1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5969­5970 OF 2009

Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. .. Appellants

Versus

S. Maadasamy and Anr. etc. etc. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M. R. Shah, J.

1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court and are between

the same parties, the same are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common  judgment  and order  dated 29.10.2007 passed by  the

High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 44921 and 44922 of

2

2006, by  which the  High  Court has dismissed the said  writ

petitions preferred by the appellants­Union of India and others

and confirmed the judgment  and order  passed by  the  learned

Central  Administrative  Tribunal  dated  04.07.2006 in  O.A.  No.

218 of 2005 and O.A. No. 814 of 2005, the Union of India and

others­original writ petitioners before the High Court have

preferred the present appeals.

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as

under:

That  respondent  no.  1 herein­original  applicant  initially joined

the services in the Government of Puducherry as a Craft

Instructor in the  Labour  Department  on  03.11.1975  and  was

appointed as the Group Instructor on regular basis.   That,

thereafter he was promoted as Inspector of Factories on

27.09.1982 and as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale) on regular

basis w.e.f. 25.08.1989.  That, thereafter on 26.07.2001, he was

promoted as the Joint Chief  Inspector of  Factories  (hereinafter

referred to as  the “JCIF”)  on regular  basis.  The promotion of

respondent No.  1­original  applicant was challenged by one Sri

P.S. Krishnamurthy, who was promoted as Principal, Group ‘A’

3

(Junior Scale) subsequent to the promotion of respondent No. 1­

original applicant.   On the representation made by the said Sri

P.S. Krishnamurthy, the Government initiated steps to convene a

review DPC, but the same was rejected by the UPSC.  Thereafter,

respondent no. 1­original applicant joined duty in the said post

on 26.07.2001. The said promotion was challenged by Sri P.S.

Krishnamurthy by way of O.A. No. 795 of 2001, but the same

was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short

‘Tribunal’) on 29.07.2001.   According to the appellants, the

Government of Puducherry also sent a proposal to  UPSC for

amendment of the recruitment rules equating the post of

Principal, ITI held by Sri P.S. Krishnamurthy with that of JCIF.

It appears that pursuant to the draft recruitment rules equating

the  posts, respondent  No.  1­original  applicant  was  transferred

from JCIF and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) on

30.09.2003.  It appears that, in the meantime, in the year 1998

the  Government of Puducherry decided to create one post of

Principal (Senior Scale) (Rs.3000­4500/­ later revised to

Rs.10,000­15200/­) in the Government ITI at Karaikal.

According to the  Department, the same  was  pursuant to the

order of the Tribunal, based on the number of students at ITI,

4

Karaikal being more than 400.   The same was done in

anticipation of the approval of the Government of India, by

keeping one post of Principal (Junior Scale) in abeyance.   That

the Government of India, by order dated 19.10.2000 sanctioned

the proposal for creation of the post of Principal, Group ‘A’

(Senior Scale) subject to the condition that one post of Principal

(Junior Scale) which was kept in abeyance, should be abolished.

That, thereafter respondent No. 1 working as Principal  (Junior

Scale) in ITI, Puducherry was promoted to the post of JCIF vide

order dated 26.07.2001.   That, thereafter on 17.09.2001,

pursuant to the approval received from the Government of India

for the creation of one post of Principal (Senior Scale), one post of

Principal (Junior Scale) was abolished.  It appears that pursuant

to the draft recruitment rules equating the posts of Principal, ITI

and the JCIF, respondent No.1­original applicant was transferred

from JCIF and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) on

30.09.2003.   That the said order was challenged by respondent

No.  1  herein­original  applicant  before the learned  Tribunal  by

way of O.A.  No.  869 of  2003.   That the said O.A.  came to be

allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 06.01.2004.   The

writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the

5

learned  Tribunal  came  to  be  dismissed by the  High Court  on

16.02.2005.   At this stage, it is required to be noted that while

quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.09.2003

transferring respondent No. 1 from JCIF to Principal, Group ‘A”

(Senior Scale), the learned Tribunal held that reliance placed on

draft recruitment rules to support the transfer, cannot be

sustained, as the mere approval of the Lt. Governor is not enough

and the consultation with and approval of the UPSC is required

and thereafter, it has to be notified.   The Tribunal also held the

transfer as  mala fide  and  passed  with  ulterior  motive.   The

Tribunal also observed and held that after the rules are approved

by UPSC and notified, the  Government  would be  at liberty to

make the transfer of the original applicant.   

