Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioners in the a fore mentioned writ petitions claim to have been appointed as Supervisors Grade 'A' in various ordnance factories between 1962 to 1966 and have filed these writ petitions with the prayer that the same relief may be granted to them also as was granted by this Court to 75 appellants in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 vide its order dated 2nd February, 1981. The three civil miscellaneous petitions referred to above on the other hand have been made by the appellants of Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 asserting that the direction given by this Court on 2nd February, 1981 has not been complied with in the manner as it ought to have been by the respondents and they should be consequently required to comply with the said direction. The exact nature of the prayer made in these miscellaneous application shall be indicated after referring to the relief granted on 2nd February, 1981 in Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981.
(2.) The 75 appellants of Civil Appeal No. 441 of 1981 filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court in 1972 asserting that they had been appointed as Supervisors Grade 'A' on various dates in pursuance of a circular dated 6th November, 1962 issued by the Director General of Ordnance Factories, the relevant portion whereof. reads as hereunder: "Subject:Non-Industrial Establishment Promotion D. G. O. F. has decided that Diploma holders serving as Supervisor W (Tech)/ Supervisor W/ (Tech) and in equivalent grades should be treated as follows (i) All those Diploma holders who have been appointed as Supervisor 'B' (Tech) (and in equivalent grades) should on completion of one year's satisfactory service in ordnance factories be promoted to Supervisor W (Tech) and in equivalent grades.) (ii) All those diploma holders who work satisfactorily as Supervisor W (Tech) or in equivalent grades for 2 years in Ordnance Factory should be promoted to Chargeman. Kindly acknowledge receipt. Sd/- K. G. Bijlani ADGOF/Est. for D. G. O. . F."
(3.) Their grievance in the writ petition was that even though quite a large number of Supervisors Grade 'A' had been promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade II on completion of two years' satisfactory work they had been discriminated against and had not been so promoted immediately on the expiry of two years in pursuance of the aforesaid circular even though their work was satisfactory. The relief prayed for in the said writ petition was for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India through the Director General of Ordnance Factories to promote the appellants to the post of Chargeman II. The writ petition was contested by the respondents thereto inter alia on the ground that under the rules of promotion from Supervisor 'A' to Chargeman II first Departmental Promotion Committee at the factory level and then a Departmental Committee at the Central level screens the service record of each of the Supervisors 'A' who comes within the range of eligibility and then finally the Director General of Ordnance Factories draws up a list and sanctions promotions. It was further asserted that in accordance with the said rule the cases of all the appellants were screened by the Promotion Committee at the factory level and then at the Central level and they not having been found fit were not promoted. It appears that the criterion of promotion is seniority-cum-merit. The learned single Judge, however, did not go into the merits of the controversy and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of unexplained laches and also on the ground that a previous petition for similar relief had. not been pressed. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge the appellants preferred a special appeal before a Division Bench of that Court. The learned Judges who decided the special appeal did not consider it appropriate to uphold the dismissal of the writ petition on the technical ground which found favour with the learned single Judge and they went into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties. They, however, did not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants and accordingly dismissed the special appeal on 8th February, 1977. The learned Judges pointed out that it was admitted that the conditions of service applicable to the case of the appellants were governed by the Indian Ordnance Factories (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Class III Personnel) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed by the President of India under Article 309 of the Constitution. It was further pointed out that Rule 8 contemplated that appointments by promotion were to be made on the basis of a selection list prepared for the different grades by duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committees laid down in the said rule where-as Rule 12 provided that no appointment-to the posts to which these rules apply shall be made otherwise than as specified therein. With regard to the circular dated 6th November, 1962 the learned Judges took the view that it was difficult to read in that circular any intention or deliberation on the part of the Director General of Ordnance Factories that as soon as two years were completed by a diploma holder in the Grade of Supervisor 'A' there would be an automatic promotion to the post of Chargeman II. According to the learned Judges' such a view would militate against Rule 12 of the Rules mentioned above. It was further held that even if it was to be assumed that the Director General of Ordnance Factories automatically promoted some Supervisors 'A' immediately on the completion of 2 years of service to the post of Chargeman II without the recommendation after screening by the Promotion Committee no right would accrue in favour of the appellants inasmuch as such promotions would be in the teeth of Rule 12 and could not confer a legal right on the appellants to be likewise promoted in breach of Rule 12. With regard to the plea based on Article 16 of the Constitution it was held "A half-hearted argument was raised at the end of the hearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioners that they have been discriminated against by depriving them benefit of automatic promotion in violation of constitutional guarantee under Article 16 of the Constitution. This was an argument, neither pleaded as a ground for the petition nor was raised before the learned single Judge. Moreover, we do not think any case, on the basis of violation of Article 16 of the Constitution can be found in favour of the appellant-petitioners only because some supervisors, equally placed, were promoted against the rules of service. No formal foundation has been raised in the pleadings in the writ petition in support of the ground based on Article 16 of the Constitution.";