AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“i)Set aside/Quash the impugned Orders dated 30.03.2017 and 04.05.2017passed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 in the light of the facts, circumstances and grounds narrated herein above.;
ii) Pass any other order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents.”
The brief facts of the case as per the counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were employees of the Technical Wing of DCPW. The All India Technical Staff Welfare Association, representing technical employees, had been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 16.12.1991. According to him, DCPW functioned as an advisory body to the Ministry of Home Affairs in technical matters and as the nodal coordinating agency for police telecommunication at the State and national levels. Its functions included providing secure telecommunication facilities, assisting State Police organisations in modernisation of wireless communication systems, imparting training, planning radio equipment requirements, providing data communication circuits, establishing the ISPW grid, undertaking research and development, maintaining and operating the ISPW grid, ensuring communication security and establishing emergency radio communication during emergencies. He explained that DCPW had historically consisted of different cadres, including Operational, Maintenance, Store and Cipher cadres. The Operational cadre included Wireless Operators, Wireless Supervisors, Senior Supervising Officers and Extra Assistant Directors. The Maintenance cadre included Radio Technicians, Technical Assistants (Maintenance), Senior Technical Assistants and Extra Assistant Directors. The Store cadre and Cipher cadre had their own posts and promotional structures. The pleadings showed that some higher posts were common promotional posts even before the impugned cadre review. The applicants had particularly relied upon the distinction between Technical and Operational personnel. According to them, technical personnel required technical qualifications such as a Diploma in Radio Engineering/Radio Communication or a two-year Electronics Trade certificate with experience, whereas Operational personnel could enter with Matriculation/equivalent, the prescribed certificate of competency and typing proficiency. Technical personnel were stated to be engaged in installation, repair, testing and maintenance of wireless equipment and infrastructure, whereas Operational personnel principally dealt with wireless messaging and allied operational functions. The counsel relied upon the earlier Staff Inspection Unit report of December 2001. According to him, that report had recommended cadre review rather than merger of the Technical and Operational Wings and had considered merger of Operational and Cipher functions possible after suitable training, but not merger of those functions with the Technical Wing. He also relied upon a departmental committee constituted in 2008 to examine the feasibility of merger of the Operational, Maintenance and Cipher Wings. He stated that the committee had obtained the views of the respective staff associations and had ultimately not recommended merger because of lack of unanimity, leading to dissolution of the committee through its report dated 26.08.2008. He further stated that the respondents had subsequently issued an order dated 22.10.2014 for merger of the Operational and Maintenance cadres. Certain employees, including some of the present applicants, had challenged that order in OA No. 53/2015. During the pendency of that OA, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order dated 12.03.2015 keeping the merger order in abeyance. Consequently, the earlier merger was not implemented. OA No. 53/2015 was ultimately disposed of on 15.02.2017 with liberty to the applicants therein to question the order dated 22.10.2014 if it was subsequently given effect to, or to challenge any future order concerning the same subject matter in accordance with law. The order in OA No. 53/2015 recorded that the earlier merger order had been kept in abeyance and that the OA was therefore disposed of with liberty. Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2017 conveying approval of the cadre review proposal. The consequential DCPW order dated 04.05.2017 implemented the cadre review. The order provided for a Communication Cadre, re-designated existing posts and altered the sanctioned strength. The post of Extra Assistant Director was re-designated as Joint Assistant Director and its sanctioned strength was increased from 32 to 43. The posts of Senior Supervising Officer and Senior Technical Assistant were merged and re-designated as Communication Officer, with the sanctioned strength increased from 83 to 108. The posts of Wireless Supervisor and Technical Assistant (Maintenance) were re-designated as Assistant Communication Officer. The cadre review also dealt with Cipher, Administration, Staff Car Driver and Despatch Rider cadres and provided for various changes in their designations and sanctioned strengths. As per the counsel the applicants were aggrieved primarily because they regarded the cadre review as a horizontal merger of the Technical and Operational Wings rather than a genuine restructuring. They contended that the earlier order dated 22.10.2014 had been kept in abeyance precisely so that a cadre review could be undertaken and that the respondents had thereafter substantially reproduced the same merger through the impugned order dated 04.05.2017. They therefore challenged both the Ministry's approval dated 30.03.2017 and the consequential DCPW order dated 04.05.2017. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned orders were arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the Recruitment Rules. It had been argued that cadre merger could not be sustained merely because two cadres had been placed in the same pay band or grade pay. According to the applicants, the relevant test had to include the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications and actual functions attached to the posts. The applicants emphasised that the Technical Wing required specialised technical knowledge and training. They pointed out that technical staff dealt with installation, testing, maintenance and repair of wireless infrastructure and equipment, including sophisticated communication systems operating at Headquarters and Inter-State Police Wireless Stations. Operational staff, according to them, principally dealt with transmission and handling of messages. The applicants therefore contended that the two categories were not interchangeable. It had further been submitted that a short period of in-house training could not transform an employee recruited under the Operational Rules into a technically qualified employee. They expressed the apprehension that technical employees would consequently be required to perform operational typing functions while operational employees could be entrusted with technical functions for which they did not possess the prescribed qualifications. Such a system, would adversely affect both the employees and the functioning of DCPW. The applicants relied upon the earlier Staff Inspection Unit report of 2001 and the 2008 departmental committee report. Their submission had been that both exercises had recognised the distinction between the cadres and had not supported merger of Technical and Operational staff. They alleged that these materials had been ignored while taking the impugned decision.
