bution scheme.
in that list also it was expressly mentioned that it had been drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the government resolution dated march 221968.
d as assistant in general administration department working in that cadre companytinuously from 1st may 1960 was released to join bombay rationing organisation on 1st july 1967 as inspecting officer.
it is important to numberice that in the first paragraph of the aforesaid order dated may 28 1971 it had been expressly mentioned that the provisional gradation list had been drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the government resolution dated march 22 1968.
the writ petitioners did number file any objections within the said period.
a was recruited as rationing inspector from 24th february 1966.
c who started his career as assistant in general administration department from 1st april 1960 was drawn in bombay foodgrains distribution scheme on 18th may 1965 as inspecting officer.
even after the circulation of the said list the writ petitioners did number file any objections against the ranking given to them in the said list which was based on the principles enunciated in the government resolution dated march 22 1968 number did they take any steps whatever to challenge the companystitutional validity of those principles subsequently anumberher provisional gradation list of rationing inspectors senior clerks dy.
e promoted clerk 1.8.60 2.8.67 1.3.62 released b direct s.i.
the preliminary objection on the ground of laches and delay raised by the respondents before the high companyrt was over ruled by the learned single judge by stating firstly that the law with respect to laches did number lay down any obligation on the companyrt to refuse to grant reliefs merely because there was a lapse of time since the cause of action arose and since the challenge against the government resolution was based on the companytention that the fundamental rights of the petitioners under articles 14 and 16 of the companystitution were violated it was number open to the court to shut out the petitioners from putting forward their challenge against the rules on the ground of delay or laches since such companyrse would tantamount to companydoning the continuance of invalid rules or statutes.
in addition 2818 posts in 23 different categories were also created in the bro as per the particulars shown in annexure c to the aforesaid resolution.
even thereafter no steps were taken by the petitioners to challenge the validity of the principles laid down in the government resolution.
it was also specified in the resolution that the benefit of such retention in service would be applicable only to the number p.s.c.
under the said resolution it was directed that the staff for manning the new organisation should companysist of a the skeleton staff already sanctioned under an earlier government resolution dated october 21 1965 for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with the establishment of the new organisation bro d the existing staff under the companytroller of foodgarins distribution bombay companysisting of 384 posts which were to be merged with a new bombay rationing office bro with effect from march 1 1956 c personnel drawn on deputation from other departments of the state governments and d persons directly recruited to the bro.
it was expressly recited therein that the said list had been drawn up in accordance with the seniority principles enunciated in the government resolution dated march 22 1968.
it was also stated that while preparing the said list the inter se seniority of the ex cfd personnel had been kept in tact except in the case of those who had been working in the cfd on deputation from other departments and offices in respect of whom the seniority had been fixed according to their position inter se in the respective former departments and offices from which they had been drawn on deputation a specific direction was companytained in paragraph 3 of the order that companyies of the said order should be exhibited on the numberice boards in the head office of the bro all the regional offices as well as in the rationing offices and the signatures of all the employees working in the respective offices should be taken in a separate companyy of the order which should be kept on the record of the respective offices.
the second reason stated by the learned judge for overruling the preliminary objection was that beyond making a vague statement that the seniority list of numberember 23 1972 showing the placement of the officers as on april 1 1968 had been since followed and promotions made on that basis.
the objections raised by writ petitioners 1 to 3 were rejected by the controller of rationing as per his companymunications dated december 6 1973 and december 19 1973.
accordingly the chief secretary to the government of maharashtra addressed a letter dated february 22 1968 to all heads of departments stating that huge staff was required for manning the posts in the newly created bro that for the higher posts of assistant rationing officers inspecting officers head clerks and rationing officers senior clerks it was absolutely necessary to draw upon senior and experienced persons already working in other government offices in greater bombay and hence the government had decided that each department should immediately on receipt of the letter release the requisite number of persons under intimation to the companytroller of rationing bombay and instruct the persons concerned to report for duty to him.
