- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Deota Nath Tiwari And Others. v. The State Of Bihar And Others.
Judgment Summary — N.P. Singh, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners—former Village Level workers appointed between 1963 and 1970—filed a writ application seeking quashing of a State Government resolution notified on 24.4.1982 (Annexure-5) and an order directing their appointment to vacant posts of Agriculture Inspector or equivalent posts.
The petitioners were sponsored by a State scheme to obtain higher education and were admitted (pursuant to an advertisement dated 23.6.1978) to the B.Sc. (Agriculture) course; they passed the examination from Rajendra Agriculture University in 1982. The petitioners asserted that the State had earlier decided (in 1978) to give preferential appointment to Village Level workers who obtained a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree.
The State had issued a resolution dated 4.11.1981 that abolished the chain system and directed that future appointments would be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (the Commission). By the impugned resolution dated 24.4.1982 the State purported to make a partial exception: those who became Agriculture graduates from the Bihar Agriculture University up to 1980 (and certain out-of-State graduates up to 1979) would be appointed on the basis of the chain system, while those graduating after those cut-off dates would be appointed on the Commission's recommendation.
During pendency, some appointments had been made pursuant to the 24.4.1982 resolution; those appointees sought to be added as intervenors and were heard. An interim order (dated 21.1.1986) had provided that any appointment or promotion during the pendency would be subject to the result of the writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State Government's resolution dated 24.4.1982 (Annexure-5), which applied the chain system to persons who became Agriculture graduates up to specified cut-off years but required Commission recommendations for later graduates, was arbitrary or discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for appointment to the posts of Agriculture Inspector on preferential basis pursuant to the alleged earlier State decision or the chain system.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners contended that the State had in 1978 decided to give preferential appointment to Village Level workers who obtained B.Sc. (Agriculture) degrees; they relied on a memorandum and the advertisement of 23.6.1978 to show such intent.
- They argued that the 24.4.1982 resolution was discriminatory because there was no rational basis to treat graduates up to 1980 as a distinct class vis-à-vis those who graduated after 1980; thus the cut-off was arbitrary.
- They sought quashing of the 24.4.1982 resolution and a direction that they be appointed against vacant Agriculture Inspector posts on a preferential basis.
State's Arguments
- The State asserted that the 1978 memorandum (Annexure-3) was only a cabinet memorandum and was never accepted by the Cabinet; therefore there was no firm decision in 1978 to give preferential appointments to Village Level workers with B.Sc. degrees.
- The State defended the 24.4.1982 resolution by stating that the cut-off year 1980 was imposed in view of the large number of unemployed Agriculture graduates who had passed the examination before 1981; the intention was administrative manageability by distinguishing two groups for appointment procedures.
- The State relied on its earlier resolution dated 4.11.1981 that abolished the chain system and directed appointments on the basis of Commission recommendation; the petitioners could not challenge that earlier resolution.
Intervenors' Arguments
- Persons appointed during the pendency (who sought to intervene) argued that due to the large number of graduates who became qualified before 1981 but remained unemployed, the State reasonably applied the chain system for earlier graduates and that such an arrangement had a rational basis and was not discriminatory.
- The intervenors attempted to distinguish the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the court on the ground that that authority concerned promotion lists, not direct recruitment; they argued the distinction made their case different.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla ((1981) 3 SCC 1; AIR 1981 SC 1041) | The principle that a statutory or executive rule which carves out preferential treatment for a specific earlier list (or class) must have a rational basis; an arbitrary preferential chain system (which prevents consideration of others until a specified group is exhausted) violates Articles 14 and 16 and is unreasonable, unfair and grossly unjust. | The court relied on the reasoning in this case to hold that the chain-system classification (distinguishing graduates up to 1980 from those after 1980) lacked an intelligible differentia and nexus to a legitimate object, and therefore was violative of Articles 14 and 16. The precedent supported quashing the impugned resolution. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded on the factual finding that the document relied upon by the petitioners (Annexure-3) was only a cabinet memorandum and not an accepted Cabinet decision; the State clarified that the 1978 proposal was not accepted. On that basis the court treated the asserted 1978 decision as not having been made.
The court accepted that the State had validly issued the resolution dated 4.11.1981 abolishing the chain system and directing appointments on the basis of the Commission's recommendations; the petitioners could not challenge the validity of that resolution.
Turning to the impugned 24.4.1982 resolution, the court analyzed whether the cut-off-based classification (graduates up to 1980 vs. after 1980) could be sustained under Articles 14 and 16. The court explained the nature of the chain system (preference by year of passing rather than merit) and noted that courts have repeatedly held that selection for public services must be based on merit and that being unemployed for longer is not a permissible basis to prefer a lower-merit candidate over a higher-merit candidate.
Applying the principles in State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla, the court concluded that the classification created by the 24.4.1982 resolution lacked a rational basis and did not form a real class distinguishable by intelligible differentia having nexus to the objective. The court held that carving out a class of persons who had passed up to 1980 could not withstand Articles 14 and 16 scrutiny; the measure was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The court rejected the intervenors' submission that the precedent was distinguishable because that case dealt with promotion lists. The court observed that whether the chain system is applied to promotions or direct recruitment, the discriminatory nature and lack of rational basis remain the same; the distinction did not make the chain system constitutional.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned resolution dated 24.4.1982 (Annexure-5) is quashed.
