Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 332 (CAL)

State of West Bengal v. Subrata Majumdar

1987-09-16

A.C.SENGUPTA, CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE

body1987
JUDGMENT Mookerjee, C.J : The State of West Bengal and three others have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th October, 1985 of his Lordship the Honn’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sengupta making absolute a Rule obtained by the writ petitioners, Subrata Majunmdar and Sushil Kumar Dey, challenging the vires of the West Bengal Services (Secretariat Common Cadre) Rules, 1984 and the West Bengal Services (Secretariat Common Cadres of Deputy Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries) Rules, 1984. 2. In the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of West Bengal had made the said two Common cadre Rules and they applied to all government employees holding in the Secretariat Department and offices mentioned in the schedule to the said two Rules, the posts borne in the secretariat common cadres formed under Rule 4 of the respective two Rules. The expression ‘common cadres’ has been given identical definition in Rule 3(iii) of both the Rules as follows : “............... means a cadre of same category of posts in the Secretariat Department and Offices formed into a cadre under these Rules” Under Rule 4(1) of the West Bengal Services (Secretariat Common Cadre) Rules, 1984 following separate cadres for each of the following categories of posts were constituted : i) Lower Division Assistants, ii) Upper Division Assistants, iii) Typists, vi) Typists Grade-I, v) Head Assistants, vi) Section Officers, vii) Registrars, Officer on Special Duty and Special Officers in the scale of Rs 600-1600/-. Under sub-rules (2) and (3) of the said Common Cadre Rules each of the common cadres was formed with all posts in the respective categories in the Secretariat Departments and offices mentioned in the schedule. Posts in the common cadres came within management and control of the Home (P & AR) Department of the West Bengal. Under Rule 5 the management and control of cadres was vested in the said Home (P & AR) Department. A common gradation list under Rule 6 is to be prepared for each of the common cadres constituted under Rule 4. In the common gradation list seniority of persons shall be determined by the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981. Recruitment to the post in the common cadre shall be regulated in the manner prescribed in Rule 7 of the Common Cadre Rules. In the common gradation list seniority of persons shall be determined by the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981. Recruitment to the post in the common cadre shall be regulated in the manner prescribed in Rule 7 of the Common Cadre Rules. Upper Division Assistants were to be appointed by promotion of Lower Division Assistants home in the common cadre. Head Assistants are to be appointed by promotion of Upper Division Assistants borne in the common cadre Section Officers are to be appointed by promotion of Head Assistants borne in the common cadre. For posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers in the revised scale of Rs 660-1600/., the method of recruitment would be :– “by promotion from the combined panel of Section Officers, Head Assistants and Upper Division Assistants borne in the common cadres prepared by the Commission. Only for be purpose of promotion to the Posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers in the scale of Rs 600-1600/., the Section Officers, Head Assistants and Upper Division Assistants shall be treated as belonging to the Upper Division Assistants cadre.” 3. The provisions of the West Bengal Services (Secretariat Common Cadres of Deputy Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries) Rules, 1984 were in similar terms. By the said Rules a common cadre of Assistant Secretaries (other than such posts which are filled up by transfer of officers belonging to West Bengal Civil Services (Executive), West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial), West Bengal Health Services and West Bengal Engineering Service was constituted Similarly, for more than posts of Deputy Secretaries which are filled up by transfer of officers belonging to the IAS West Bengal Civil Service (Executive), West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial), West Bengal Health Service and West Bengal Senior Engineering Service, all Posts of Deputy Secretaries in the Secretaries Departments and offices mentioned in the schedule were constituted a common cadre. Similar provision for preparation or a common gradation list and the management and control were made. Rule 7(1) of the said Rules for Assistant Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries prescribed methods of recruitment. Post of Deputy Secretaries included in the common cadre were to be filled up by promotion of Assistant Secretaries borne in the common cadre for Assistant Secretaries. Similar provision for preparation or a common gradation list and the management and control were made. Rule 7(1) of the said Rules for Assistant Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries prescribed methods of recruitment. Post of Deputy Secretaries included in the common cadre were to be filled up by promotion of Assistant Secretaries borne in the common cadre for Assistant Secretaries. Posts of Assistant Secretaries which were included in the common cadre constituted under the Rules were to be filled up by promotion from the combined panel of :– i) Registrar, Officer on Special Duty, Special Officers in the revised scale of Rs 660.1600/-. ii) Section Officer, iii) Head Assistant, iv) Upper Division Assistant borne in the respective common cadres “Only for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Secretaries the Registrars, Officers on Special Duty, Special Officers, Section Officer, Head Assistant and Upper Division Assistant shall be treated as belonging to Upper Division Assistant cadre.” Rest of the provisions of the said Common Cadre Rules are not relevant for decision in this appeal. 