Service matter – whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in 16 dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 dated 08.03.2015 equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post of JCIF? = when a conscious decision was taken by the UPSC and the Government while amending rules and equating the two posts after considering the pros and cons of the matter and considering the relevant factors referred to and reproduced hereinabove, being a policy decision, the Tribunal was not 23 justified in quashing and setting aside the statutory rules. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the writ petition and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale). – In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the post of JCIF. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5969­5970 OF 2009
Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. .. Appellants
Versus
S. Maadasamy and Anr. etc. etc. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.

  1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned common
    judgment and order passed by the High Court and are between
    the same parties, the same are being disposed of by this common
    judgment.
  2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
    common judgment and order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the
    High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 44921 and 44922 of
    2
    2006, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ
    petitions preferred by the appellants­Union of India and others
    and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned
    Central Administrative Tribunal dated 04.07.2006 in O.A. No.
    218 of 2005 and O.A. No. 814 of 2005, the Union of India and
    others­original writ petitioners before the High Court have
    preferred the present appeals.
  3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as
    under:
    That respondent no. 1 herein­original applicant initially joined
    the services in the Government of Puducherry as a Craft
    Instructor in the Labour Department on 03.11.1975 and was
    appointed as the Group Instructor on regular basis. That,
    thereafter he was promoted as Inspector of Factories on
    27.09.1982 and as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale) on regular
    basis w.e.f. 25.08.1989. That, thereafter on 26.07.2001, he was
    promoted as the Joint Chief Inspector of Factories (hereinafter
    referred to as the “JCIF”) on regular basis. The promotion of
    respondent No. 1­original applicant was challenged by one Sri
    P.S. Krishnamurthy, who was promoted as Principal, Group ‘A’
    3
    (Junior Scale) subsequent to the promotion of respondent No. 1­
    original applicant. On the representation made by the said Sri
    P.S. Krishnamurthy, the Government initiated steps to convene a
    review DPC, but the same was rejected by the UPSC. Thereafter,
    respondent no. 1­original applicant joined duty in the said post
    on 26.07.2001. The said promotion was challenged by Sri P.S.
    Krishnamurthy by way of O.A. No. 795 of 2001, but the same
    was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short
    ‘Tribunal’) on 29.07.2001. According to the appellants, the
    Government of Puducherry also sent a proposal to UPSC for
    amendment of the recruitment rules equating the post of
    Principal, ITI held by Sri P.S. Krishnamurthy with that of JCIF.
    It appears that pursuant to the draft recruitment rules equating
    the posts, respondent No. 1­original applicant was transferred
    from JCIF and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) on
    30.09.2003. It appears that, in the meantime, in the year 1998
    the Government of Puducherry decided to create one post of
    Principal (Senior Scale) (Rs.3000­4500/­ later revised to
    Rs.10,000­15200/­) in the Government ITI at Karaikal.
    According to the Department, the same was pursuant to the
    order of the Tribunal, based on the number of students at ITI,
    4
    Karaikal being more than 400. The same was done in
    anticipation of the approval of the Government of India, by
    keeping one post of Principal (Junior Scale) in abeyance. That
    the Government of India, by order dated 19.10.2000 sanctioned
    the proposal for creation of the post of Principal, Group ‘A’
    (Senior Scale) subject to the condition that one post of Principal
    (Junior Scale) which was kept in abeyance, should be abolished.
    That, thereafter respondent No. 1 working as Principal (Junior
    Scale) in ITI, Puducherry was promoted to the post of JCIF vide
    order dated 26.07.2001. That, thereafter on 17.09.2001,
    pursuant to the approval received from the Government of India
    for the creation of one post of Principal (Senior Scale), one post of
    Principal (Junior Scale) was abolished. It appears that pursuant
    to the draft recruitment rules equating the posts of Principal, ITI
    and the JCIF, respondent No.1­original applicant was transferred
    from JCIF and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) on
    30.09.2003. That the said order was challenged by respondent
    No. 1 herein­original applicant before the learned Tribunal by
    way of O.A. No. 869 of 2003. That the said O.A. came to be
    allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 06.01.2004. The
    writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the
    5
    learned Tribunal came to be dismissed by the High Court on
    16.02.2005. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while
    quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.09.2003
    transferring respondent No. 1 from JCIF to Principal, Group ‘A”
    (Senior Scale), the learned Tribunal held that reliance placed on
    draft recruitment rules to support the transfer, cannot be
    sustained, as the mere approval of the Lt. Governor is not enough
    and the consultation with and approval of the UPSC is required
    and thereafter, it has to be notified. The Tribunal also held the
    transfer as mala fide and passed with ulterior motive. The
    Tribunal also observed and held that after the rules are approved
    by UPSC and notified, the Government would be at liberty to
    make the transfer of the original applicant.