The petitioners' separate prayer for a direction that they be appointed to the posts of Agriculture Inspectors on a preferential basis is dismissed.
Implications:
- The direct legal effect is the quashing of the State Government's 24.4.1982 resolution which attempted to apply the chain system selectively to graduates up to specified cut-off years.
- The court reaffirmed that the chain system, insofar as it gives preferential treatment based solely on earlier passing dates and thereby prefers lower-merit candidates over higher-merit candidates, lacks rational basis and is incompatible with Articles 14 and 16. The court applied existing Supreme Court authority rather than creating a new precedent.
- Appointments or promotions made during the pendency had been admitted in the proceedings as being subject to the result of the writ application; the judgment therefore resolves the legality of the policy underlying those appointments but the judgment did not itself order specific appointments of the petitioners.
This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion. No additional facts or inferences beyond the text have been introduced.
N.P Singh, J.:— This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing a resolution of the State Government (Annexure-5) which was notifted on 24.4.1982 and for a direction that the petitioners be appointed against the vacant posts of Agriculture Inspector or any other equivalent posts.
2. The petitioners were appointed as Village Level workers on various dates between 1963 to 1970. There being no scope for promotional avenues a scheme is said to have been launched by the Government of India for giving higher education to the Village Level workers with a view to provide them chance of promotion or absorption to higher posts. The State Government also sponsored such a scheme and encouraged such Village Level workers to get themselves admitted in B.Sc (Agriculture course). For this purpose, according to the petitioners, advertisement was made on 23.6.1978 and pursuant to such an advertisement the petitioners applied. They were selected and admitted to the B.Sc (Agriculture course) and, in due course, they passed the B.Sc (Agriculture) Examination from the Rajendra Agriculture University in the year 1982. In the year 1978, according to the petitioners, the State Government took a decision that the Village Level workers, who had the graduate degree in Agriculture from the aforesaid University, shall be appointed as Agriculture Inspectors on preferential basis. In the year 1981, however, a resolution dated 4.11.1981 was notified by the State Government saying that uptil then unemployed Agriculture graduates used to be appointed on the basis of chain system which was being abolished and now the appointment shall be on the basis of merit on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). A copy of such resolution is Annexure-4.
3. It appears that by the impugned resolution dated 24.4.1982, some modification was made by the State Government in its earlier resolution aforesaid dated 4.11.1981 By impugned resolution it was said that persons who had become Agriculture graduates from the Agriculture University in the Bihar upto the year 1980 and residents of the State of Bihar who have become Agriculture graduates from any University outside the State of Bihar upto the year 1979, their appointments shall be made on the basis of chain system; but persons who have become Agriculture graduates thereafter, their appointment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission.
4. According to the petitioners, the resolution aforesaid dated 24.4.1982 is discriminatory in nature because there was no rational basis to treat the Agriculture graduates who have passed from the Agriculture University in the State of Bihar upto 1980 as a separate class for the purpose of appointment from the persons who have become Agriculture graduates after 1980. In other words, according to the petitioners, either the chain system should have been continued even in respect of persons who became Agriculture graduates after 1980 or irrespective of the date or year of passing the B.Sc (Agriculture) Examination, appointments should be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It has been pointed out that the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners that a decision had been taken by the State Government in the year 1978 to appoint Village Level Workers having B.Sc degree to the posts of Agriculture Inspectors on preferential basis is not correct. It has been pointed out that a memorandum to that effect was placed before the Cabinet for its consideration but the same was never accepted by the Cabinet. It has been asserted that the State Government took a decision to make appointment to the posts of Agriculture Inspectors on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission. Regarding the decision of the State Government which was notified as resolution (Annexure-5), which is under challenge, it has been said that 1980 was given as a cut off year for the two procedures for appointment keeping in view the large number of unemployed Agriculture graduates who had passed B.Sc (Agriculture) Examination before 1981.
6. From a mere reference to a copy of the document (Annexure-3) enclosed on behalf of the petitioners in support of their assertion that in the year 1978 a decision had been taken to appoint the Village Level Workers to the posts of the Agriculture Inspectors on preferential basis appears to be incorrect, because the document (Annexure-3) is a copy of memorandum for the decision by the Cabinet which cannot be said to be the decision of the State Government. As already pointed out above, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been clarified that the said proposal was not accepted by the Cabinet. As such we have to proceed on the assumption that there is no such decision of the State Government to give preference to the Village Level Workers having Agriculture graduates degree for appointment to the posts of Agriculture Inspector.
7. The petitioners cannot challenge the validity of the decision which was notified by resolution dated 4.11.1981 saying that appointment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission and no further appointments shall be made on the basis of chain system.