4. The learned trial Judge has upheld the contention of the writ petitioner respondents that said provision of Rule 7 of the two Common Cadre Rules were discriminatory and unreasonable. After constitution of separate common cadres in the secretariat and in the offices mentioned in the schedule to the respective Rules, they could not be clubbed together for the purpose of promotion to the post of Registrar, Officer on Special duty and Special Officer, Head Assistants and Upper Division Assistants as belonging to the Upper Division Assistant cadre. Taking the seniority in the post of Upper Division Assistant which were in the lowest category amongst the different eligible cadres would be an irrational method of determining the seniority for thee purpose of recruitment and/or to the post of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty, Special Officers in the scale of Rs. 600-1600/-. Same also would result in treating equally Section Officers, Head Assistants and Upper Division Assistants who belonged to different categories with different scales of pay and therefore were unequals. 600-1600/-. Same also would result in treating equally Section Officers, Head Assistants and Upper Division Assistants who belonged to different categories with different scales of pay and therefore were unequals. The learned trial Judge also accepted the submission of the petitioners that the said Common Cadre Rules had been made at the instance and behest of the promotees who were on notional basis either for constitution of the separate cadres or for prescribing two Common Cadre Rules, the method of recruitment to the post of Registrars Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers in the aforesaid scale. 5. Almost upon the identical grounds the learned trial Judge struck down the other Common Cadre Rules relating to the recruitment of Deputy Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries. According to the learned trial Judge, for recruitment or Assistant Secretaries borne in the common cadre by constitution of a common panel or Registrars, Officers on special Duty and Special Officers in scale of Rs 600-1600/-, Section Officers, Head Assistants and Upper Division Assistants was discriminatory Seniority of the members belonging to different category of posts borne in separate cadres could not be determined with reference to the duties to their appointment as Upper Division Assistants. It would be arbitrary and irrational to treat persons belonging to the cadre which were higher in rank, responsibility and in pay as still belonging to cadre of Upper Division Assistants for promotion to still higher posts of Assistant Secretaries borne in the common cadre. 6. Before we consider the merits of the rival claims and contentions, we may briefly set out the practice and/or procedure relating to recruitment to the different posts in the secretariat and the offices which are now governed by the aforesaid two Common Cadre Rules. In the year 1936 in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 29 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules the post of Assistant Secretaries other than those in the Legislative and Judicial departments were covered by the said recruitment Rules. The method of recruitment to posts of Assistant Secretaries was : (a) by transfer from provincial services, and (b) by promotion of Registrars, Upper Division Assistants in the Secretariat. 7. The method of recruitment to posts of Assistant Secretaries was : (a) by transfer from provincial services, and (b) by promotion of Registrars, Upper Division Assistants in the Secretariat. 7. On 21st July, 1954 the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India had framed Rules for the regulation of recruitment to the clerical services of the Secretariat and other offices of the Government of West Bengal. The clerical service of the Secretariat, according to said Rules, was divided into two divisions: (i) the Upper Division and (ii) the Lower Division. For Upper Division Clerical service there was a time scale or Rs. 150-10-370-15-400 and also a selection grade of Rs 400-500/- attached to the post or Senior Head Assistants. A Special Pay of Rs. 60/- was attached to the post of Head Assistants. The Upper Division Assistants were recruited 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from lower division. It is unnecessary to mention the Rules of Recruitment of Lower Division Assistants. 8. In the pre-period 1976 promotion in the different category of posts in the Secretariat was step by step. But for promotion to the post of Registrar, Senior Head Assistants, Junior Head Assistants and Upper Division Assistants formed a pool. In the matter of such promotion, Government departments fell into two categories :–– (1) closed pool departments and (2) other departments. In the closed pool departments, recruitment and promotion was confined to employees serving in the said particular department. But in case of further promotion to posts or Assistant Secretaries, the pool consisted of Registrar, Upper Division Assistant Including Senior Upper Division Assistants not only of the department in which the vacancy occured but in the entire secretariat and other offices. In department where there was such closed pool of promotional posts were made from among holders of feeder posts in the different departments. 