3.1 It appears that, thereafter the notification being G.O. No. 6

dated 08.03.2005 to amend the recruitment rules relating to the

post of JCIF/Chief Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) was

published on 15.03.2005.  Simultaneously,  on the same date,

respondent No. 1 herein­original applicant came to be transferred

and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) to the

Government ITI,  Karaikal from the  post of JCIF, Puducherry.

6

The said order of transfer came to be challenged by respondent

No. 1­original  applicant before the  learned Tribunal  by way of

O.A. No. 218 of 2005.   That, by way of O.A. No. 814 of 2005,

respondent No. 1­original applicant challenged the revised

recruitment rules  introduced by G.O. No.  6 dated 08.03.2005,

equating the two posts, namely the post of JCIF and the post of

Principal Group ‘A” (Senior Scale) and also to set aside the said

amended recruitment rules.

3.2 That the learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the order

of transfer dated 15.03.2005 stating that the same was mala fide

and passed with an ulterior motive.   The learned Tribunal also

allowed O.A. No. 814 of 2005 and held that the amended rules

are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution  of India.  According to the learned  Tribunal, the

purpose for bringing the amended rules was not germane, but

was directed only to achieve a different purpose.   

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by

the learned Tribunal in  O.A. No. 218 of 2005 quashing and

setting aside the order of transfer dated  15.03.2005 and the

judgment and order passed in O.A. No. 814 of 2005 quashing

7

and setting aside  the amended recruitment rules equating  the

post of Principal Group ‘A” (Senior Scale) with that of the post of

JCIF, the appellants herein­Union of India and others preferred

writ  petitions  before the  High Court.  That,  by the impugned

common judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed both

the writ petitions and confirmed the judgment and order passed

by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the order of

transfer dated 15.03.2005 and setting aside the amended rules

equating the post of Principal Group ‘A” (Senior Scale) with that

of the post of JCIF.   That, by the impugned judgment and order,

the High Court has dismissed both the writ petitions.  Hence, the

present appeals challenging the impugned common judgment

and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 44921

and 44922 of 2006 confirming the judgment and order passed by

the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 218 of 2015 and O.A. No. 814 of

2005 dated 04.07.2006.   

3.4 Now, so far as the challenge to the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ

petition and confirming the judgment and order passed by the

learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 218 of 2005, by which the learned

8

Tribunal set aside the order of transfer dated 15.03.2005 is

concerned, it is the admitted position that in view of the

subsequent  development  and respondent  No.  1  herein­original

applicant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, as

such, the challenge to the order passed by the High Court

confirming the order passed by the  learned Tribunal  quashing

and setting  aside the order of transfer  dated  15.03.2005  has

become infructuous/academic.   Even otherwise, there are

concurrent findings given by both, the learned Tribunal as well

as the High Court holding that the order of transfer was  mala

fide  and with the oblique motive. Therefore, the appeal

challenging the impugned judgment and  order  passed  by the

High Court dismissing the writ petition and confirming the

judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.

218 of 2005 stands disposed of as infructuous/academic.     