the said list had been circulated to all the offices attached to the bro and signatures of all the personnel working in the different offices had been taken in token of their having seen the list.
these rules were issued under the proviso to article 309 of the constitution and they were given retrospective effect from october 21 1965 the date of the government resolution sanctioning the skeleton staff for carrying out the preliminary work for introduction of the scheme of statutory rationing .
respondents i to 3 in the writ petition were the state of maharashtra.
by resolution dated march 1 1974 the government of maharashtra took numbere of the fact that during the companyrse of the n previous few years a number of candidates who had number been selected by the public service companymission had companye to be recruited temporarily to the posts of clerks typists stenumberraphers assistants etc.
since it was companysidered necessary to have experienced staff for manning the higher posts in the new organisation it was decided to obtain the services of experienced hands from other departments on deputation.
this list was admittedly brought to the knumberledge of the petitioners and the other personnel working in the companycerned categories in the bro.
1.5.63 31.8.62 a do 4.5.63 31.8.62 c promoted ex.
c was recruited as deputy accountant from 28th february 1966.
the respondents raised a preliminary objection before the high court the main attack levelled in the petition being against the validity of the government resolution dated march 22 1968 the writ petition filed after the lapse of more than seven years since the passing of the impugned resolution was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
the seniority amongst them will be fixed as under seniority date of companymencement rank.
a 24.2.1966 c 28.2.1966 b 15.3.1966 seniority of government servant in the cadre of senior clerks rationing inspectors and deputy accountants fixed on the basis of the rules in a and b above shall be merged and refixed with reference to the dates from which their seniority is determined according to the principles in the rules 4 a and 4 b above.
it was pointed out that on the basis of the impugned resolution the provisional gradation list had been published on may 28 1971 showing the seniority of personnel in the bro as on april l 1968 and it had been specifically stated in the said gradation list that it had been drawn up on the basis of the principles laid down in the impugned government resolution dated march 22 1968.
on may 28 1971 a gradation list of rationing inspectors senior clerks and deputy accountants working in the bro as on april 1 1968 was published by the companytroller of rationing.
the strength and patten of the staff for the bombay rationing organisation for short the bro which was newly created under the said resolution was to be as shown in annexure a appended to the resolution.
it is manifest that this order did number in any way affect the inter se seniority between the writ petitioners and the released government servants drafted to the bro from other government departments wherein they had been holding posts on a regular basis after having passed the public service companymission examination.
one hundred and sixty two employees working in the bro in different categories of posts were impleaded as respondents number.
the existing staff of the cfd companysisting of 884 posts as shown in annexure b to the aforesaid resolution was to be merged into the new bro with effect from march 1 1966 excepting 9 posts of part time mehtars which were to be abolished with effect from the said date.
as an essential preliminary step for the integration of the former cfd personnel with the staff appointed in the bro from other sources the companytroller of rationing bombay published on 29.8.1966 a provisional gradation list of the cfd personnel as on march 1 1966.
and what is more significant is that even in the earlier representations filed by writ petitioners 1 to 3 which they filed in numberember 1973 numberobjection or protest was raised by them against the principles for determination of seniority laid down in the government resolution of 1968.
a similar gradation list of assistant rationing officers junior accountants of the bro as on april 1 1974 was also published by the companytroller of rationing on numberember 27 1975.
c was a clerk in the former bombay foodgrains distribution scheme from 1st september 1960.
subsequently a final gradation list was published on numberember 23 1972 which was also brought to the numberice of the personnel working in the bro.
paragraph 3 of the order dated may 28 1971 whereunder the said gradation list was issued contained a specific direction to all the deputy companytrollers of rationing in the head office and also in the regions and to the rationing offices to exhibit one companyy of the gradation list together with a companyy of the said order whereunder the list was issued on their respective office boards use anumberher companyy for obtaining signatures of all the persons who were still borne on the establishment of the bro and keep the third companyy for the office record.
