Suraj Meena and Others vs Union of India and Others

Instant writ petition has been filed jointly by 13 petitioners who are substantive employees in the cadre of Class-IV and their grievance is that by virtue of the Model Recruitment Rules which have been introduced by the respondents their right of fair consideration for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, which was earlier designated as LDC, has been seriously jeopardized and this action of the respondents in depriving them from being considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant is unconstitutional and is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

At the time when they were initially engaged in the cadre of Class-IV, they were the employees of Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur which was the registered Society and their service conditions were governed by the Malviya Regional Engineering College (Administration & Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1969 and for the members of Class-IV staff, 10% of the vacancy in the cadre of LDC were reserved. After creation of Malviya National Institute of Technology, having a deemed University status under the NIT Act, 2007, the Model Recruitment Rules for non-faculty posts in the Malviya National Institute of Technology came to be introduced by the respondents and the post of LDC has now been re-designated as Junior Assistant and classified as Group-C post under the scheme of Rules is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment to be conducted by the Institution. It will be appropriate to quote the relevant scheme of Rules laying down the criteria of recruitment for the post of Junior Assistant with which we are presently concerned in the matter and the same reads ad infra:--

It can be noticed from the present scheme of Rules that senior secondary (10+2) in any discipline with a minimum typing speed of 35 w.p.m. and proficiency in Computer Word Processing and Spread Sheet has become minimum technical qualification to man the post of Junior Assistant. However, the mode of recruitment, as prescribed under the present scheme of Rules, is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment through examination. Indisputably, under the earlier scheme of Rules, which was introduced by the Malviya Regional Engineering College, 10% quota was available for the Class-IV Staff for their promotion who are substantively working in a pay-scale below the pay-scale of LDC/Lab. Assistant.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Junior Assistant came to be advertised by the respondents pursuant to their advertisement (Ann.1) in the year 2013 and since there is no reservation provided for the members of Class-IV, their vested right of consideration on promotional post, which was available in the earlier scheme of Rules of LDC, has been seriously jeopardized and this according to them is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents and it has been stated that no vested right is accrued in favour of the petitioners, as alleged by them and after the Model Recruitment Rules have come into force, which has been adopted by the respondent No. 2, the available vacancies in the cadre have to be filled in accordance with the present Model Recruitment Rules. It has been further stated that the order dt.25.06.2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Department, Department of Secondary & Higher Education nowhere provides that the employees of erstwhile Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur will have the right of promotion in the newly created Malviya National Institute of Technology and only the remuneration, rights and privileges like pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund remain protected which are in existence in the erstwhile MREC and after the Model Recruitment Rules have come into force, certainly the recruitment has to be made in accordance with the present Rules and if the petitioners are eligible, it is always open for them to participate in the selection process but no right can be claimed by them for their promotion to the post of LDC which otherwise does not exist in the present scheme of Rules. However, the post of Junior Assistant is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment and the submission of the petitioners'' counsel that their right of consideration for promotion has been jeopardized is wholly without any factual foundation and deserves outright rejection.

Counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for reasonable promotional opportunity which is always expected in every wing of public service and indisputably, that generates efficiency in service and encourages the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service and in the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly and this what has been observed by the Apex Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. reported in , AIR 1988 SC 1033. Taking assistance thereof, counsel submits that at least the present petitioners who are members of Class-IV and have no promotional avenues, are entitled for fair opportunity of promotion which this court may consider appropriate keeping in view the mandate of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment supra.

To counter, counsel for respondents submits that the petitioners could not be considered for promotion under the existing scheme of Rules and certain other avenues have been provided to them while granting selection scales & higher pay-scales and that is one of the basis from which their grievance could be meeted out but as regards their appointment to the post of Junior Assistant is concerned, one has to fulfill the conditions of eligibility prescribed under the scheme of Rules and if the Rule making authority is of the view that the post of Junior Assistant is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment, there appears no reason to doubt the wisdom of the Rule making authority and thus, the contention of the petitioners is wholly without substance and deserves outright rejection.

It is an accepted doctrine and well founded principle of law that the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles and it is the duty of the court to sustain that there is a presumption of constitutionality. The law courts can declare the legislative enactment to be an invalid piece of legislation only in the event of gross violation of constitutional sanctions.

In the instant case, the only submission raised by counsel for petitioners is that earlier under the scheme of MREC (Administration & Ministerial Staff) Rules, 1969, there was a provision of 10% quota reserved for the Class-IV employees which has now been taken away under the present scheme of Rules.

In our considered view, it is always open for the Rule making authority to lay down the criteria of selection, academic qualification and the mode of recruitment under the scheme of Rules and if the respondent No. 2 has taken a decision to fill up the post of Junior Assistant 100% by direct recruitment, there appears no reasonable justification which may call for interference by this court. Indisputably, none of the vested rights of the petitioners have been jeopardized and member of Class-IV could be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant provided he fulfills the conditions of eligibility under the existing scheme of Rules. In the light of the above, what has been contended by counsel for petitioners is wholly without substance.

The basic principle and scope of judicial review by this court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution when validity of any law enacted by the legislature is under challenge and that has been examined by the Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI & Anr. reported in , 2014(8) SCC 682 & observed in para-49 ad infra:--

"Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process needs to be recognized by the Court and due regard and deference must be accorded to the legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to be challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind itself to the principles relating to the applicability of Article 14 in relation to invalidation of legislation. The two dimensions of Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering legislation invalid are now well recognized and these are : (i) discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid classification, and (ii) excessive delegation of powers; conferred of uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders - if such conferment is without any guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation does not become unconstitutional merely because there is another view or because another method may be considered to be as good or even more effective, like any issue of social, or even economic policy. It is well settled that the courts do not substitute their views on what the policy is."

It is not the case of the petitioners that action of the respondents while framing Rules is either discriminatory or arbitrary or has no rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved or the condition of eligibility and the procedure laid down by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant does not have a nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

As regards the prayer of the petitioners that they being members of Class-IV, in the light of the Rules, 1969, ought to be considered against 10% of vacancies in the cadre of LDC and the action of the respondents in depriving them from being considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution is concerned, in our considered view, is wholly without substance are merely availability of promotional quote under the earlier scheme of Rules, 1969 will not hold the recruitment process initiated under the present scheme of Rules to be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, as prayed for and no one can claim promotion as a matter of right and no vested right of the petitioners has been jeopardized and in absence of promotional avenues and further to take care of stagnation, if any other methods have been provided by the Rule making authorities, that itself are sufficient to take care of the future needs and requirements of the members of service.

Consequently, in our considered view, the present writ petition is wholly without substance and accordingly stands dismissed.