Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1976 DIGILAW 168 (GUJ)

S. D. Sharma v. State of Gujarat

1976-12-08

N.H.BHATT, S.OBUL REDDI

body1976
JUDGMENT : S. Obul Reddi, J. The petitioners who were originally recruited to the Gujarat Civil Service as Deputy Collectors have challenged the validity of the constitution of the Gujarat Administrative Service as also the ratio fixed for absorption in the Administrative Service between members of the Gujarat Civil Service and members of the Gujarat Development Service. The petitioners' case is that the Gujarat Civil Service is a distinct and separate service by itself and that the members of this service having regard to their qualifications, the nature of duties that they had to perform and other conditions of service, cannot be equated to the members of the Gujarat Development Service for purpose of integration of the two services. This integration of the two services, the Civil Service and the Development Service, into one Administrative Service, namely, the Gujarat Administrative Service, has denied the petitioners equal opportunities in the matter of employment which is guaranteed under Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution. 2. In October 1966, the Government made Rules for appointment to the posts of Deputy Collectors in Gujarat Civil Services Class One. Appointment to the Class One Deputy Collector's posts was either by promotion of Mamlatdars or by direct selection on the basis of the result of competitive examination. The ratio between the two sources was fixed at 50 : 50. Subsequently, the Government, for the purpose of rural development, created another service called the Gujarat Development Service, Class I and Class II. To Class I Development Service, Assistant Commissioner (Development), Assistant Commissioner (Panchayat), District Village Panchayat Officer, District Project Officer, Project Officer and Project Officer-cum-Taluka Development Officer were made eligible. Rule 6 of the said Rules further provided for transfer of Deputy Collectors to Class I Development Service and quota was fixed between the two sources of recruitment. Subsequently, when the Government felt that there should be only one service for developmental and revenue work, the Government of Gujarat created the Gujarat Administrative Service. The Rules of recruitment to Gujarat Administrative Service have now come in for attack by the petitioners. These Rules came into force with effect from the date they were published in the Gazette, that is, October 30, 1974. Rule 3 deals with the Constitution of the Gujarat Administrative Service. The Rules of recruitment to Gujarat Administrative Service have now come in for attack by the petitioners. These Rules came into force with effect from the date they were published in the Gazette, that is, October 30, 1974. Rule 3 deals with the Constitution of the Gujarat Administrative Service. The service is comprised of (a) the posts belonging to the cadre of Deputy Collectors in the Gujarat State Civil Service immediately before its discontinuance under R- 9; (b) the posts belonging to the cadre of the Gujarat Development Service Class I immediately before its discontinuance under R. 9; and (c) such other posts of similar character as the State Government may, from time to time, create in, or allot to the service. Rule 3, therefore, provides three sources of recruitment to the Gujarat Administrative Service. Rule 5 prescribes the mode of recruitment to the service. Recruitment should be made by promotion and by direct selection in the ratio of 50 : 50 in the manner indicated in the Rule. The relevant portion of the Rule reads "5. Recruitment to Service:(1) Recruitment to the Service, after the appointed date, shall be made by promotion and by direct selection in the ratio of 50 : 50 as indicated below : (i) By promotion of officers of proved merit and efficiency who have put in not less than 5 years service in the cadre of Mamlatdars or, as the case may be, of the officers belonging to Gujarat Development Service, Class II and who have passed the departmental examination prescribed for the time being by the Government for service in the said cadres, and (ii) By direct selection on the result of a competitive examination held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules made by Government in that behalf. Provided that promotions from amongst the officers of the cadre of Mamlatdars and from amongst officers belonging to the Gujarat Development Service, Class II shall be in the ratio of 3 : 1 or such other ratio as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. xxx xxx" Rule 6 lays down the criteria for fixation of inter se seniority between the sources of recruitment. xxx xxx" Rule 6 lays down the criteria for fixation of inter se seniority between the sources of recruitment. "The seniority of officers of the service shall be fixed by the Government in accordance with the total length of their continuous service in one or, as the case may be, both the categories of posts specified in R. 3 at the time of such fixation of seniority subject to the maintenance of inter se seniority amongst themselves in the respective cadres." 3. According to the Mr. Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioners, by reason of the integration of two services, the Development Service and the Civil Service, into one unified service, namely, Gujarat Administrative Service, the petitioners who originally belonged to the Civil Service are denied equal opportunities in matters relating to employment. It is his case that they have superior qualifications, the nature of work done by them was more arduous and onerous and while a Deputy Collector could with ease perform the functions of a Development Officer, it would not be possible for a Development Officer to perform the functions of a Deputy Collector as the nature of work of a Deputy Collector is of a specialised and varied nature. In short, it is his case that there cannot be any integration or drawing up of an inter se seniority list as between two unequal personnel of two services. 