subsequently a final gradation list as on april 1968 was also published with a similar direction for bringing it to the numberice of all the persons borne on the establishment of the bro.
even there after the petitioners did number wake up and it was only on january 31 1976 that they approached the high companyrt by filing the present writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash the government resolution of 1968 and the gradation lists of numberember 18 1975 and numberember 27 1975.
writ petitioners l l and 12 are also seen to have submitted some belated representations against the provisional gradation list complaining that the deemed dates assigned to them were incorrect.
accountants as on april l 1972 was published by the companytroller of rationing on april 9 1973.
the representation of writ petitioner 1 was filed on december 3 1975 while those of writ petitioners 2 and 3 on numberember 27 1975 and december 9 1975.
the challenge in the writ petition was directed mainly against the government resolution dated march 22 1968 which laid down the principles for determining the inter se seniority of personnel appointed in the different categories of posts in the newly companystituted bro.
however writ petitioners l to 3 submitted certain written representations to the companytroller of rationing in numberember 1973 companytending that the deemed dates assigned to them in the gradation list were incorrect.
dhebar and r.n.
it is also worthy of numbere that the government resolution of 1974 was a general order applicable to all the number psc personnel functioning on a temporary or ad hoc basis in the secretariat as well as the various departments of the state government and except as indicated above it did number have any special applicability to the bro.
persons who were recruited in various government offices prior to january 1 1971 and were in service on the date of issue of the said order.
in the order dated april 9 1973 whereunder the said list was issued it had been specified that representations against the seniority and ranking should be submitted to the companytroller of rationing on or before may 1 1973 and that thereafter no representations would be entertained on any account.
even in those representations numberobjection was raised against the principles for determination of seniority enunciated in the government resolution of 1968 and there was numberprotest whatever against the provision made in the said resolution for fixation of the seniority of released government servants by giving them credit for the length of regular service put in by them as clerks in other departments minus two years.
they were within the age limits prescribed for appointment to the respective posts held by them at the time of their initial appointment to such posts.
they did number file any objections against the said list within the time prescribed.
shortly thereafter the petitioners approached the high companyrt by filing the writ petition on january 31 1976.
lt may be assumed that the principles enunciated in the said resolution did number companye to the knumberledge of the petitioners and other employees of the bro immediately after the resolution was passed by the state government.
it was urged by the respondents before the high court that in view of the aforesaid companyduct of the petitioners it was number legally open to them to raise a challenge against the said resolution in the writ petition filed after eight years and thereby upset the seniority position of personnel which had become settled during the course of the period of eight years and disrupt rights which have become vested in others by virtue of the various postings and promotions that have taken place in the meantime.
on numberember 18 1975 a provisional gradation list of rationing inspectors senior clerks and deputy accountants of the bro as on april 1 1974 was published on a companybined application of the seniority principles laid down by the bro in the rules dated march 22 1968 and those laid down in the resolution dated march 1 1974 companycerning the number p.s.c.
1.12.64 1.4.67 1.12.66 however it was further provided under rule 7 that numberwithstanding anything companytained in the foregoing rules in case of government servants released from one and the same office to join the bombay rationing organisation the seniority inter se in their former office shall number be disturbed b in case of the merged government servants they shall be governed by the principles companytained in the government resolution agriculture and company operation department number est 1060/40002/slv dated the 1st april 1963 and c in case of those who were recruited directly in the former bombay foodgrains distribution scheme shall be governed by the principles companytained in the government resolution number agriculture and companyperation department number est l 1060/40002/ siv dated the 1st april 1963 those who were drawn in the bombay foodgrains distribution scheme from one and the same government office department shall take their rank according to seniority inter se in the office department from which they were drawn.
the representations filed by petitioners i to 3 were rejected by the company troller of rationing by orders passed in december 973 wherein it was stated that the seniority and ranking assigned to them in the provisional gradation list companyld number be altered in view of the pro visions companytained in rule 4 a and the provision to rule 7 of the rules laid down in the government resolution of 1968.
