Punchhi, J. - (1.) These are a handful of writ petitions and special leave petitions which, on grant of leave hereby, and having become appeals, can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The fulcrum of the controversy herein, and the shadow in which it works is a three - judge Bench decision of this Court in Katyani Dayal v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCR 139, decided on March 26, 1980. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances in which this cause has been presented to this Court it would be fruitful to give a broad outline of Katyani Dayal's case (supra), in the immediately succeeding paragraphs.
(3.) Connected with Katyani Dayal's case (supra) were writ petitions filed in a representative capacity, purporting to represent all temporary Assistant Engineers (on a later point of time known as temporary Assistant Officers) appointed by the Railway Board, pursuant to the authority given by the President of India, on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission; selection based on interview alone. There was a seperate classification of such temporary Assistant Officers when compared with Indian Railway Service Engineers (Class I). Direct recruits to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (Class I) were subjected to competitive written and personality tests and in the nature of things only the. very best could emerge out successfully. On the other hand temporary Assistant Officers, (hereafter referred as 'Officers' at places) were neither subjected to written nor to a personality test but as said before, were selected on the basis of interview. Besides the minimum educational qualification, which was the same for both the services three years experience as a Civil Engineer was additionally required for the aspirants to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (Class I) (hereafter referred to as the 'Engineers' at places). While the President was the appointing authority of the Engineers, the Railway Board was the appointing authority of the Officers. Both the members of these services on selection were due for different courses of training earmarked separately. There were a host of other factors which distinguished the quality and character of the personnel of the two parallel services as elaborately detailed in Katyani Dayal's case (supra).;