    3.1 It appears that, thereafter the notification being G.O. No. 6
    dated 08.03.2005 to amend the recruitment rules relating to the
    post of JCIF/Chief Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) was
    published on 15.03.2005. Simultaneously, on the same date,
    respondent No. 1 herein­original applicant came to be transferred
    and posted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) to the
    Government ITI, Karaikal from the post of JCIF, Puducherry.
    6
    The said order of transfer came to be challenged by respondent
    No. 1­original applicant before the learned Tribunal by way of
    O.A. No. 218 of 2005. That, by way of O.A. No. 814 of 2005,
    respondent No. 1­original applicant challenged the revised
    recruitment rules introduced by G.O. No. 6 dated 08.03.2005,
    equating the two posts, namely the post of JCIF and the post of
    Principal Group ‘A” (Senior Scale) and also to set aside the said
    amended recruitment rules.
    3.2 That the learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the order
    of transfer dated 15.03.2005 stating that the same was mala fide
    and passed with an ulterior motive. The learned Tribunal also
    allowed O.A. No. 814 of 2005 and held that the amended rules
    are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
    Constitution of India. According to the learned Tribunal, the
    purpose for bringing the amended rules was not germane, but
    was directed only to achieve a different purpose.
    3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by
    the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 218 of 2005 quashing and
    setting aside the order of transfer dated 15.03.2005 and the
    judgment and order passed in O.A. No. 814 of 2005 quashing
    7
    and setting aside the amended recruitment rules equating the
    post of Principal Group ‘A” (Senior Scale) with that of the post of
    JCIF, the appellants herein­Union of India and others preferred
    writ petitions before the High Court. That, by the impugned
    common judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed both
    the writ petitions and confirmed the judgment and order passed
    by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the order of
    transfer dated 15.03.2005 and setting aside the amended rules
    equating the post of Principal Group ‘A” (Senior Scale) with that
    of the post of JCIF. That, by the impugned judgment and order,
    the High Court has dismissed both the writ petitions. Hence, the
    present appeals challenging the impugned common judgment
    and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 44921
    and 44922 of 2006 confirming the judgment and order passed by
    the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 218 of 2015 and O.A. No. 814 of
    2005 dated 04.07.2006.
    3.4 Now, so far as the challenge to the impugned common
    judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ
    petition and confirming the judgment and order passed by the
    learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 218 of 2005, by which the learned
    8
    Tribunal set aside the order of transfer dated 15.03.2005 is
    concerned, it is the admitted position that in view of the
    subsequent development and respondent No. 1 herein­original
    applicant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, as
    such, the challenge to the order passed by the High Court
    confirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing
    and setting aside the order of transfer dated 15.03.2005 has
    become infructuous/academic. Even otherwise, there are
    concurrent findings given by both, the learned Tribunal as well
    as the High Court holding that the order of transfer was mala
    fide and with the oblique motive. Therefore, the appeal
    challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the
    High Court dismissing the writ petition and confirming the
    judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.
    218 of 2005 stands disposed of as infructuous/academic.
    3.5 However, the question still remains how the period from the
    order of transfer dated 15.03.2005 till respondent No. 1­original
    applicant attained the age of superannuation is to be
    treated/considered. It appears that at the time when respondent
    No. 1­original applicant attained the age of superannuation, he
    9
    has been paid the retirement benefits and the
    pension/pensionary benefits vide order dated 18.08.2016 and the
    period from 15.03.2005 till he attained the age of superannuation
    is treated as dies­non and he has been paid the
    pension/pensionary benefits accordingly. Therefore, it will be
    open for respondent No. 1­original applicant to challenge the
    order dated 18.08.2016 treating the period between 15.03.2005
    till he attained the age of superannuation as dies­non, before the
    appropriate Court/Forum and as and when such proceedings are
    initiated, the same may be considered in accordance with law
    and on its own merits.