3.5 However, the question still remains how the period from the

order of transfer dated 15.03.2005 till respondent No. 1­original

applicant attained the age of superannuation is to be

treated/considered.  It appears that at the time when respondent

No. 1­original applicant attained the age of superannuation, he

9

has been paid the retirement benefits and the

pension/pensionary benefits vide order dated 18.08.2016 and the

period from 15.03.2005 till he attained the age of superannuation

is treated as  dies­non  and he has been paid the

pension/pensionary  benefits  accordingly.  Therefore, it  will be

open for respondent  No.  1­original applicant to challenge the

order dated 18.08.2016 treating the period between 15.03.2005

till he attained the age of superannuation as dies­non, before the

appropriate Court/Forum and as and when such proceedings are

initiated, the same may be considered  in accordance with  law

and on its own merits.

4. In view of the above, now the challenge to the impugned

judgment  and order  passed by the  High Court  confirming the

order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 814 of 2005 by

which the amended recruitment rules vide notification ­ G.O. No.

6 dated  08.03.2005 equating the post of Principal,  Grade ‘A’

(Senior Scale) with that of JCIF survives.  

4.1 Shri A. Mariarputham, learned Senior Advocate has

appeared on behalf of the appellants.  Learned counsel appearing

10

on behalf  of  the appellants has vehemently submitted that,  as

such, the challenge to the amended rules by respondent No. 1­

original applicant before the learned Tribunal was limited to

equating the two posts and not the entirety of the rules.   It is

further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants that, even otherwise, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, both, the learned Tribunal as well as

the  High  Court have committed grave error in quashing and

setting aside the amended rules equating the post of Principal,

Group ‘A’ (Senior  Scale)  with that  of the  post of JCIF.   It is

submitted that the educational and other qualifications

prescribed for the two posts in question, namely JCIF and

Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) are identical; that the feeder

cadre/posts for both the posts are also identical and  having

common rules for the two posts.  It is submitted that, therefore,

in that view of the matter, the equations of two posts cannot be

said  to  be bad­in­law.   It is further  submitted by  the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that even in the

lower cadres, the pattern of having the same rules for a group of

posts, where the feeder cadres are the same, was in existence.

In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the 1982

11

Rules, governing the post of Inspector of Factories, Principal and

Technical officers.   It is submitted that a person posted as

Inspector of Factories is transferable as Principal and vise­versa

etc.    

4.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants that both, the learned Tribunal as well as

the  High Court  have  materially  erred  in  quashing and setting

aside the amended rules equating the aforesaid two posts, on the

ground that the duties and responsibilities with respect to the

two posts are not similar/identical.  It is submitted that there is

no requirement in law that all the posts clubbed together should

be identical in respect of duties and responsibilities and

functions.   It is submitted that by the very nature of things, it

will not be identical.   It is submitted that what is to be seen is

whether the person is capable/competent to discharge the

functions of both the posts.  It is submitted that having regard to

the identical, educational and other qualifications prescribed and

coming from   the  feeder cadres common to both,  they are

competent to man both the posts and capable of discharging the

functions of both the posts.  It is submitted that, in the present

12

case and  in the case of respondent No.  1 himself, in fact,  his

initial appointed was as a craft instructor; later he became the

Inspector of Factories and thereafter he got promoted as Principal

(Junior Scale) and thereafter got promoted as JCIF.    

4.3 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants that, even otherwise, the

principles laid down by this Court for an administrative

determination as to whether two posts are equivalent in nature

for different purposes such as absorption, counting the length of

service for seniority, cannot be invoked to strike down a

legislative exercise of  rule making under the proviso to  Article

309 of the  Constitution of India  which has been held to be

statutory and legislative in character.   

4.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants that, therefore, on facts the decision of

this Court in the case of  Union of India v. P.K. Roy  (1968) 2

SCR 186 as well as the decision in the case of  Sub­Inspector

Roop Lal v. Lt. Governor (2000) 1 SCC 644, relied upon by the

High Court shall  not be applicable to the facts of the case on

13

hand, more particularly, when the amended rules equating the

posts were statutory and legislative in character.    