9. In the second period commencing after 1976, Assistant Secretaries used to be appointed by transfer or promotion from the panel of Registrar and Upper Division Assistants in the West Bengal Secretariat. There was no change so far as recruitment to posts of Registrars was concerned In the meantime direct recruitment to the post of Upper Division Assistants was abolished and Upper Division Assistants were to be recruited only by promotion. There was no change so far as recruitment to posts of Registrars was concerned In the meantime direct recruitment to the post of Upper Division Assistants was abolished and Upper Division Assistants were to be recruited only by promotion. By notification dated 14th January, 1976 the method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Secretaries in the different departments of the Government had been prescribed In respect of Irrigation, Water-ways Department, Departments of Health and Family Planning and Legislative and Judicial Department, some of the posts of Assistant Secretaries were to be filled up by transfer from specified services Other posts were to be filled up by Registrars or Upper Division Assistants Rules for recruitment held been also amended the details of which are unnecessary for our present purposes. 10. It would suffice to say that prior to the enactment of the two Common Cadre Rules of 1984, in some of the departments, posts of Assistant Secretaries and of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers, etc were filled up by promotion from among the eligible categories of employees serving in the department concerned. In other departments the eligible pool comprised holders of feeder posts in the different departments of the Secretariat. By two Common Cadre Rules of 1994 the different categories of posts in the entire Secretariat and its offices mentioned in the schedule have been constituted separate cadres. But previous practice of constituting a common pool of Registrars. Officers on Special Duty, Special Officers. Section Officers, Upper Division Assistants, Head Assistants has been continued under the Common Cadre Rules of 1984. The previous distinction between the closed pool departments and open departments in the West Bengal Secretariat baa been abolished therefore, when a post of Assistant Secretary belonging to the common cadre or a post of Registrar fall vacant, all eligible employees belonging to different common cadre would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the said posts thus Rule 7 of the two Common Cadre Rules have provided that for purposes of recruitment respectively to the posts of Assistant Secretaries and of Registrars the eligible employees shall be deemed to be still Upper Division Assistants for the purposes of determining their seniorities. The Rule 7 of both the Rules has been given overriding effect and by legal fiction even lifter these employees had been promoted to higher posts for the purposes of recruitment to posts of Assistant Secretaries and Registrars, they are to be notionally treated as belonging to category of Upper Division Assistants for the purposes of their seniority. In other words, amongst the holders of the different categories of posts which have been formed into separate cadres their dates of appointment as Upper Division Assistants would still be relevant for fixation of their seniorities for the purposes of promotion as Assistant Secretaries, Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers. 11. We are not prepared to accept as correct the legal proposition that it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution to provide for promotion to a post from more than one category or cadre of posts. No question of treating as equal the unequals would arise in the event. A recruitment to a promotional post may be lawfully effected from more than one class of feeder posts. Recruitment to government services are often made partly by direct appointment and partly by promotion from among the existing employees. It is not necessary these different categories or cadres of feeder posts must always have same scale of pay. Rule 7 of the two Common Cadre Rules cannot be straightaway struck down on the ground that posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers in the scale of Rs 660-1600/- are to be recruited by promotion of Upper Division Assistants, Head Assistants, Section Officers. It is not material that the scales of pay of these different feeder posts are not same and rules also provided for intermediate promotions of Upper Division Assistants as Head Assistants, Section Officers, etc. Promotion, it is settled law, is not a matter of right and it is open to the State to prescribe rules and/or regulations regarding the terms and conditions of promotion to higher posts. Therefore, there could be no legal bar to making Upper Division Assistants eligible along with other categories of posts, namely, Section Officers, Head Assistants, etc. which are higher scales of pay. Therefore, there could be no legal bar to making Upper Division Assistants eligible along with other categories of posts, namely, Section Officers, Head Assistants, etc. which are higher scales of pay. In the Secretariat and the offices mentioned in the Schedule to the Common Cadre Rules, all along Upper Division Assistants were within the zone of consideration for promotion to posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officer which then carried scale of pay of Rs 660-1600/- But in the specified departments such promotion took place from amongst the employees serving in that particular department while in other departments and offices, promotion was not department wise but from amongst eligible employees serving in the different departments and offices. One feature of the Common Cadre Rules is introduction of creation of the combined cadre for the same category of posts in all the departments and offices of the Secretariat. The second feature of the Common Cadre Rules is to provide for promotion not from amongst the employees serving in a particular department but from the entire combined cadre irrespective of their deployment in a particular department of the Secretariat or in the offices mentioned in the schedule to the said Common Cadre Rules. 