UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. vs. S. MAADASAMY AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

1 CORRECTED 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 2 High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 44921 and 44922 of 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 3 P.S. Krishnamurthy, who was promoted as Principal, Group ‘A’ (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 4 order of the Tribunal, based on the number of students at ITI, 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 5 writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the 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   and   passed  with  ulterior  motive.       The mala fide   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 6 Government   ITI,   Karaikal   from   the   post   of   JCIF,   Puducherry. 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 7 judgment and order passed in O.A. No. 814 of 2005 quashing 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 8 learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 218 of 2005, by which the learned 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 9 No. 1­original applicant attained the age of superannuation, he 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   dies non   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  , before the dies­non 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.  10 4.1 Shri   A.   Mariarputham,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has appeared on behalf of the appellants.  Learned counsel appearing 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 11 posts, where the feeder cadres are the same, was in existence. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the 1982 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 12 competent to man both the posts and capable of discharging the functions of both the posts.  It is submitted that, in the present 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 13 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 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, 14 pattern,   nomenclature   of   posts,   cadres,   categories   and   other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria 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 15 upholding   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 that of the post of   JCIF   is   absolutely   just   and   proper   and   considering   the decisions   of   this   Court   in   (supra)   and   P.   K.   Roy   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 16 required to be considered by this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in 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; 17 (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 (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 amended 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 affidavit­ 18 in­reply 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 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 th received on 18  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 19 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 post   of   Joint   Chief   Inspector   of   Factories   by deputation, will not help them in ensuring the safety and health of industrial workers. 6. 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.  7. 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 20 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 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: 21 (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 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     (supra) in paragraph 10, this Court has P.U. Joshi 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 22 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 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.” 23 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 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 re­ organization and absorption of individuals in equivalent posts. The decision in the case of    (supra) related to absorption Roop Lal 24 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 posts, 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. 25 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 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   dies­ non , before an appropriate court/forum and as and when such 26 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. 27 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 28 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’ 29 (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, 30 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 31 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. 32 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 33 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 34 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 35 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   dies non   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 36 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 37 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 38 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     (1968) 2 Union of India v. P.K. Roy SCR 186 as well as the decision in the case of   Sub­Inspector  (2000) 1 SCC 644, relied upon by the Roop Lal v. Lt. Governor High Court shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on 39 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.  (2003) 2 SCC 632, it Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad 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 40 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 41 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   (supra)   and   P.   K.   Roy   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 42 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    (supra), the High Court has observed and Roop Lal 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 43 (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 affidavit­ in­reply 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 44 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 th received on 18  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 45 post   of   Joint   Chief   Inspector   of   Factories   by deputation, will not help them in ensuring the safety and health of industrial workers. 6. 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.  7. 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 46 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: (iv) That   the   feeder   post   of   Principal   (Junior Grade)  and   Inspector   of   Factories   are   also interchangeable.  (v) 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 47 promotional   avenues   as   some   of   the incumbents   holding   these   posts   are stagnating in their respective grade.  (vi) 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     (supra) in paragraph 10, this Court has P.U. Joshi 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 48 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 49 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 re­ organization 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 50 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 51 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   dies­ non , 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.