SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3878 of 1998. D/d. 13.8.1998

State of U.P. - Appellants

Versus

Sachidanand Srivastava - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 16 - Promotion - Eligibility - Promotion to the post of Assistant Presenting Officers before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal - Eligibility prescribed by Govt. order making only Upper Division Asstt. in Secretariat possess an LL.B. degree as eligible - Contention that there is a violation of Article 14 in excluding Munsrims and Assistant Registrars from the eligible cadres - Rejected on the ground that pay scales of this excluded category being lower cannot be equated with the post of Upper Division Assistants.

[Para 5]

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. - The three respondents before us had filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that they should also be considered for the post of Assistant Presenting Officers before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal; and certain posts of Assistant Presenting Officers before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal should be reserved for them.

2. Under executive instructions containing G.O. dated 28.1.1982, the State Government, inter alia, provided that the Upper Division Assistants in the State Secretariat are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Presenting Officer in the U.P. Public Service Tribunal provided they possess the qualification of LL.B. Degree of a recognised University and have sufficient experience and knowledge of Service Rules. G.O. of 28.1.1982 did not make Munsrims and Assistant Registrars working as Ministerial staff in the U.P. Public Service Tribunal eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Presenting Officers. The respondents thereupon filed the said writ petition.

3. The first respondent, at the material time, was Assistant Registrar of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. The second and third respondents were Munsrims in the said Tribunal. All of them possess an LL.B. degree. It was in this context that the High Court considered their claim to at least some posts out of the 5 posts of Assistant Presenting Officers which were available then. The High Court in the impugned judgment has given certain directions, finding that the three petitioners (present respondents 1, 2 and 3) before it possessed the qualification of a Law Degree and had been working in the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The High Court said that the State Government should consider the case of the petitioners before it for giving at least one post of Assistant Presenting Officer to those who are working in the Public Services Tribunal, may be by amending the G.O. dated 28.1.1982. The Government was directed to consider the case of the claimants for such appointment.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants before us has pointed out that the directions contained in the High Court judgment for considering the three petitioners before the High Court for at least one post of Assistant Presenting Officer, has now become infructuous since all the three petitioners before the High Court have by now retired. He has, therefore, submitted that the appeal should be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, strenuously contended that the Ministerial staff consisting of Munsrims and Assistant Registrar in the U.P. Public Service Tribunal should also be included in the G.O. of 28.1.1982 for appointment to the posts of Assistant Presenting Officers. The High Court, however, has not given any such general direction. From the order of the High Court we do not find that the High Court had compared the posts of Munsrims and Assistant Registrars in the U.P. Public Services Tribunal with the posts of Upper Division Assistants in the Sachivalaya or held these posts as equivalent posts. Without such a finding, the High Court could not have come to a general finding that an opportunity for promotion was denied to the Ministerial staff of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in framing the G.O. of 28.1.1982. We also do not find any express direction in the High Court order either setting aside the G.O. of 28.1.1982 or amending it. We do not see how such a direction can now be given. Even a cursory look at the terms and conditions of service of Munsrim and Assistant Registrar shows that the pay scale of Munsrims at the material time was Rs. 515-860, while the pay scale of Assistant Registrar was higher, being the pay scale of Upper Division Assistants was even higher, being Rs. 620-1260. We fail to see how these three posts could have been equated for promotion. Nor has the High Court arrived at such a finding. We do not find material on record to support such a finding. The contention of the respondents that there is violation of Article 14 in excluding Munsrims and Assistant Registrars from the eligible cadres for promotion to Assistant Presenting Officer in the G.O. of 28.1.1982, will have to be rejected. Nor has the High Court given any such finding.

6. Since the directions contained in the High Court judgment are confined to the three petitioners before the High Court who cannot now be given the benefit of those directions, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The other connected appeals are disposed of in the light of the above order. The Special Leave Petition filed by one of the respondents (one of the petitioners before the High Court) is dismissed.

Order accordingly.