12. For the same reasons, we find nothing constitutionally objectionable in providing a common pool comprising Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers in the scale of pay Rs 660-1600/- and Head Assistants, Upper Division Assistants for recruitment by promotion to the common cadre of Assistant Secretaries Again all along Upper Division Assistants had been eligible to be considered for promotion along with other categories of employees for their promotion as Assistant Secretaries. Again prior to the making or the two Common Cadre Rules there was no uniformity as regards the zone of consideration for such promotion. In respect of some of the departments and offices promotion was confined to employees serving in that particular department. In other cases, there was pulling together of said categories of employees. In the different departments other than the specified departments. 13. We may also note that the writ petitioners in the present case did not challenge the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981. In other cases, there was pulling together of said categories of employees. In the different departments other than the specified departments. 13. We may also note that the writ petitioners in the present case did not challenge the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981. According to the said Rule, a relative seniority between the promotees and direct results shall be henceforth determined by the year of appointment or promotion in the post, cadre or grade irrespective of the date of joining Among the inter se promotees seniority of promotion shall be also determined from the date of joining such post, cadre or grade. Vires of the said Determination of Seniority Rules of 1981, not being the subject matter of the present case, we are not called upon to decide the vires of the said Rules. But we may observe that by reason of providing that seniority in a promotional post shall be counted from the date of the joining, it was only logical to establish common cadre for the same category or posts in the different departments of the Secretariat and the offices mentioned in the schedule to the said Common Cadre Rules. Once common cadres came to be Created, It is necessary to ensure equity of treatment among those who would be eligible to be considered for promotional posts. 14. We have found that these was no constitutional infirmity in providing that different categories of employees were eligible to be considered for promotion posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers and also for post of Assistant Secretaries in the common cadre. Unequal scales of Pay amongst the eligible categories of employees did not necessarily mean that it would be illogical to consider claims of Upper Division Assistant along with other categories of posts which are superior in rank or enjoy higher scales of pay than those of the Upper Division Assistants Rule 7 of the two Common Cadre Rules endeavour to lay down among the different categories of employees eligible for promotion, one uniform method or manner of calculation of their seniorities. In the different departments and offices there was no uniformity in the matter of zone of consideration for these promotional posts. As already stated, in some specified departments, the closed pool method was valid, i.e., only the eligible categories serving in the department concerned came within the zone of consideration. In the different departments and offices there was no uniformity in the matter of zone of consideration for these promotional posts. As already stated, in some specified departments, the closed pool method was valid, i.e., only the eligible categories serving in the department concerned came within the zone of consideration. In other departments the zone of consideration was wider. After establishment of common cadres of the different categories of employees in the Secretariat and the offices mentioned in the schedule to the Common Cadre Rules, it was necessary to lay down some principle for determination of seniority amongst the eligible categories of employees comprised in the pool. Promotion to ensure that intermediate post below the post of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers and also to intermediate posts of Assistant Secretaries, made before the making of the common Cadre Rules would not affect chances of promotion after the said rules came into force of those Upper Division. Assistants who belonged to non-specified departments, i.e., the departments where no closed pool method existed. 