SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi striking down the provisions of Indian Meteorological Service (Group A Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "1983 Rules") and Indian Meteorological Service (Group A Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "1978 Rules") to the extent indicated in the order at the instance of the respondents herein who joined the Department as Meteorologists Gr. II in 1981/82. We are concerned in this case with the posts of Meteorologists Gr. I, Meteorologists Gr. II and Assistant Meteorologists. For the sake of convenience we will refer to them as MG-I, MG-II and AM.
(2.) IN January 1969, INdian Meteorological Department (Class I and Class II) Posts Recruitment Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "1969 Rules") were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The posts of MG-I and MG-II were Class I Gazetted posts whereas the post of AM was Class II Gazetted post. All the three posts were selection posts. The post of MG-I was to be filled up by promotion of MG-II with three years approved service in the grade. The post of MG-II was to be filled up by promotion to the extent of 50 Per Cent and the remaining 50 Per Cent by direct recruitment. The promotion was to be from AM/Assistant Agricultural Meteorologist/Assistant Seismologist with three years approved service in the grade. The post of AM was to be filled up 50 Per Cent by promotion and 50 Per Cent by direct recruitment.The promotion in turn was from the post of Professional Assistant (including Foreman), Superintendent D. G. O's. Office, Superintendent D. D. G. O's. (INstrument) office and Superintendent D. D. G. O's. (Climatology and Geophysics) Office. The educational qualifications for all the three posts were the same, namely, Second Class M. Sc. Degree in Physics, Statistics, Maths, Applied Physics and Geo Physics or Second Class M. Sc. Degree in Agriculture. As regards the post of AM the knowledge of German, French or Russian as Additional qualification was mentioned as desirable. The scale of pay for MG-II was Rs. 400-40-800-50-950 whereas the scale of pay for AM for Rs. 350-25-500-30-590-EB30-800-EB-30-830-35-900. In October 1978, in partial supersession of 1969 Rules, the President made the 1978 Rules. Those rules related to MG-II and MG-I and higher posts. As we are not concerned with higher posts, we are not referring to the same. Both MG-I and MG-II were Group A Gazetted posts. The post of MG-II was to be filled up entirely by direct recruitment. The post of MG-I was to be filled up by promotion from the post of MG-II with five years approved service in the grade (excluding the period of training) or with 8 years combined service in the grades of MG-II and AM or AM with 10 years approved service in the grade. The selection was to be made in consultation with U. P. S. C. on each occasion. The educational qualification for both the posts was the same i.e. at least Second Class Master Degree in Science or Second Class Degree in Engineering from a recognised University or equivalent. For the post of MG-I an additional qualification of five years' experience in a responsible capacity in the field was prescribed. Thus by the 1978 Rules the avenue of promotion for AM to the post of MG-II was closed. In lieu of that AM with ten years approved service in the grade and MG-II with 8 years combined approved service in the grades of MG-II and AM were included in the field of consideration for promotion to the post of MG-I along with MG-II with five years approved service in the grade. The respondents herein entered service as MG-II by direct recruitment in 1981/82 as per the 1978 Rules. In June 1983, the 1978 Rules were amended whereby the requirement of 10 years approved service in the grade of AM for being considered for promotion to the grade of MG-I was reduced by two years. Thus after the amendment of 1983 the post of MG-I can be filled by promotion of MG-II with five years approved service in the grade (excluding the period of training), or MG-II with 8 years combined approved service in the grade of MG-II and AM or AM with 8 years approved service in the grade. The note appended to the rule as amended was that the eligibility list for promotion shall be prepared with reference to the date of completion of the prescribed qualifying service in the respective grade/post.
(3.) CHALLENGING the validity of the aforesaid amendment made in 1983 the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court at Delhi seeking a declaration that the said rules were void and ultra vires the Constitution and praying for a direction to the respondents therein to consider them for promotion to the post of MG-I before considering the case of MG-II who had worked earlier as AM and further to maintain their inter se seniority upon promotion. That writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi after the constitution thereof. The Tribunal opined that by virtue of the amendment, the post of AM had been equated to the post of MG-II and thereby unequals were treated as equals. Hence the Tribunal struck down the said Rules as unconstitutional. Though there was no prayer in the writ petition with reference to the 1978 Rules, the Tribunal allowed the counsel for the respondents to make an oral request for striking down the relevant provision in the said Rules for the same reason. In the end, the Tribunal struck down the 1983 Rules and that portion of the 1978 Rules which provided for promotion to the post of MG-I. The Tribunal issued certain consequential directions while making it clear that the promotions already made to the cadre of MG-I before the coming into force of the Notification of the 1983 Rules in accordance with 1978 Rules shall not be distrubed. It is that order which is assailed before us now. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the records. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that by the amended rules, unequals are treated as equals. Before setting out our reasons, it is necessary to point out that at the time when the respondents filed the writ petition before the High Court of Delhi they were not even in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of MG-I. In fact, the Tribunal has taken note of the same and observed that they have not earned eligiblity for promotion to the cadre of MG-I as they did not have to their credit five years of approved service in the grade as on that date. Thus when the respondents approached the Court they could not even claim that they had a chance of promotion at that time. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained at their instance. In view of the passage of time, we do not propose to rest our conclusion on that aspect of the matter.;