KOSHAN LAL TANDON KUNJ BEHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) IN this case the petitioner, Roshan La1 Tandon has obtained a rule from this court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 32 of the Constitution of INdia should not be issued commanding the respondents not to carry out the directives contained in the notification of the Railway Board No. E(NG)65 PMI-26 dated the 27 the October, 1965, Annx. 'D' to the Writ Petition, in so far as it grants protection to the existing Apprentice Train Examiners and lays down the procedure to fill upgraded vacancies. Cause has been shown by, the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit respondent No. 1 has denied that there was any violation of the guarantee under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was conceded that prior to 1/04/1966 promotion to the post of Grade 'C' Train Examiner was on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability but the impugned notification was issued by the first respondent because it Was decided that the posts of senior Train Examiners in Grade 'C' should be filled by men possessin adequate technical knowledge and so the period of training of senior Train Examiners was increased and it was decided that in future 80 per cent of the vacancies in 'C' grade should be filled directly by Apprentice Train Examiners and the remaining 20 per cent was to be made available for recruitment from the category of Train Examiners to which the petitioner belonged. This recruitment of 20 per cent vacancies was to be made on the basis of merit. It was said that the reorganisation of the Service was made with a view to obtain a better and more technically trained class of Train Examiners. The reason was that there were more complicated designs. of Carriages and Wagons, acquisition of modern type of Rolling Stock and greater speed of trains under dieselisation and electrification programmes. It was. considered that there should be a better calibre of technically trained and technically qualified personnel for proper maintenance and safety of the Rolling Stock. IN view of the decision to recruit Apprentice Train Examiners directly in 'C' Grade with effect from 1/04/1966 those who were Apprentice Train Examiners in Grade 'D' before that date had to be upgraded in the scale of Rs. 205-280. It was therefore thought that these posts should be upgraded 'so that there should be parity of treatment with the Apprentice Train Examiners who were to join after 1/04/1966'. The first respondent has also controverted the allegation of the petitioner that the procedure outlined in the impugned notification dated 27/10/1965 in regard to the upgraded vacancies was discriminatory.