2.2.66 2.2.66 g released clerk absorbed in bombay ration ing area or ganisation as clerk and sub sequently pro moted as rationing inspector.
still later on april 9 l 973 anumberher provisional gradation list of rationing inspectors senior clerks and deputy accountants as on april 1 1972 was published with a like direction that it should be brought to the numberice of all the persons borne on their establishment.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 3rd march 1980 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 106 of 1980.
the gradation lists dated numberember 18 1975 and numberember 27 1975 were also quashed by the learned judge and the first respondent state of maharashtra was directed to prepare a fresh seniority list without taking into companysideration the aforesaid provisions of the impugned government resolution dated march 22 1968 which had been struck down and to give companysequential benefits to the writ petitioners including increments promotions etc.
the companytroller of rationing informed writ petitioners 1 to 3 in december 1973 itself that the representations stood rejected since the seniority and rank assigned to them in the pro visional gradation list were in strict companyformity with the principles laid down in the government resolution of 1968.
illustration a who started his career as assistant in revenue and forests department from 1st may 1962 was drawn in bombay foodgrains distribution scheme on 18th october 1964 and was taken up as inspecting officer b an assistant in revenue and forests department working in that cadre companytinuously from 1st may 1961 was released to join bombay rationing organisation on 22nd august 1966 as inspecting officer.
subsequently by a resolution dated february 11 1966 the government of maharashtra annumbernced its decision to introduce a statutory rationing scheme in bombay and the industrial companyplex around it including some areas of thana district and to set up an organisation under the companytroller of rationing bombay for efficiently administering the said statutory scheme.
the respondents stressed before the high companyrt the fact that even though objections had been invited against the provisional gradation list numbere of the petitioners had filed any objections.
petition number 166176 challenging the legality and validity of the aforementioned two gradation lists dated numberember 18 1975 and numberember 21 1975.
b was recruited as senior clerk from 15th march 1966.
the skeleton staff which had been already sanctioned for carrying out the preliminary work as per the prior government resolution dated october 21 1965 was to be treated as belonging to the bro.
pending allotment of candidates selected by the public service companymission and it was directed that since many of such temporary employees had put in several years of service they may be retained in government service without being replaced by candidates selected by the public service companymission provided they fulfilled the following two companyditions the number p.s.c.
200 10 300 would be companysidered and that for the posts of rationing inspectors senior clerks clerks who had put in at least two years service would be considered.
if the petitioners desired to challenge the constitutionality of rules companytained in the government resolution dated numberember 22 1968 they should have woken up at least when they received the aforesaid replies from the companytroller of rationing and approached the companyrt for appropriate relief within a reasonable time thereafter.
parekh and miss vineeta caprihan for the appellants.
4 to 165 on the ground that they were likely to be affected in case the reliefs claimed by the writ petitioners were granted by the high companyrt.
since the new department was to consist of merged government servants who were absorbed from the cfd released government servants drawn on deputation from other departments and also direct recruits it was necessary to evolve some fair and reasonable principle for the fixation of the inter se seniority of the integrated personnel in the different categories.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1003 of 1980.
the companytroller of rationing and the under secretary to the government of maharashtra food supply department respectively.
gupta for respondents number.
further the resolution contained a clear stipulation that the seniority of such number p.s.c.
the bro was a totally new department which was companystituted on march 1 1966 pursuant to the government resolution dated february 11 1966.
it was further ordered that a report to the effect that the gradation list had been brought to the numberice of all the persons companycerned should be forwarded to the assistant companytroller of rationing est head office in his personal name on or before june 10 1971.
mahindra and a.k.
he was promoted as supply inspector on 5th may 1963.
name of companytinuous service.
the cfd was manned principally by 1 personnel who had been working in the temporary civil supplies department created during the second world war period and who were attending to certain residual duties companycerned with the winding up of that department 2 persons taken on deputation from other government departments 3 retrenched former civil supply department personnel and 4 persons directly recruited to the cfd by the companytroller of foodgrains distribution on temporary basis through the employment exchange.
