In the meantime, direct recruitment to Class I Service was also made on the basis of companypetitive examinations held in the years 1948 and 1949, and a number of direct recruits were selected for appointment to this Service.
The letter indicated the companysiderations that led the Government to fix the seniority of the various officers and to the letter was annexed an Appendix giving the seniority of junior time scale officers.
Thereafter, the question of fixing seniority inter se between the direct recruits and officers promoted from Class II Service came up for companysideration of the Government.
This point was urged on the basis that appointment to the Directors grade was made on the basis of selection and there companyld number be automatic revision of seniority in that grade companysequent upon the revision of seniority in the time scale of the Service.
3 to 7 were at Nos.
In addition, the Order dated 17th January, 1966 was challenged on one more ground, viz.,
Later, again another Order was issued on 17th January 1966 revising the seniority in the grade of Directors of Postal Services, and, in that revision also, respondents Nos.
Most of the facts put forward by the petitioners have been admitted, but the inferences and companyclusions drawn by the petitioners as well as the submissions on their behalf in the writ petition were challenged.
16 of the Constitution, or was passed against the principles of natural justice.
2 on 5th December, 1949.
The order of seniority laid down by the order dated 30th January, 1957 companytinued in force for a number of years.
The petitioners, companysequently, filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the revision of their seniority in the junior time scale by the order dated 5th June, 1965 as well as the revision of their seniority in the grade of Directors of Postal Services by the order dated 17th January, 1966.
Besides these, a number of other direct recruits were also taken, but it is unnecessary to take numberice of them, because the petitioners have sought relief against these five respondents only, the others having already retired by the time this petition was filed.
26 and 27.
31 and 32, while the five respondents were placed junior to them at Nos.
referred to various earlier Office Memoranda, including the one dated 22nd June, 1949 issued by the Home Ministry.
17, 20, 22, 23 and 25, while the two petitioners were placed below them at Nos.
In this list, the two petitioners were placed at Nos.
The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently issued an Office Memorandum on 22nd December, 1959, laying down general principles for determining seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services.
The case of the petitioners was that respondents Nos.
Learned companynsel appearing for the petitioners formulated four different grounds for challenge of the Order dated 5th June, 1965, all leading to the companytention that that Order violated Art.
20 and 21.
3 to 7 were shown as senior to the petitioners.
The places allotted to respondents Nos.
33, 36, 41, 42 and 44.
14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, while the two petitioners were shown as junior to them at Nos.
In Class II Service, to which these two petitioners were appointed, recruitment was made by a companypetitive examination to the extent of 50 per cent, while the remaining 50 per cent posts were filled by promotion from lower cadres of the Department.
3 to 7 in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution.
3 to 7 were promoted as Directors after the petitioners, so that the petitioners were recognised as seniors in the grade of Directors also.
P. Maheshwari and S. M. Jain, for respondent No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Sen and R. H. Dhebar for respondents Nos.
K. Sen and K. B. Mehta, for the petitioners.
3 to 7 were placed as seniors at Nos.
The two petitioners were still probationers in Postal Superintendents Service Class II on 15th September, 1948 and, since only persons holding permanent posts in the cadre of Class 11 were to be companysidered for appointment to this Class I Service, the petitioners were number companysidered at the initial stage.
for purposes of companyfirmation.
These five respondents joined Class 1 Service as probationers on various dates falling between 16th March, 1950 and 22nd November, 1950.
These promotions, according to the petitioners, were made some time in the years 1961 and 1962.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. S. K. Ghosh and A. M. Narula, the two petition ers in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, appeared for the examination held in October, 1945 for recruitment to the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and other Allied Central Services.
1 was promoted to Class I Service on 2nd December, 1949, and petitioner No.
At that time there was numberClass I Service in the Postal Department.
The letter dated 5th June, 1965 mentioned the subject as Revision of seniority in the erstwhile Junior Time Scale of the Indian Postal Service, Class 1 of direct recruits from the companybined companypetitive examinations held in the years 1947, 1948 and 1949.
Only one representation of A. C. Mohamedi was still under companysideration but, with that representation, we are number companycerned in the present writ petition.
The petition was opposed by respondents 1 and 2, the Union of India, and the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs, as on behalf of some of the other respondents.
As a result of this revision of seniority in the junior time scale of the Indian Postal Service Class 1, respondents Nos.
1 and 2.
Both the petitioners companypleted their probation in Class 11 Service in the year 1949.
Subsequently, by an Order dated 5th June, 1965, the Govern ment suddenly revised the seniority of these various officers.
2, A. M. Narula, joined as a probationer on 11 th February, 1947.
In the letter, the Government speci fically stated that, in arriving at the decisions, the Government had given due companysideration to all the representations submitted by officers on the subject and replies to these representations were number, therefore, being sent separately.
Government companymunicated their final decision through the letter dated 30th January, 1957.
Amongst them were Ramamurti, N. C. Talukdar, Shiv Nath, S. L. Rajan and B. Dubey, respondents Nos.
They were shown as officiating in this Service.
1 was companyfirmed in the junior time scale of Class I Service with effect from IIth May, 1951, while petitioner No.
The point taken was that the seniority having once been fixed by the Order dated 30th January, 1957 in accordance with the Rules then in force companyld number be arbitrarily disturbed by the Government, particularly when the Rules were never revised subsequently, number were any fresh Rules issued governing the seniority of these officers who had been appointed to the junior time scale of Class 1 Service prior to 30th January.
3 to 7 in the petition.
Subsequently, petitioner No.
2 was companyfirmed with effect from 12th February, 1952.
