by promotion from those belonging to the specialists' grade only may be examined. There is no merit in this rrntrnticn.