To buttress his argument, the counsel for the applicants also relied upon the judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130, and had submitted that while determining equivalence of posts, factors such as nature of duties, powers and responsibilities, minimum qualifications and salary had to be considered. They had maintained that the fact that the pay scales had subsequently been brought at par did not erase the fundamental differences in qualifications and duties. Another contention had been that the merger would adversely affect seniority and promotional prospects of Technical Wing employees because the number of Operational employees was substantially larger. The applicants had apprehended that integration of the two streams would therefore disturb their existing position and prospects. The applicants also disputed the respondents' reliance upon the earlier litigation initiated by the Operational Staff Association. They submitted that they or their Association had not been parties to OA No. 3692/2012 and that the orders passed in that matter could not by themselves justify merger of the Technical Wing with the Operational Wing. They also challenged the interpretation placed by the respondents upon OA No. 977/2013 and the directions issued therein. It had further been submitted that the respondents had not disclosed all relevant departmental records concerning the earlier pay-scale upgradation and the alleged amended Recruitment Rules. Reliance had been placed upon RTI correspondence to contend that the relevant amended Recruitment Rules and departmental notings were not available to the applicants. On these premises, the applicants had urged that the Tribunal should interfere with the cadre restructuring decision and quash the impugned orders.
To support his case, the counsel for the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
“A. The Respondents while approving the merger of posts under the Technical and Operational Wings failed to take into consideration that there is no work similarity between the employees working under the said two Wings, i.e. the Technical and Operational Wings; rather, not only their eligibility to the respective posts are materially different from each other, but also the nature of their job responsibilities is such that an employee of the Operational Wing cannot perform the job of a Technical personnel keeping in view the lack of qualification of the person working in the Operational Wing. In this regard, emphasis is laid by the Applicants upon the Recruitment Rules of the Department which clearly provide the basis of their eligibility/qualification at the time of recruitment to the feeder posts of Wireless Operators/Wireless Supervisors. It is submitted that while a Wireless Supervisor/Operator (Operational Staff) is required to be a Matriculate with a Typing speed of 30 words per minute, the feeder post of Radio Technician/Technical Assistant(Maintenance) carries an eligibility of not only an incumbent being a Matriculate but also a Diploma in Radio Engineering or Radio Communication; alternatively, a person having a Certificate in Electronics Trade (Two years course) from the Industrial Training Institute with a further two years experience in the trade is also eligible. It is submitted that the Recruitment Rules of the Respondent No. 2 as prevalent before the impugned merger, has already been annexed to the present Application which clearly bring forth the aforesaid distinction. In this view of the matter, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while passing the impugned Orders dated 30.03.2017 and 04.05.2017 committed a grave illegality warranting interference from this Hon'ble Court.