8. Coming to the impugned resolution dated 24.4.1982, it is difficult to accept the justification given for such decision on behalf of the State. In view of the series of judgments of the Supreme Court, it is always open to the State Government to treat a group of persons as a separate class for the purpose of any special treatment including in matters of appointment. Any such classification shall not be violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution if they really belong to a class by themselves. I on my part do not find any rational basis to treat the persons who have passed the B.Sc (Agriculture) Examination upto the year 1980 as a class different from the persons who have passed the same examination after 1980.
9. It is well-known that appointment on the basis of chain system is to give preference in matters of appointment with reference to the year of passing any examination or passing any qualifying test. In other words, a candidate having lower percentage of marks at the qualifying examination but having passed the basic examination shall be preferred for the purpose of appointment than the candidate who has passed the said basic examination later with higher percentage of marks. At some stage this system was introduced in different services so that the persons having secured lower percentage of marks should be employed first as they have been waiting for appointment for longer period but soon it was realised that this chain system is directly hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has been repeatedly pointed out by Courts that while making appointment in public services opportunity has to be given to all persons who are eligible for being considered for such appointment and for selection the sole test is merit of the candidate. For how long such candidate is unemployed or waiting for appointment has hardly any relevance when the object of authorities entrusted with making selection of candidates for appointment to public services is to select the best among the applicants.
10. The State Government rightly by resolution dated 4.11.1981 notified that no more appointment of Agriculture graduates shall be made on the basis of chain system and thereafter appointment shall be made only on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission. I fail to understand as to how, after having taken such a decision an amendment was made by the impugned resolution dated 24.4 1988 saying that for the purpose of appointment chain system shall be applicable in respect of candidates who have become Agriculture graduates upto the year 1980 and appointments shall be made of candidates who have bacome Agriculture graduates after 1980 on the recommendation of the Commission. In my view, this decision had no rational basis and is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because it purports to carve out a class of persons who cannot form a class by themselves. The decision is not only discriminatory in nature, it also does not achieve any rational object, when the only rational object while selecting candidates for public services is to select the best out of the candidates available, no preferential treatment can be given to persons having inferior merit merely on the ground of their having remained unemployed for any particular period. This aspect of the matter has been examined by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Gopal Shukla ((1981) 3 SCC 1 : AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1041). In that case, Stats Government had made Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection in consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970. In the year 1972, Rules 7-A and 7-B were introduced in those Rules. Under the Rules so introduced it was said that candidates in the select list of 1966 were to be appointed against substantive vacancies in preference to any candidates selected in accordance with the provisions of 1970 Rules and unless the candidates in the list were exhausted other eligible candidates were not to be considered for promotion. Because of Rule 7-A no selection was to be held unless 300 persons included in the list prepared in the year 1966 were to be absorbed. In respect of the validity of aforesaid Rules 7-A and 7-B which were statutory in nature and framed under Article 309 of the Constitution the Supreme Court said as follows:
“There appears to be no rational basis for such a departure from the ordinary operation of the 1970 Rules which envisaged the preparation of a new list every year and for singling out one particular list for according preferential treatment to the persons whose names were contained therein. The classification in this case therefore cannot be said to be a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved….. There is no denying the fact that the rules regulating the conditions of service are within the executive power of the State or its legislative power under the proviso to Art. 309 but even so, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust, if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A rule which contemplates that unless the list of 300 persons is exhausted no other person can be selected, obviously is unjust and it deprives other persons in the same situation of the opportunity of being considered for promotion.”
11. During the pendency of this writ application some persons have been appointed on the basis of the decision of the State Government notified on 24.4.1982 (Annexure-5) and they have filed applications for being added as intervenors and they were heard. From the order dated 21.1.86 it appears that while admitting this writ application it was said that any appointment or promotion made during the pendency of the writ application shall be subject to the result of the writ application. On behalf of such intervenors it was pointed out that due to large number of persons who had become Agriculture graduates prior to 1981 but had remained unemployed the State Government had taken a decision to make appointments on the basis of chain system. According to them, appointment with reference to the year of passing the B.Sc (Agriculture) Examination has a rational basis and cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary. For the reasons given above, it is not possible to hold the appointment in any public service, on the basis of chain system, as rational and not hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Counsel appearing for such intervenors purported to distinguish the aforesaid judgment in the case of State of U.P v. Ram Gopal Shukla (Supra) on the ground that there the list of 300 candidates who had to be appointed first on preferential basis was in connection with appointment by promotion and as such that shall not be applicable in cases of the Village Level Workers who have to be selected on preferential basis for the purpose of appointment to the posts of Agriculture Inspector. In my view, that will not make any difference whether appointments are being made by promotion or by direct recruitment. Once such appointments are being made applying the chain system, it is bound to be discriminatory in nature having no rational basis for giving preference to persons having lesser merit over the persons who have better merit merely on the ground that they have passed the basic examination earlier in point of time and have been waiting for such employment—whether it is by direct recruitment or promotion.
12. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed to the extent that the resolution dated 24.4.1982 (Annexure-5) is quashed. However, it is dismissed as far the relief prayed for on behalf of the petitioners is concerned that they be appointed to the posts of the Agriculture Inspectors on preferential basis.
Alert