  4. In view of the above, now the challenge to the impugned
    judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming the
    order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 814 of 2005 by
    which the amended recruitment rules vide notification ­ G.O. No.
    6 dated 08.03.2005 equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’
    (Senior Scale) with that of JCIF survives.
    4.1 Shri A. Mariarputham, learned Senior Advocate has
    appeared on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel appearing
    10
    on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that, as
    such, the challenge to the amended rules by respondent No. 1­
    original applicant before the learned Tribunal was limited to
    equating the two posts and not the entirety of the rules. It is
    further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
    the appellants that, even otherwise, in the facts and
    circumstances of the case, both, the learned Tribunal as well as
    the High Court have committed grave error in quashing and
    setting aside the amended rules equating the post of Principal,
    Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post of JCIF. It is
    submitted that the educational and other qualifications
    prescribed for the two posts in question, namely JCIF and
    Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) are identical; that the feeder
    cadre/posts for both the posts are also identical and having
    common rules for the two posts. It is submitted that, therefore,
    in that view of the matter, the equations of two posts cannot be
    said to be bad­in­law. It is further submitted by the learned
    counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that even in the
    lower cadres, the pattern of having the same rules for a group of
    posts, where the feeder cadres are the same, was in existence.
    In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the 1982
    11
    Rules, governing the post of Inspector of Factories, Principal and
    Technical officers. It is submitted that a person posted as
    Inspector of Factories is transferable as Principal and vise­versa
    etc.
    4.2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellants that both, the learned Tribunal as well as
    the High Court have materially erred in quashing and setting
    aside the amended rules equating the aforesaid two posts, on the
    ground that the duties and responsibilities with respect to the
    two posts are not similar/identical. It is submitted that there is
    no requirement in law that all the posts clubbed together should
    be identical in respect of duties and responsibilities and
    functions. It is submitted that by the very nature of things, it
    will not be identical. It is submitted that what is to be seen is
    whether the person is capable/competent to discharge the
    functions of both the posts. It is submitted that having regard to
    the identical, educational and other qualifications prescribed and
    coming from the feeder cadres common to both, they are
    competent to man both the posts and capable of discharging the
    functions of both the posts. It is submitted that, in the present
    12
    case and in the case of respondent No. 1 himself, in fact, his
    initial appointed was as a craft instructor; later he became the
    Inspector of Factories and thereafter he got promoted as Principal
    (Junior Scale) and thereafter got promoted as JCIF.
    4.3 It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel
    appearing on behalf of the appellants that, even otherwise, the
    principles laid down by this Court for an administrative
    determination as to whether two posts are equivalent in nature
    for different purposes such as absorption, counting the length of
    service for seniority, cannot be invoked to strike down a
    legislative exercise of rule making under the proviso to Article
    309 of the Constitution of India which has been held to be
    statutory and legislative in character.
    4.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellants that, therefore, on facts the decision of
    this Court in the case of Union of India v. P.K. Roy (1968) 2
    SCR 186 as well as the decision in the case of Sub­Inspector
    Roop Lal v. Lt. Governor (2000) 1 SCC 644, relied upon by the
    High Court shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on
    13
    hand, more particularly, when the amended rules equating the
    posts were statutory and legislative in character.
    4.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellants that, even otherwise, on facts, both, the
    learned Tribunal and the High Court have committed a grave
    error in quashing and setting aside the amended rules equating
    the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post
    of JCIF, inasmuch as the amended rules were approved by the
    UPSC and the rules were amended in consultation with the UPSC
    and after elaborate discussions thereafter the UPSC gave its
    concurrence/approval and thereafter the rules were amended
    equating the two posts.
    4.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of P.U.
    Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad (2003) 2 SCC 632, it
    is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellants that, as such, it is ultimately for the
    Government to take an appropriate decision on equation of posts.
    It is submitted that questions relating to the constitution,
    pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories and other
    conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria
    14
    to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy
    and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State.