B. The Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 failed to take into consideration that even the job profile of the two sets of categories of Technical Wing and Operational Wing differ materially from each other, inasmuch as, the nature of job responsibilities of the Operational staff is purely mechanical comprising of typing out text messages and such allied works; whereas on the other hand, the employees working in the Technical Wing possess a higher degree of skill keeping in view their job profile which comprise of installation and maintenance of Wireless infrastructure at ISPW Stations and Headquarters. The aforesaid nature of duties of the employees of the Technical Wing as such, require technical expertise and certainly, the said job cannot be performed by the Operational staff at all, even after imparting any kind of training to the Operational staff. Thus, looked from any perspective, the merger so proposed by the impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 is against the very basis of service jurisprudence, the implementation of which would not only result in low morale for the employees of the Technical Wing, besides substantially diminishing their prospects for future promotions/benefits, since the merger would entail a huge number of Operational staff being merged with the staff of Technical Wing altering the status of seniority to the detriment of the employees of the Technical Wing.
C. The Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 also failed to take into consideration that, even though, the scales of pay of the employees working in the Technical and Operational Wing of the Directorate were made at par after the 6th Pay Commission recommendations; however, this aspect does not ipso facto entitle the Operational staff to be merged with Technical staff keeping in view the job profile as well as the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the feeder posts. It is also not out of place to mention here that even the scale of pay which was made at par as stated above was triggered at the instance of certain vested interests in the Department (DCPW) and was thus a result of misleading the concerned officials of the Ministry, i.e. the Respondent No. 1, into accepting their claim for a similar Pay scale with the employees of Technical Wing. Infact, till date, the Respondent No. 2 has been totally amiss in providing the relevant information to the Applicants or their Association about the alleged Amended Recruitment Rules in respect of an Office Order dated 10.01.2002 regarding the pay scale upgradation for all cadres of DCPW. Even the RTI Applications moved in this regard by the Applicants has failed to elicit any response from the Department who merely informed through the aforesaid RTI Application that the said amended Recruitment Rules qua the Office Order dated 10.01.2002 are not available. Infact, the notings made by the Department for recommending the upgradation of Pay-scales had also been deliberately withheld by the Department. The truth of the matter is that the Department i.e. DCPW never notified the Amended RRs on the basis of which the alleged proposal for parity in scales of Pay was mooted. Not only this, since the year 2002, till date, the position remained the same, inasmuch as, not only any RRs were framed or notified, but also no cadre restructuring was done in the Department. In fact, the entire exercise carried out in the Department to grant parity in Pay scales to the employees of the Operational Wing leading to the Order dated 10.01.2002 was rigged, and was a result of conspiracy on the basis of which even the Courts of law were misled. In fact, the very basis of the impugned merger between the two Wings of Technical and Operational appears to be the parity in pay scales granted to its employees on the basis of the Office Order dated 10.01.2002; however, none of the notings/records are available with the Department. The true copy of the RTI Application dated 13.11.2014 as well as the Reply dated 04.12.2014 of the Respondent No. 2 are hereby collectively annexed as ANNEXURE A-9 (COLLY.) to the present Original Application.
D. The Respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 also failed to take into consideration that the merger of Technical Wing with the Operational Wing would result into serious problems for the employees of the Technical Wing, inasmuch as, besides downgrading their morale, there would be a detrimental change in the nature of their duties from Technical to Operational, whereas the Operational staff may start performing technical duties for which they are not even qualified/eligible. Infact, this kind of a horizontal merger, if implemented, would result in a situation which can be explained by way of an illustration, i.e. a situation where a Dentist is asked to perform a heart operation resulting into jeopardizing the life of such a patient. It is submitted that the Technical Wing of the Respondent No. 2 constitutes the backbone for maintenance and up-keeping of communication and technical infrastructure of the Department which has undergone vast technological changes and development in the past, and which job profile cannot be undertaken or comprehended by the Operational staff in any manner owing to the lack of their required qualification/eligibility. In fact, the Operational (Non-Technical) stream are only responsible for transmission of messages and have no concern with either the maintenance or repair work of communication equipments and network and therefore, the aforesaid merger of Technical and Operational stream shall result into causing serious damage to the very existence of the Directorate/DCPW besides causing irreparable harm to its communication infrastructure. Therefore, looked from any perspective, the impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 cannot be sustained in law and thus, liable to be quashed.