4. We may at the outset point out that it is the prerogative of the Government to constitute as many services as may be necessary for the convenient and efficient administration of the State. The Government of Gujarat had taken a policy decision to constitute the Gujarat Administrative Service and the Government also had the prior approval of the Central Government. It is only thereafter that the Administrative Service was constituted with a separate constitution. It was the policy I decision taken by the Government and the validity of such a policy decision cannot be questioned under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This Court can only examine if the inter se seniority fixed between the two sources is so unequal or arbitrary and has no relevance to the object or purpose of the Rules framed for purpose of integration of the two sources. Rule 5 provides that all the Deputy Collectors Class I shall be drafted into the new Administrative Service and no one is left out. Rule 5 provides that all the Deputy Collectors Class I shall be drafted into the new Administrative Service and no one is left out. Even those who belong to.Class II Civil Service, that is, the Mamlatdars, are given higher quota of 3:1. That being the case, it cannot be complained that after the constitution of the new Service, the original seniority as amongst themselves is not maintained or it has resulted in any prejudice to them. Naturally, when two services governed by two different constitutions or service conditions are integrated, the question of fixation of seniority always arises. For that the Government has laid down the criteria, the main criteria being the total length of continuous service in the respective services. That was the basis taken for purpose of fixing the inter se seniority. 5. We may also point out in this connection that the scales of pay for both the cadres, the Deputy Collectors and the members of the Gujarat Development Service were the same. The Government, having regard to the nature of duties performed by the Development Officers, their scale of pay and their qualifications decided to integrate that cadre with the members of the Gujarat Civil Service Class I. The inter se seniority as amongst the members of each cadre was not disturbed by the Rules. Rule 6 specifically provides for maintenance of inter se seniority amongst themselves in the respective cadres. Therefore, on the facts it is difficult to agree with Mr. Shelat that the two cadres which are unequal in everything are sought to be integrated into one and that too to the prejudice of one cadre, namely, the Deputy Collectors. 6. The scope of Art. 16 has been the subject of innumerable decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Unless it is shown that there is infraction of Art. 16 (1) by the petitioners, it will be impossible for us to hold that there has been denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment to the petitioners. When the entire cadre of Deputy Collectors has been integrated with another cadre of equal status, we are unable to understand how it can be contended that either the Government is not competent i to merge the two cadres or fix the inter se seniority on the lines proposed by it in the Gujarat Administrative Service Rules. 7. When the entire cadre of Deputy Collectors has been integrated with another cadre of equal status, we are unable to understand how it can be contended that either the Government is not competent i to merge the two cadres or fix the inter se seniority on the lines proposed by it in the Gujarat Administrative Service Rules. 7. The learned counsel also questioned the proportion fixed between the members of the Civil Service and the Development Service. It is entirely within the discretion of the Government, having regard to the number of officers working in each of the cadres, the nature of the work involved and the avenues of promotion they had in each of the cadres, to fix the quota between the various sources. No material has been placed before us to show that the quota as fixed under the rules cannot be justified. 8. The learned counsel also referred to the fact that the Deputy Collectors under the Indian Administrative Service Rules were entitled to 25 per cent quota while non-civil service personnel were only entitled to 4 per cent and by integration of the two services, they would be deprived of that quota. It should be clearly understood that the State Administrative Service has been constituted with the approval of the Central Government. If the quota rule requires revision, it is a matter between the State Government and the Central Government. When once the State Civil Service as such is abolished and a new service is constituted, drawing personnel from different sources, the members of the erstwhile State Civil Service cannot claim any separate identity by reason of their having once belonged to a different Service. We, therefore, find that there is no merit in the argument that the constitution of the new service has deprived the Deputy Collectors of the 25 per cent quota in the Administrative Service. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal, AIR 1976 SC 2345 considered an identical argument as is advanced in this case. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal, AIR 1976 SC 2345 considered an identical argument as is advanced in this case. Repelling the argument advanced in that case on the question of integration of different cadres into one cadre, the learned Judges said "It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal v. Union of India, ( AIR 1962 SC 1139 ) that Art. 16 and a fortiori also Art. 14 do not forbid the creation of different cadres for Government service, and if that be so, equally these two articles cannot stand in the way of the State integrating different cadres into one cadre. It is entirely a matter for the State to decide whether to have several different cadres or one integrated cadre in its services. That is a matter of policy which does not attract the applicability of the equality clause. The integration of nonclerical with clerical services sought to be effectuated by the Combined Seniority Scheme cannot in the circumstances be assailed as violative of the constitutional principle of equality." Even as regards the question of seniority as adopted by the Reserve Bank in that case, the learned Judges observed "Now there can be no doubt that it is open to the State to lay down any rule which it thinks appropriate for determining seniority in service and it is not competent to the Court to strike down such rule on the ground that in its opinion another rule would have been better or more appropriate." The answer given by the Supreme Court in the Reserve Bank of India case is a complete answer to the points urged in this Court by the petitioners. 10. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed Rule discharged. No costs. Petition dismissed.