4.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants that, even otherwise, on facts, both, the

learned Tribunal  and  the  High Court  have  committed a  grave

error in quashing and setting aside the amended rules equating

the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post

of JCIF, inasmuch as the amended rules were approved by the

UPSC and the rules were amended in consultation with the UPSC

and after elaborate discussions thereafter the  UPSC gave its

concurrence/approval and thereafter the rules were amended

equating the two posts.

4.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of  P.U.

Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad (2003) 2 SCC 632, it

is  vehemently  submitted  by the learned  counsel  appearing  on

behalf  of the  appellants that,  as such, it is  ultimately for the

Government to take an appropriate decision on equation of posts.

It is submitted that questions relating to the constitution,

pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories and other

conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria

14

to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy

and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State.

It is submitted that, therefore, the learned Tribunal and the High

Court have committed a grave error  in  interfering with such a

policy decision/decision of the Government to equate two posts,

which were after due deliberations and in consultation with the

UPSC.     

4.7 Making the  above  submissions, it is  prayed to  allow  the

present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court and the learned Tribunal

insofar as quashing and setting aside the notification – G.O. No.

6  dated  18.03.2005 by  which  the  post  of  Principal,  Grade ‘A’

(Senior Scale) was equated with the post of JCIF.    

5. Shri Pramod Swarup, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court.   It is submitted

that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned

Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules equating

15

the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post

of JCIF is absolutely just and proper and considering the

decisions of this Court in  P. K. Roy  (supra) and  Roop Lal

(supra).   It is submitted that as it was found that the nature of

duties; responsibilities and powers exercised by holding the two

posts are not similar and identical and, therefore, the High Court

was justified in confirming the judgment and order passed by the

learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules.

Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties at length.   

6.1 As observed hereinabove, now in the present appeals, the

challenge  to  the impugned  judgment and order  passed by  the

High Court dismissing the writ petition and confirming the

judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.

814 of 2005 quashing and setting aside the amended rules

equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that

of JCIF  survives.   Therefore, the only question  which is  now

required to be considered by this Court is whether, in the facts

and  circumstances  of the  case, the  High  Court is justified in

16

dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by

the learned Tribunal  quashing and setting aside  the  amended

rules by  notification –  G.O.  No. 6 of 2015  dated 08.03.2015

equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that

of the post of JCIF?

6.2 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court, it  appears that the  High Court  has  dismissed  the  writ

petition, confirming the judgment and order passed by the

learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules

equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the

post of JCIF mainly on the ground that the nature of duties of

both the posts, responsibilities and powers exercised by the

officers holding the posts are not similar and/or identical.

Considering the decisions of this Court in the case of  P.K. Roy

(supra) and Roop Lal  (supra), the High Court has observed and

held that the equation of posts has to be determined by taking

into account the following factors:

(i) nature and duties of post;

(ii) responsibilities and powers exercised by officer holding a post; extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;  

(iii) minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and

17

(iv) salary of the post.

6.3 Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, the

High  Court  has dismissed the  writ petitions preferred  by the

appellants herein­Union of India and has confirmed the judgment

and order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting

the amended rules vide notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating

the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post

of  JCIF.  However,  neither the learned  Tribunal  nor the  High

Court has considered the relevant factors which were considered

while amending the rules and equating the two posts.  The High

Court has also not considered the fact that the UPSC gave its

concurrence to the emended rules and only thereafter the rules

were amended and the posts were equated.  

6.4 From the affidavit­in­reply filed on behalf of the UPSC before

the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 814 of 2005, it appears that the

rules were amended after the concurrence of the UPSC and after

the draft rules were approved by the UPSC.   From the affidavit­

in­reply filed  by  the UPSC,  it  appears  that the  UPSC gave  its

concurrence  after due  deliberation  with the  Government from

time to time.   Relevant paragraphs of the affidavit­in­reply which

18

are necessary for determination of the issue involved are as

under:

“5.    That the proposal for framing of common Recruitment Rules for the post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) in the scale of pay of Rs. 10000­15200 under the Labour Department of the Government of Pondicherry in lieu of the existing Recruitment Rules for the post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories, was received on 18th March 2003 (ANNEXURE R­I).   The proposal was examined and the Government of Pondicherry was requested to certify whether the duties of both the posts (Joint  Chief Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) match to merit framing of common Recruitment Rules and whether the persons holding the post of Principal will be able to discharge the duties of the post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories effectively and vice versa. In this connection Commission’s letter, dated  21.05.2003 (ANNEXURE R­II)  may  be referred to.  It is most respectfully submitted that in response to Commission’s letter referred to above, the Government of Pondicherry furnished clarifications vide their letter, dated 01.08.2003 (ANNEXURE R­III). Subsequently, the  Government of Pondicherry  was also requested to furnish the duties and responsibilities  attached to the  post  of  Joint  Chief Inspector of Factories, vide Commission’s letter, dated 23.10.2003 (ANNEXURE R­IV).  The duties and responsibilities were furnished by the Government of Pondicherry vide their letter, dated 29.10.2003 (ANNEXURE R­IV­A).  It was found that the duties of both the posts did not match.   Accordingly, the Government  of  Pondicherry  was  advised vide letter dated 27.11.2003 (ANNEXURE R­IV­B) to explore the possibility of filling the post by deputation.  In reply, the Government of  Pondicherry  informed vide  their letter,  dated 09.02.2004  (ANNEXURE R­V) that  the suggestion to explore the possibility of filling up the

19

post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories by deputation, will not help them in ensuring the safety and health of industrial workers.

6. It is most respectfully submitted that the Government of Pondicherry, in their letter, dated 09.02.2004 referred to above,  insisted upon having common  Recruitment  Rules for the posts of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale),  while expressing that their  intention that these two posts are interchangeable, and both the incumbents holding feeder posts of Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale) are capable of discharging their duties of the post of Joint  Chief Inspector of Factories effectively.   The Pondicherry Government also stated that feeder post for the promotional post of Principal (Junior Scale), Inspector  of  Factories  and  Inspector  of  Boilers  are also interchangeable and that the Joint Chief Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) are the only higher posts available for the lower cadre as promotional avenues.   Therefore, the post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories cannot be set a part for deputationists, as suggested by UPSC.  

7. It is also most respectfully submitted that the Government of Pondicherry, in their communication referred to above, clearly stated that the intention is for creating avenues of promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale), Technical Officer and  Training Officer and the Government has also brought all these four posts under one umbrella.   The Government of Pondicherry had stated that since these  four posts were brought under one umbrella,  there will  be no difficulty in operating a common Recruitment Rules for the posts of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) by keeping these four posts as a feeder post.   The  Government of

20

Pondicherry had also stated that having a common Recruitment Rules will facilitate not only the rotation of officers at frequent intervals for better administration, but also will create promotional avenues to the officers holding the feeder posts.  The Government of Pondicherry further emphasised that such an action will also meet guidelines of the Chief Vigilance Commission of India, New Delhi. Subsequently, the case was also discussed by Joint Secretary (Labour) with the concerned officers of UPSC in the Commission on 24.05.2004 and the representative of the Pondicherry  Government  was requested to submit detailed comment with regard to the requirement of having a common  Recruitment Rules again.   The record of the discussion held on 24.05.2004 is annexed as (ANNEXURE R­VI).  Having examined the proposal it was felt necessary to have a clear view, particularly the details to corroborate the assertion of the Pondicherry Government that there is stagnation in the feeder grade.   As such, the Government of Pondicherry was requested to forward a statement indicating the name of the incumbents holding the posts of Inspector of Boilers, Inspector of Factories, Technical Officer and Training Officer and Principal, I.T.I. and also their date of regular appointments in the respective grade.  Commission’s letter, dated 19.11.2004 (ANNEXURE R­VII) may be referred to.   Finally, having examined the entire proposal along with the details furnished by the Government  of  Pondicherry, the  Recruitment  Rules were concurred by the Commission upon insistence of the Government of Pondicherry to have the common Recruitment Rules in view of the following:

(i) That the feeder post of Principal (Junior Grade) and Inspector of Factories are also interchangeable.  