E. The impugned action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing the Order dated 04.05.2017 is wholly arbitrary and mala fide, inasmuch as, the Respondent No. 2, in the garb of a Cadre Review to be carried out in the Department (for which time had been purportedly taken by the Department in the earlier proceedings of Original Application filed by the Operational Staff Association in which the present Applicants or their Association was not even impleaded as a party), proceeded to merge the two Wings i.e. Operational and Technical Wing, instead of carrying out a Cadre Review. In the respectful submission of the Applicants, the merger of the two Wings as per the impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 cannot be said to be a Cadre Review by the Department, since there is absolutely no reasoning provided by the Department to carry out such a merger in the name of Cadre Review. In fact, the basis of the letter/communication dated 12.03.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (MHA) was that the merger of Operational and Technical Wing effected by an earlier Order dated 22.10.2014 was being kept in abeyance till the time Cadre Review is carried out by the Respondent No. 2 (DCPW). Therefore, it is quite clear that the Cadre Review to be carried out by the Department could not have been the merger of two Wings i.e. Operational and Technical; however, quite surprisingly, the Respondent No. 2 has merely replicated their earlier act of merging the two Wings (which had been done by the Office Order dated 22.10.2014). Thus, it is clearly apparent that the action of the Respondent No. 2 in effecting the merger of the two Wings is wholly mala fide and is at the instance of the employees of the Operational Wing who are not competent to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the employees of the Technical Wing. The impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 is therefore liable to be set aside/quashed.
F. The impugned Order dated 04.05.2017 is also not sustainable for the reason the Respondent No. 2 has created a new composite post of Assistant Communication Officer (ACO) and Communication Officer (CO) besides specifying in the Order that a 15 days in-house training at all ISPW Stations may be conducted by the Station Superintendent to all technical and operational staff. It is respectfully submitted that no amount of training, much less 15 days period as stipulated, can be sufficient to make a Wireless Operator/Supervisor acquire the skill of a Technical person resulting into his ability/skill to maintain or repair wireless equipments as well as to do such allied tasks. This is so for the reason of the operational background of such employees, as they are merely performing a mechanical job of typing messages. Therefore, to bestow such a huge responsibility of a Technical person upon an Operational Staff would result in damaging the sophisticated equipment, and can even incur the risk of their lives through electrocution, etc. To the contrary, the persons working in the technical wing of the Respondent No. 2 like the present Applicants and their colleagues, would be called upon to perform menial jobs of typing work at ISPW Stations, which is not meant to be done by the technical workforce of the Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the functioning of the Respondent No. 2 would thus be seriously hampered resulting into causing an irreparable damage to the institution itself. It is not out of place to mention here that at the headquarters at New Delhi as well as ISPW Stations, round-the-clock communication is maintained with the aid of sophisticated equipments like Transmitters, Receivers, Modems and Indoor/Outdoor Units compatible and installed to establish high frequency communication and satellite communication in DCPW. It is submitted that a minutest of mistake due to lack of technical knowledge or experience may result into a serious situation, such as:-
a)Loss of human life due to electrocution in the network and circuits;
b)Damage to Government property;
c)Break in communication between state-to-state and headquarters (Delhi) which may result in absence of law and order.
Not only this, in the event of any unexpected technical fault in the equipments or their accessories, the same has to be rectified and restored within the earliest possible time which needs prompt technical decision to resolve by the technical staff only. It is unfathomable to imagine a operational staff deployed for the said purpose to do the aforesaid job without compromising the said work. In fact, even in the past, whenever a break in communication has been noted officially, and in the event of non-deployment of technical staff due to extreme shortage, the operational staff has miserably failed to rectify or repair even a minor fault. Therefore, in these circumstances, instead of this undesirable and non-feasible merger of the aforesaid wings, a cadre review/restructuring was the need of the hour in DCPW.”