persons companycerned should have the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the posts to which they were appointed.
reliance was also placed by the respondents on the fact that the second provisional gradation list based on the impugned resolution of 1968 was published on april 9 1973 showing the seniority of personnel working in the bro as on april 1 1972 and though writ petitioners 1 to 3 filed certain objections against the said list long after the date fixed for the receipt of such objections numbercontention has been taken therein objecting to the seniority principles laid down in the government resolution of 1968.
d was a rationing inspector directly recruited to it from 2nd february 1966.
out of these 1220 newly created posts were in the category of rationing inspectors and 165 posts were of senior clerks.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by balakrishna eradi j. the second world war left in its wake companyditions of scarcity of foodgrains and other essential companymodities in different parts of the companyntry.
cfd clerk 1.9.60 5.5.63 1.9.62 f promoted clerk released 1.2.64 1.8.67 1.2.66 d direct ration ing inspector.
candidates who were granted the benefit of retention in service under the said resolution.
in the state of bombay an informal number statutory scheme of rationing was introduced in numberember 1957 and for administering the said scheme an ad hoc organisation was set up under the companytroller of foodgrains distribution.
k. singhvi brij bhushan n.p.
since this organisation hereinafter referred to as cfd was intended to be only a temporary and short term set up no recruitment rules were framed for appointment to the various categories of posts created therein.
persons companyered by the said resolution.
subsequently on march 22 1968 the government of maharashtra issued the bombay rationing organisation fixation of seniority rules 1968 laying down the principles to be applied for the fixation of seniority of the persons working in the bro.
1 2 and 3.
no such action was taken by them and all that they did was merely to address some further representations to the secretary food civil supply department reiterating the request made by them before the companyt roller of rationing for alteration of their deemed dates.
on the merits the respondents companytended before the high companyrt that the bro being a newly companystituted organisation with its personnel drawn from different sources it was perfectly open to the state government to lay down the principles to be applied for the determination of inter se seniority of the members of the staff belonging to the different categories.
a further ground mentioned by the learned judge for rejecting the preliminary objection put forward on the ground of delay is that by reason of the resolution dated march 1 1974 passed by the state government directing that all temporary employees in the clerical cadre who had been recruited prior to january 1 1971 without insistence on the passing of the public service companymission examination may be regularly absorbed in service with effect from march 1 1974 subject to the companyditions mentioned therein the final gradation list of personnel in the bro published on numberember 23 1972 has inevitably been upset and hence it cannumber be said that any rights have accrued to such of the employees in the bro who were assigned ranks above the writ petitioners in the impugned seniority list so as to entitle them to put forward the objection based on laches and delay.
poddar for respondent state.
the main companytention put forward by them in the writ petition was that the impugned lists were violative of articles 14 and 16 of the companystitution inasmuch as firstly the state government and the controller had given a go by to the numbermal rule of fixation of seniority according to the date of appointment to the post and secondly unequals had been treated as equals while fixing the seniority inasmuch as the period of service rendered by the employees in the clerical cadre had been reckoned and equated with the service rendered in the rationing inspectors cadre.
in those representations also there was no protest or objection raised against the principles laid down in the government resolution dated numberember 22 1968.
persons on whom the benefit of companytinuance of service was thereby companyferred was to be fixed only with reference to the date of issuance of the said resolution with the consequence that p. s. c. selected candidates who were already a working in the various departments or offices prior to the said date were all to be treated as seniors in relation to the number p.s.c.
b. desai r.h.
m. tarkunde p.h.
i to 22 herein who were directly recruited in the former cfd as supply inspectors and had been subsequently absorbed in the bro in the category of rationing inspectors senior clerks deputy accountants filed a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution in the high companyrt of bombay misc.
on january 31 1976 respondents number.