    It is submitted that, therefore, the learned Tribunal and the High
    Court have committed a grave error in interfering with such a
    policy decision/decision of the Government to equate two posts,
    which were after due deliberations and in consultation with the
    UPSC.
    4.7 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
    present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned judgment
    and order passed by the High Court and the learned Tribunal
    insofar as quashing and setting aside the notification – G.O. No.
    6 dated 18.03.2005 by which the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’
    (Senior Scale) was equated with the post of JCIF.
  5. Shri Pramod Swarup, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
    behalf of respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned
    judgment and order passed by the High Court. It is submitted
    that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
    upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned
    Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules equating
    15
    the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post
    of JCIF is absolutely just and proper and considering the
    decisions of this Court in P. K. Roy (supra) and Roop Lal
    (supra). It is submitted that as it was found that the nature of
    duties; responsibilities and powers exercised by holding the two
    posts are not similar and identical and, therefore, the High Court
    was justified in confirming the judgment and order passed by the
    learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules.
    Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
  6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
    parties at length.
    6.1 As observed hereinabove, now in the present appeals, the
    challenge to the impugned judgment and order passed by the
    High Court dismissing the writ petition and confirming the
    judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.
    814 of 2005 quashing and setting aside the amended rules
    equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that
    of JCIF survives. Therefore, the only question which is now
    required to be considered by this Court is whether, in the facts
    and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in
    16
    dismissing the writ petition and confirming the order passed by
    the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended
    rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 dated 08.03.2015
    equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that
    of the post of JCIF?
    6.2 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
    Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ
    petition, confirming the judgment and order passed by the
    learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules
    equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the
    post of JCIF mainly on the ground that the nature of duties of
    both the posts, responsibilities and powers exercised by the
    officers holding the posts are not similar and/or identical.
    Considering the decisions of this Court in the case of P.K. Roy
    (supra) and Roop Lal (supra), the High Court has observed and
    held that the equation of posts has to be determined by taking
    into account the following factors:
    (i) nature and duties of post;
    (ii) responsibilities and powers exercised by officer holding a
    post; extent of territorial or other charge held or
    responsibilities discharged;
    (iii) minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for
    recruitment to the post; and
    17
    (iv) salary of the post.
    6.3 Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, the
    High Court has dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the
    appellants herein­Union of India and has confirmed the judgment
    and order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting
    the amended rules vide notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating
    the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post
    of JCIF. However, neither the learned Tribunal nor the High
    Court has considered the relevant factors which were considered
    while amending the rules and equating the two posts. The High
    Court has also not considered the fact that the UPSC gave its
    concurrence to the emended rules and only thereafter the rules
    were amended and the posts were equated.
    6.4 From the affidavit­in­reply filed on behalf of the UPSC before
    the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 814 of 2005, it appears that the
    rules were amended after the concurrence of the UPSC and after
    the draft rules were approved by the UPSC. From the affidavitin­reply filed by the UPSC, it appears that the UPSC gave its
    concurrence after due deliberation with the Government from
    time to time. Relevant paragraphs of the affidavit­in­reply which
    18
    are necessary for determination of the issue involved are as
    under:
    “5. That the proposal for framing of common
    Recruitment Rules for the post of Joint Chief
    Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior
    Scale) in the scale of pay of Rs. 10000­15200 under
    the Labour Department of the Government of
    Pondicherry in lieu of the existing Recruitment Rules
    for the post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories, was
    received on 18th March 2003 (ANNEXURE R­I). The
    proposal was examined and the Government of
    Pondicherry was requested to certify whether the
    duties of both the posts (Joint Chief Inspector of
    Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale)
    match to merit framing of common Recruitment
    Rules and whether the persons holding the post of
    Principal will be able to discharge the duties of the
    post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories effectively
    and vice versa. In this connection Commission’s
    letter, dated 21.05.2003 (ANNEXURE R­II) may be
    referred to. It is most respectfully submitted that in
    response to Commission’s letter referred to above, the
    Government of Pondicherry furnished clarifications
    vide their letter, dated 01.08.2003 (ANNEXURE R­III).