The official respondents opposed the O.A and vehemently argued that DCPW had been established in 1946 and was responsible for round-the-clock police communication relating to law and order throughout the country through satellite-based and other modern communication channels. It had 31 Inter-State Police Wireless Stations at State capitals and Union Territories and also advised the Ministry of Home Affairs on frequency allocation, planning and coordination of police communications, training and distribution of wireless equipments. The respondents had explained that, after the Fifth Central Pay Commission, DCPW consisted of Operational, Maintenance, Store and Cipher cadres. They had pointed out that several promotional posts were already common between different cadres. In particular, the post of Extra Assistant Director was a common promotional post for the Operational, Maintenance and Store cadres. Similarly, Senior Supervising Officer, Senior Technical Assistant and Senior Technical Assistant (Store) were connected with feeder posts belonging to different cadres. The respondents had denied that the merger was arbitrary or that there was no similarity in the work performed by the Technical and Operational personnel. They had contended that the organisation had undergone technological changes and that modern communication equipment increasingly came with maintenance contracts under which outside companies were responsible for repair of sophisticated equipment. According to the respondents, this had created a need for multi-skilled personnel who could handle operational and minor maintenance functions. The merger was therefore stated to have been undertaken to improve functional efficiency and to address manpower shortages. The respondents had further submitted that the cadre review was not confined to merger. It had involved enhancement of promotional posts, changes in designations, revision of pay structures and restructuring of other cadres. The respondents stated that the exercise had been carried out pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal in OA No. 3692/2012 and OA No. 977/2013 and after consideration by a Cadre Review Committee. According to the official respondents, the delay in implementing the earlier Tribunal directions had occurred because the proposal required extensive deliberation and examination by different Ministries. During this period, contempt proceedings had also been initiated. C.P No. 552/2015 had been disposed of, while CP No. 503/2015 was stated to have remained pending. The earlier merger order dated 22.10.2014 had been kept in abeyance for administrative reasons, after which the cadre review had been undertaken afresh. The respondents also stated that the Cadre Review Committee had functioned under the Chairmanship of the Director, DCPW and included officers from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The proposal had subsequently received approval at the competent level and concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Training. The respondents therefore maintained that the impugned orders represented a considered administrative decision and not an arbitrary action. The respondents particularly relied upon the fact that there was no pecuniary loss to the applicants. Rather, the applicants and the Department were stated to have benefited from enhanced promotional avenues and attractive designations. The respondents therefore denied the allegation of mala fide. The respondents also explained that incumbents of the relevant posts had been provided common training courses at the Central Police Radio Training Institute and that the proposed Recruitment Rules contemplated additional communication training for the re-designated posts. Thus, according to the respondents, the apprehension that operational personnel would suddenly be required to undertake complex technical functions without training was unfounded.
To support his case, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs. Union of India, Appeal (Civil) Nos. 4679-4680 of 1996 and Appeal (Civil) No. 10983 of 1996, to contend that matters concerning constitution and pattern of cadres, nomenclature of posts, creation or abolition of posts, qualifications and conditions of service were essentially matters falling within the domain of the competent executive authority.
The interveners had also opposed the OA. They stated that the applicants belonged to the Operational/Technical structure which had undergone restructuring under the cadre review. They traced the history of the earlier litigation initiated by the Akhil Bharatiya Operational Staff Association in OA No. 3692/2012 and OA No. 977/2013. They pointed out that OA No. 3692/2012 had concerned promotional disparity in the Operational cadre and OA No. 977/2013 concerned fixation of separate promotional percentages for feeder cadres leading to the post of Extra Assistant Director. The interveners contended that these proceedings resulted in directions for cadre review/amendment of Recruitment Rules and that the subsequent cadre review had been undertaken in compliance with those directions. They stated that the departmental Cadre Review Committee had invited suggestions from the associations representing the different cadres, including the All India Technical Staff Association, Akhil Bharatiya Operational Staff Association and All India Cipher Staff Association. According to them, the committee had formulated its report and forwarded it to the Ministry of Home Affairs, after which the proposal had been considered and approved by the competent authorities. The interveners maintained that the cadre review had not merely merged two posts. It had introduced a comprehensive restructuring, including enhancement of promotional posts, change of designations and changes in sanctioned strength. They pointed out that the sanctioned strength of the Joint Assistant Director had been increased, the Communication Officer posts had been enhanced and the re-designated Assistant Communication Officer posts had been rationalised. They also emphasised that the higher promotional structure had historically been common between the cadres. According to them, Extra Assistant Director was a common promotional post for the Operational, Maintenance and Store cadres, while Senior Supervising Officer, Senior Technical Assistant and Senior Technical Assistant (Store) were linked to feeder posts in different cadres after the prescribed Grade-I courses. They therefore disputed the applicants' assertion that the cadres had always been completely separate and unrelated. They further submitted that modern communication equipment and maintenance arrangements had changed the functional requirements of DCPW. As per their submission, the Directorate increasingly required multi-skilled manpower capable of undertaking operational functions and minor maintenance work. They also relied upon manpower shortages, restrictions on recruitment and austerity measures as reasons for the restructuring. The interveners submitted that the Government possessed the power to create, merge, re-designate or abolish cadres and that the question before the Tribunal was not whether another structure could have been devised, but whether the decision actually taken was arbitrary or legally impermissible. They maintained that the applicants had failed to establish either. They therefore sought dismissal of the OA and had opposed interim relief, contending that cadre review was a policy decision of the administrative Ministry.