(ii) That  the  feeder  grade posts of Inspector  of Boilers, Inspector of Factories, Principal, Group ‘B’, I.T.I., Technical Officer and Training Officer could be provided better

21

promotional avenues as some of the incumbents holding these posts are stagnating in their respective grade.  

(iii) That it is necessary to have a common Recruitment Rules, because the post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories is a sensitive post and there is a need to rotate the officers at frequent intervals so as to meet the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission.   The Government of Pondicherry had certified that there is no impediment to have a common Recruitment Rules for both the posts of Joint Chief Inspector of  Factories and Principal,  Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale).”

6.5 From the aforesaid, it appears that the UPSC gave its

concurrence after having due deliberations and considering the

relevant factors and only thereafter the rules came to be

amended and the two posts in question came to be equated.  In

the case of  P.U. Joshi  (supra) in paragraph 10, this Court has

observed and held as under:

“10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject,  of  course, to the  limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for

22

the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of  the State.  Similarly, it is well  open and within the competency of the  State to change the rules relating  to a service and alter  or  amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is  entitled  to amalgamate departments or  bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.”

6.6 Thus, when a conscious decision was taken by the UPSC

and the Government while amending rules and equating the two

posts after considering the pros and cons of the  matter and

considering the relevant factors referred to and reproduced

hereinabove, being a policy decision, the Tribunal was not

23

justified in quashing and setting aside the statutory rules.

Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in

dismissing the  writ  petition  and confirming the judgment  and

order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside

the amended rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating

the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale).  Now, so far as the

reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of

P.K. Roy  (supra) and  Roop Lal  (supra) is concerned, on

considering the decisions, we are of the opinion that, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, those decisions shall not be

applicable to the facts of the case on hand.  The decision in the

case of  P.K. Roy  (supra) related to administrative determination

of equivalence between different posts in the context of State re­

organization and absorption of individuals in equivalent  posts.

The decision in the case of Roop Lal (supra) related to absorption

of a Sub­Inspector belonging to BSF in the Delhi Police when he

was serving on deputation, and period to be counted for seniority.

Therefore, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to

the facts of the case on hand.   

Even otherwise, on considering the nature and duties of both the

24

decisions, namely JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale), we

are of the opinion that the duties to be performed by JCIF and

Principal,  Grade ‘A’ (Senior  Scale) can  be  said to  be identical

and/or similar in nature.

7 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we

are unable to agree  with the view taken by the  High Court

dismissing the writ petitions and confirming the judgment and

order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside

the amended rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating

the post of  Principal,  Grade  ‘A’ (Senior Scale)  with the post of

JCIF.  The impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned

Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside.

7.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ

Petition No. 44922 of 2006 arising out of the judgment and order

dated 04.07.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 814

of 2005 quashing and setting aside the recruitment rules issued

vide notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of

25

Principal,  Grade  ‘A’ (Senior Scale)  with that of  JCIF,  is  hereby

quashed and set aside.   The appeal arising out of Writ Petition

No. 44922 of 2006 is hereby allowed accordingly.   No costs.

7.2 Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court in Writ Petition No. 44921 of 2006 arising out of

the  judgment and order passed by the  learned Tribunal dated

04.07.2006 in O.A. No. 218 of 2005 by which the Tribunal set

aside the order of transfer is concerned, the same stands

disposed of,  as  observed hereinabove.  However, the liberty is

reserved in favour of respondent No. 1–original applicant to

challenge the order dated 18.08.2016 treating the period between

15.03.2005 till  he attained the age of superannuation as  dies­

non, before an appropriate court/forum and as and when such

proceedings are initiated, the same may be considered in

accordance with law and on merits.

........................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

........................................J. [M. R. SHAH]

New Delhi, May 1, 2019.