    Subsequently, the Government of Pondicherry was
    also requested to furnish the duties and
    responsibilities attached to the post of Joint Chief
    Inspector of Factories, vide Commission’s letter,
    dated 23.10.2003 (ANNEXURE R­IV). The duties and
    responsibilities were furnished by the Government of
    Pondicherry vide their letter, dated 29.10.2003
    (ANNEXURE R­IV­A). It was found that the duties of
    both the posts did not match. Accordingly, the
    Government of Pondicherry was advised vide letter
    dated 27.11.2003 (ANNEXURE R­IV­B) to explore the
    possibility of filling the post by deputation. In reply,
    the Government of Pondicherry informed vide their
    letter, dated 09.02.2004 (ANNEXURE R­V) that the
    suggestion to explore the possibility of filling up the
    19
    post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories by
    deputation, will not help them in ensuring the safety
    and health of industrial workers.
  7. It is most respectfully submitted that the
    Government of Pondicherry, in their letter, dated
    09.02.2004 referred to above, insisted upon having
    common Recruitment Rules for the posts of Joint
    Chief Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’
    (Senior Scale), while expressing that their intention
    that these two posts are interchangeable, and both
    the incumbents holding feeder posts of Inspector of
    Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale) are
    capable of discharging their duties of the post of
    Joint Chief Inspector of Factories effectively. The
    Pondicherry Government also stated that feeder post
    for the promotional post of Principal (Junior Scale),
    Inspector of Factories and Inspector of Boilers are
    also interchangeable and that the Joint Chief
    Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior
    Scale) are the only higher posts available for the
    lower cadre as promotional avenues. Therefore, the
    post of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories cannot be
    set a part for deputationists, as suggested by UPSC.
  8. It is also most respectfully submitted that the
    Government of Pondicherry, in their communication
    referred to above, clearly stated that the intention is
    for creating avenues of promotion to the cadre of
    Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group ‘A’
    (Junior Scale), Technical Officer and Training Officer
    and the Government has also brought all these four
    posts under one umbrella. The Government of
    Pondicherry had stated that since these four posts
    were brought under one umbrella, there will be no
    difficulty in operating a common Recruitment Rules
    for the posts of Joint Chief Inspector of Factories and
    Principal, Group ‘A’ (Senior Scale) by keeping these
    four posts as a feeder post. The Government of
    20
    Pondicherry had also stated that having a common
    Recruitment Rules will facilitate not only the rotation
    of officers at frequent intervals for better
    administration, but also will create promotional
    avenues to the officers holding the feeder posts. The
    Government of Pondicherry further emphasised that
    such an action will also meet guidelines of the Chief
    Vigilance Commission of India, New Delhi.
    Subsequently, the case was also discussed by Joint
    Secretary (Labour) with the concerned officers of
    UPSC in the Commission on 24.05.2004 and the
    representative of the Pondicherry Government was
    requested to submit detailed comment with regard to
    the requirement of having a common Recruitment
    Rules again. The record of the discussion held on
    24.05.2004 is annexed as (ANNEXURE R­VI). Having
    examined the proposal it was felt necessary to have a
    clear view, particularly the details to corroborate the
    assertion of the Pondicherry Government that there
    is stagnation in the feeder grade. As such, the
    Government of Pondicherry was requested to forward
    a statement indicating the name of the incumbents
    holding the posts of Inspector of Boilers, Inspector of
    Factories, Technical Officer and Training Officer and
    Principal, I.T.I. and also their date of regular
    appointments in the respective grade. Commission’s
    letter, dated 19.11.2004 (ANNEXURE R­VII) may be
    referred to. Finally, having examined the entire
    proposal along with the details furnished by the
    Government of Pondicherry, the Recruitment Rules
    were concurred by the Commission upon insistence
    of the Government of Pondicherry to have the
    common Recruitment Rules in view of the following:
    (i) That the feeder post of Principal (Junior
    Grade) and Inspector of Factories are also
    interchangeable.
    (ii) That the feeder grade posts of Inspector of
    Boilers, Inspector of Factories, Principal,
    Group ‘B’, I.T.I., Technical Officer and
    Training Officer could be provided better
    21
    promotional avenues as some of the
    incumbents holding these posts are
    stagnating in their respective grade.