The applicants, in their rejoinder, had reiterated that the impugned orders dated 30.03.2017 and 04.05.2017 were unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary. They had disputed the assertion that Technical and Operational personnel could be clubbed merely because their pay scales had become similar. The applicants maintained that DCPW essentially comprised Technical and Operational Wings and that the duties and responsibilities of the two categories were materially different. They had again relied upon the difference in entry qualifications and recruitment rules and had contended that such differences demonstrated that the two categories could not be treated as interchangeable. They disputed the respondents' reliance on OA No. 3692/2012 and pointed out that they had not been parties to that proceeding. They also disputed the contention that separate promotional quotas had necessarily been required in the proportions suggested by the interveners. They relied upon Rule 5 of the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 22.12.1959 relating to seniority of promotees and promotion from more than one feeder grade. The applicants reiterated that the earlier committee had not recommended merger of the Technical and Operational Wings. They also contended that the respondents had not produced the complete committee report and had relied only upon selected extracts. They disputed the claim that technological developments or financial considerations justified the merger. The applicants maintained that the nature of functions discharged by the Technical Wing was specialised and non-interchangeable. They relied upon the judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130, and had submitted that the nature and duties of the posts, powers and responsibilities, minimum qualifications and salary were relevant considerations for determining equivalence. They also disputed the respondents' assertion that training would resolve the functional differences. According to the applicants, training could not replace the technical qualifications and specialised experience prescribed for the Technical Wing. They denied that the merger resulted in no prejudice. They maintained that it would affect seniority, promotional prospects, work allocation and the professional status of the Technical employees.
In the second rejoinder filed in response to the counter of the interveners, the applicants had reiterated that the impugned orders dated 30.03.2017 and 04.05.2017 were liable to be set aside. They denied that the applicants were more benefited than prejudiced by the cadre review. They also denied that the decision had been taken after proper consideration or merely in compliance with the orders passed in OA No. 3692/2012 and OA No. 977/2013. The applicants maintained that the earlier Tribunal proceedings did not authorise the respondents to merge cadres in any manner they considered appropriate. According to them, the directions in the earlier OAs had required cadre review/amendment of Recruitment Rules and could not be treated as an automatic direction to merge the Technical and Operational Wings. The applicants reiterated that there was no parity between the Operational and Maintenance/Technical cadres because induction was based upon different specialised educational qualifications, Recruitment Rules and training. They maintained that the technical capacity developed through service was different from the operational skill acquired by Operational personnel. The applicants also denied the contention that the 2008 committee or earlier departmental exercise supported the impugned merger. According to them, the earlier committee had specifically found that merger of the Operational and Maintenance Wings could not be recommended. They therefore submitted that the respondents had ignored material departmental material while passing the impugned orders. In relation to the respondents' assertion that the merger had resulted in enhanced promotional avenues, the applicants had disputed that assertion and maintained that the merger would adversely affect them. They reiterated the submissions contained in their earlier rejoinder and had sought allowance of the OA. The second rejoinder had ultimately maintained that the impugned orders were bad in law and liable to be set aside.
We have considered the pleadings of the applicants, the counter of the official respondents, the reply of the interveners and the rejoinders filed by the applicants. We had also examined the documents relied upon by the parties, including the Recruitment Rules, the earlier Tribunal proceedings, the Staff Inspection Unit material, the 2008 committee report, the order dated 22.10.2014, the order dated 12.03.2015, the order dated 15.02.2017 in OA No. 53/2015, the Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2017 and the consequential order dated 04.05.2017.