15. In the light of these observations, we ought to interpret the provision of Rule 7 of the two Common Cadre Rules for treating only for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers and for posts of Assistant Secretaries in the common cadre, eligible categories of employees are to be treated as belonging to Upper Division Assistants’ cadre. We have already mentioned that prior to the formation of common cadres there was no uniformity in the matter of promotion to the intermediate promotional posts which are above the category of Upper Division Assistants. We are unable to accept the submission made that once employees had been promoted to posts higher that the posts of Upper Division Assistants, their seniorities as Upper Division Assistants their seniorities as Upper Division Assistants could no longer be lawfully taken into account for effecting promotion to posts still higher that these intermediate promotional posts and for which Upper Division Assistants were entitled to be considered for promotion. Even after the common cadres of the different categories of posts in the Secretariat, the State was not preclude from laying down that for promotion to still higher posts the dates of their appointment as Upper Division Assistants shall be taken into reckoning for fixation of seniority among the eligible employees belonging to separate cadres. Even after the common cadres of the different categories of posts in the Secretariat, the State was not preclude from laying down that for promotion to still higher posts the dates of their appointment as Upper Division Assistants shall be taken into reckoning for fixation of seniority among the eligible employees belonging to separate cadres. The creation of these different common cadres was made expressly subject to Rule 7 of the two Common Cadre Rules Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of these Rules were given overriding force by use of the non-obstante expression ‘notwithstanding anything contained in any other Rules’. The creation of separate common cadres were made expressly subject to the reservation that in case of recruitment to posts in the common cadre shall be regulated in the manner laid down in Rule 7 of the Common Cadre Rule. The expression ‘recruitment’ in Rule 7 obviously include both initial appointment and also promotion. The members of these separate cadres, therefore, were eligible for promotion only in accordance with the Rule 7 of the two Rules. Therefore, persons who have now become members of these different common cadres, cannot dispute the power of the State to prescribe that in case of consideration of their claim for further advancement to still higher promotional posts, one of the determinates would be their seniority in the Upper Division Assistants. Such provision for taking into reckoning seniority as Upper Division Assistants even in case of those who had been already given promotion cannot be considered as irrational or arbitrary. In fact, when inter se seniorities of different categories of posts are to be determined, their inter se seniorities of different categories of posts are to be determined, their inter se seniorities in the basic categories of Upper Division Assistants would perhaps be the most reliable test. There was no other common measure of yard stick for determination of seniority of eligible employees belonging to different cadres. 16. The ratio of the reported decisions relied upon by the learned trial judge have no manner of application for deciding the vires of the Common Cadre Rules impugned in the present case. The observations on reported cases relied upon by the writ petitioners were made in the context of recruitments made from one single source. These observations may not apply when promotion according to seniority are to be made from more than one category of feeder posts. The observations on reported cases relied upon by the writ petitioners were made in the context of recruitments made from one single source. These observations may not apply when promotion according to seniority are to be made from more than one category of feeder posts. In the case of Marvin Continho v. Collector of Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 52 , there was only one source of recruitment of the Principal Appraisers from among the Appraisers. In the passage quoted by the learned trial Judge, the Supreme Court in the case of Marvin Continho v. Collector of Bombay (supra), had emphasisted that in the case before us there was only one source of recruitment and in such as case the normal rule will apply, namely, a person promoted to a higher grade gets his seniority in that grade according to the date of promotion subject always to his being found fit and being confirmed in the higher grade. Once promotion takes place, their origin or source (namely direct recruitment or by promotion) could no longer be a rational basis for fixation of seniority in the cadre of the promotional posts. The Supreme Court struck down the Rules of Promotion of the Principal Appraisers on the ground that the rotational rule introduced a kind of reservation in respect of the two categories of Appraisers from which promotions were to be made and according to the Supreme Court that cannot be done when the source of promotion is one. 17. In the present case, the method of recruitment for posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers and for posts of Assistant secretaries may be the same butt source of their recruitment by promotion was not single but multiple. The pool was formed by holders of different categories of posts including category of Upper Division Assistants Accordingly, the decision in the case of Marvin Continho v. Collector of Customs (supra), has no manner of application in the present case. 18. In the case of Rohan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 , the ratio of the Marvin Continho’s case (supra), was applied and testing the vires of rules for promotion of Train Examiners who formed one single source of recruitment by promotion to higher posts. 