    (iii) That it is necessary to have a common
    Recruitment Rules, because the post of Joint
    Chief Inspector of Factories is a sensitive
    post and there is a need to rotate the officers
    at frequent intervals so as to meet the
    guidelines of the Central Vigilance
    Commission. The Government of
    Pondicherry had certified that there is no
    impediment to have a common Recruitment
    Rules for both the posts of Joint Chief
    Inspector of Factories and Principal, Group
    ‘A’ (Senior Scale).”
    6.5 From the aforesaid, it appears that the UPSC gave its
    concurrence after having due deliberations and considering the
    relevant factors and only thereafter the rules came to be
    amended and the two posts in question came to be equated. In
    the case of P.U. Joshi (supra) in paragraph 10, this Court has
    observed and held as under:
    “10. We have carefully considered the
    submissions made on behalf of both parties.
    Questions relating to the constitution, pattern,
    nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their
    creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and
    other conditions of service including avenues of
    promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such
    promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the
    exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State,
    subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions
    envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for
    22
    the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the
    Government to have a particular method of
    recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of
    promotion or impose itself by substituting its views
    for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and
    within the competency of the State to change the
    rules relating to a service and alter or amend and
    vary by addition/substraction the qualifications,
    eligibility criteria and other conditions of service
    including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as
    the administrative exigencies may need or
    necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules
    is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate
    departments into more and constitute different
    categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further
    classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as
    reconstitute and restructure the pattern and
    cadres/categories of service, as may be required from
    time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts
    and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in
    any employee of the State to claim that rules
    governing conditions of his service should be forever
    the same as the one when he entered service for all
    purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding
    rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued
    at a particular point of time, a government servant
    has no right to challenge the authority of the State to
    amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating
    to even an existing service.”
    6.6 Thus, when a conscious decision was taken by the UPSC
    and the Government while amending rules and equating the two
    posts after considering the pros and cons of the matter and
    considering the relevant factors referred to and reproduced
    hereinabove, being a policy decision, the Tribunal was not
    23
    justified in quashing and setting aside the statutory rules.
    Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in
    dismissing the writ petition and confirming the judgment and
    order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside
    the amended rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating
    the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale). Now, so far as the
    reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of
    P.K. Roy (supra) and Roop Lal (supra) is concerned, on
    considering the decisions, we are of the opinion that, in the facts
    and circumstances of the case, those decisions shall not be
    applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The decision in the
    case of P.K. Roy (supra) related to administrative determination
    of equivalence between different posts in the context of State reorganization and absorption of individuals in equivalent posts.
    The decision in the case of Roop Lal (supra) related to absorption
    of a Sub­Inspector belonging to BSF in the Delhi Police when he
    was serving on deputation, and period to be counted for seniority.
    Therefore, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to
    the facts of the case on hand.
    Even otherwise, on considering the nature and duties of both the
    24
    decisions, namely JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale), we
    are of the opinion that the duties to be performed by JCIF and
    Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) can be said to be identical
    and/or similar in nature.
    7 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we
    are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court
    dismissing the writ petitions and confirming the judgment and
    order passed by the learned Tribunal quashing and setting aside
    the amended rules by notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating
    the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the post of
    JCIF. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
    Court as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned
    Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside.
    7.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
    impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ
    Petition No. 44922 of 2006 arising out of the judgment and order
    dated 04.07.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 814
    of 2005 quashing and setting aside the recruitment rules issued
    vide notification – G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of
    25
    Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of JCIF, is hereby
    quashed and set aside. The appeal arising out of Writ Petition
    No. 44922 of 2006 is hereby allowed accordingly. No costs.
    7.2 Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by
    the High Court in Writ Petition No. 44921 of 2006 arising out of
    the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dated
    04.07.2006 in O.A. No. 218 of 2005 by which the Tribunal set
    aside the order of transfer is concerned, the same stands
    disposed of, as observed hereinabove. However, the liberty is
    reserved in favour of respondent No. 1–original applicant to
    challenge the order dated 18.08.2016 treating the period between
    15.03.2005 till he attained the age of superannuation as diesnon, before an appropriate court/forum and as and when such
    proceedings are initiated, the same may be considered in
    accordance with law and on merits.
    ………………………………….J.
    [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
    ………………………………….J.
    [M. R. SHAH]
    New Delhi,
    May 1, 2019.