R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) In this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as CAT) the short question that arises for consideration is if the Tribunal committed any error of law in directing the appellants to re-fix the notional seniority of Supervisors Grade A in ordnance factories, and fix their pay- scale and all benefits attached thereto as per rule on the basis that all the applicants came out successful in the selection tests for promotion to the post of Chargeman Grade II from their respective dates of examination.
(2.) In 1950 the Union of India, in the Ministry of Defence, introduced Apprenticeship Training Scheme for supervisory posts, in Ordnance Factories for efficient working and better supervision. After completion of successful apprenticeship the trainees were offered post-training employment by the Director General (D.G.) to various posts including the posts of Supervisor Grade A and Chargeman Grade II on gradation secured by them in the examination conducted by the Central Selection Board. In November, 1965 the D.G. suggested that in border line cases of apprentices graded as Supervisor Grade A it would be fair to give them another chance to appear within six months in the next examination for grading as Chargeman Grade II since they might have been graded as Supervisor Grade A due to slightly different standards of marking. The suggestion materialised in 1967 and the scheme was amended as under : "The Supervisory Apprentices who secure 5% marks less in the aggregate than prescribed by the Central Selection Board for gradation as Chargeman Grade II in a particular gradation examination will be graded as Supervisor Grade A/or equivalent but will be allowed to take another chance at the next gradation examination and on the basis of their performance may be graded by the D.G.O.F. as fit for appointment as Chargeman Grade II and appointed as such with effect from a date after they are so graded in the subsequent gradation examination. This will have retrospective effect to cover the past cases in which the DGOF has already allowed the Supervisory Apprentices another chance to appear in the gradation examination."
(3.) Although formal instructions were issued in 1967 the D.G. permitted some of the apprentices graded as Supervisor Grade A in the examination conducted in 1965 to appear in the next examination in 1966, in which many succeeded and were appointed as Chargeman Grade If. Some of the Supervisors Grade A who were working from before and satisfied the eligibility criteria and others who were denied similar opportunity even though they had secured 5% less in the aggregate approached this Court by way of writ petition and claimed that they too should have been given another opportunity to improve their gradation as was done in case of others. When the petitions came up for hearing this Court permitted them to be withdrawn and they approached the High Court of Delhi by way of writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the action of the appellant in denying similar opportunity to Supervisor Grade A who had appeared in the examination prior to 1965 or even thereafter and were in the field of eligibility as provided by the modified scheme was discriminatory and violative of equal guarantee under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. It consequently issued following directions : "The Government is granted liberty to consider the dispute afresh. In case the Government is not able to arrive at a reasonable workable solution acceptable to the petitioners within six months from today, I am inclined to issue a writ of mandamus and hereby issue directing the respondents 1 to 6 to give another chance to the ex-Supervisory apprentices i.e. such of the petitioners who secured 5% less marks in the aggregate than prescribed by the Central Selection Board for gradation as Chargeman Grade II in a particular examination and who have been graded as Supervisor GradeA or its equivalent, to appear at a gradation examination specially constituted for this purpose. Petitioners 33, 34, 37, 38 and 40 who were given an opportunity vide letter dated 26th November 1971 but did not appear in the next gradation examination held in December, 1971 will also be afforded an opportunity to appear in the gradation examination specially held for this purpose. Reasonable time will be given to the eligible persons to appear in the gradation examination and the syllabus will also be settled and communicated within a reasonable time. Such of the petitioners who are found fit for appointment its Chargeman Grade II would be appointed notionally with effect from date six months later than the date of their original gradation. In other words, the appointments will take effect prospectively, but notional seniority will be allowed to them with effect from the date six months later than the date of original gradation. There will be no retrospective financial obligations on the Government." ;