18. In the case of Rohan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 , the ratio of the Marvin Continho’s case (supra), was applied and testing the vires of rules for promotion of Train Examiners who formed one single source of recruitment by promotion to higher posts. In the passage from the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (supra), at page 16 of the report, it was, inter alia, observed that once direct recruits and promotees are absorbed in one class, they form one class and they could not be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to higher grade ‘C’. For the reasons already given the law laid down in the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (supra), cannot be relied for deciding the present case. 19. We may respectfully make same observations with regard to the Supreme Court decision in the case of S.K. Ghosh v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 1385 because the common case of both parties in the said reported case was that by the time impugned promotions were made, the two A Grade Directors of Postal Services had been amalgamated into the single grade and the promotions of the petitioners as well as the respondent nos 3 to 7 were to that grade. After their promotions, their seniorities were sought to be altered to their disadvantage because of the purported revision of seniority in the junior time scale. This was held to be ultra vires. Accordingly, the decision in the case of S.K. Ghosh v. Union of India (supra), is also of no assistance to the writ petitioners. It is unnecessary for us to separately deal with the other reported cases noted in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. We may only note that in the case of Bishan Sarup Gupta and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1974 SC 1618 , the earlier decision in the case of Marvin Continho v. Collector of Bombay (supra) was explained by pointing out that once integrated to one single cadre for the purpose of further promotion source of recruitment of the eligible officers could not be a rational basis for selection. As already observed by us, these principles would be inapplicable where a common pool for considering eligibility for promotion consists not of one single category or cadre of posts but several categories or cadres of employees become eligible to be considered for promotion. In these Cases, it would be rational to evolve a formula by which seniority from among different categories could be measured by considering their dates of appointment in a basic grade or cadre to which all the different categories either at one time belonged or still continue to belong. 20. In his judgment under appeal, the learned trial Judge observed that there was no rational basis for providing a combined pool of different categories of posts for promotion as Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers or to the post of Assistant Secretaries in the common cadre. We have given our reasons for upholding the Rule 7 of the said two Common Cadre Rules for determination of seniority among the holders of these different categories according to dates of their appointment as Upper Division Assistants. This has not the effect of treating uneqals equally. In fact, Mr. Pal did not dispute that oven by application of said Rule 7, in large majority of cases, persons who had been promoted earlier as Registrars. Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers shall maintain their seniority fur the purpose of being considered for recruitment as Assistant Secretaries, Similarly, in case of filling up by promotion, posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers, the senior most in length of service as Upper Division Assistants in the feeder posts will not forfeit his seniority. If in order to mitigate the inequity which might have been caused by reason of previous existence of the closed pool departments, some had obtained accelerated promotion in these departments, Rule 7 of the two Common Cadre Rules provides for fixation of seniority of eligible categories of employees according to dates of their appointment as Upper Division Assistants, we are not prepared to hold the said provision as arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory. Since all classes of eligible employees had been at one time Upper Division Assistants, there could be no question of treating unequals equally by providing that their seniority only for the purposes of promotion as Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers and in the post of Assistant Secretaries, would be according to their position in the seniority list of Upper Division Assistants. 21. There is no material on record to establish that the two Common Cadre Rules have been made at the behest of the promotees. Therefore, the finding of the trial Judge in this behalf was not justified. We are also unable to accept the submission that provisions for preparation of common cadres for difference of posts and for their pooling or grouping together for the purposes of promotion to the posts of Registrars, Officers on Special Duty and Special Officers and to the post of Assistant Secretaries were not in public interest. Before us, sufficient materials have been placed to indicate the rational basis for formation of these common cadres subject to the provision for determination of inter se seniority amongst the different categories according to their dates of appointment as Upper Division Assistants. Therefore, we reject the argument that the two Common Cadre Rules were not in the interest of public service. 22 For the foregoing reasons, this appeal ought to succeed and the writ petition filed by the respondent nos 1 and 2 ought to fall. We according allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge and dismiss the writ application without any order as to costs. The operation of our judgment be stayed for eight weeks Appeal allowed. writ petition fails.