The central question which arose for consideration was whether the decision of the competent authorities to undertake cadre restructuring and to merge/re-designate the relevant Operational and Maintenance/Technical posts could be interfered with by this Tribunal merely because the applicants considered the earlier cadre structure preferable or because they considered the functions of the two cadres to be different. It was not in dispute that the applicants had been serving in the Technical Wing and that, before the impugned cadre review, the Operational and Maintenance cadres had separate entry-level qualifications and separate feeder structures. It was also not in dispute that certain higher posts had already been common promotional posts. The record showed, for example, that Extra Assistant Director was a common promotional post for Operational, Maintenance and Store cadres and that the feeder structure had already contemplated movement towards common higher posts. The existence of different qualifications at the entry level, therefore, could not by itself lead to the conclusion that the competent authority lacked jurisdiction to restructure the cadres at a later stage. Recruitment qualifications governed entry into service; they did not create an immutable right in the employees that the cadre structure could never subsequently be altered. We also found that the impugned order had not simply abolished the technical functions. It had undertaken a broader cadre review in which posts were re-designated, sanctioned strengths were modified and promotional avenues were altered. The Communication Cadre had been rationalised and the number of posts at different levels had been increased. The cadre review had also covered Cipher, Administration, Staff Car Driver and Despatch Rider cadres. Thus, the exercise could not reasonably be characterised as a simple device invented solely to deprive the applicants of their existing status. The applicants had placed considerable reliance upon the Staff Inspection Unit report of 2001 and the report of the committee constituted in 2008. Those materials were undoubtedly relevant to the historical development of the issue. However, the existence of an earlier recommendation or opinion did not permanently bind the competent authority from undertaking a subsequent cadre review in changed circumstances. The 2008 committee had considered the feasibility of merger at that point of time and the applicants had relied upon its conclusion that merger could not then be recommended. The record, however, showed that the subsequent cadre review had been undertaken several years later, after further technological developments, administrative consideration, manpower concerns and the intervening judicial proceedings. Therefore, the earlier report could not be treated as creating a perpetual prohibition against future restructuring. The applicants also relied upon the order dated 12.03.2015 by which the earlier merger order dated 22.10.2014 had been kept in abeyance. That order did not amount to a judicial declaration that merger of the cadres was impermissible. OA No. 53/2015 had subsequently been disposed of on 15.02.2017 because the earlier order had remained in abeyance, with liberty to the applicants therein to challenge the earlier order if it was later given effect to or to challenge any future order concerning the same subject. The subsequent order dated 04.05.2017 was therefore a fresh order passed after the cadre review process. It could not be treated as automatically invalid merely because an earlier order concerning merger had been kept in abeyance. The applicants had argued that the impugned order had not been preceded by a proper cadre review. We were unable to accept this contention. The record showed that a departmental Cadre Review Committee had been constituted, that the associations representing the different cadres had been invited to submit their views, and that the proposal had thereafter gone through the administrative and financial authorities before approval was conveyed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The interveners' pleadings also showed that the Technical, Operational and Cipher staff associations had participated in the process by submitting suggestions/proposals. The applicants had disputed the completeness and correctness of the respondents' description of the committee process. However, a dispute as to whether every representation of the applicants had received the weight they considered appropriate could not by itself establish legal mala fides or arbitrariness. The allegation of mala fide had also not been established. The applicants had alleged that vested interests in the Operational Wing had caused the merger and that the Department had been misled. These were serious allegations. However, no specific individual had been impleaded against whom personal mala fide had been established, nor had the applicants produced material sufficient to demonstrate that the competent authorities had acted for an extraneous purpose. The mere fact that a particular cadre benefited from a restructuring decision did not establish mala fide. Administrative restructuring frequently affected different groups differently. What was required was a rational basis for the decision, and the record disclosed administrative reasons relating to cadre restructuring, technological changes, manpower utilisation, promotional avenues and functional requirements. The argument based on the alleged absence of pecuniary loss also had to be considered. The respondents had stated that the cadre review had enhanced promotional opportunities and had provided new designations. The applicants disputed this. Even assuming that some applicants perceived the restructuring as detrimental to their professional status, such perception did not by itself confer a vested right to continuation of an existing cadre structure. The applicants had relied upon the principle that equivalence of posts depended upon factors such as nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications and pay. We accept that these were relevant considerations. However, that principle did not mean that a cadre could never be reorganised where posts had historically arisen under different Recruitment Rules. The principle was relevant for determining equivalence for particular service-law purposes; it did not deprive the Government of its administrative power to restructure cadres in accordance with changed organisational requirements.
We also considered the applicants' contention that the pay scales of the Operational and Technical posts had become equal and that such parity could not justify merger. This submission, in itself, was unexceptionable. Pay parity alone did not establish identity of duties. But the respondents had not relied solely upon pay parity. Their case was based upon the broader cadre review and the need for multi-skilled manpower, restructuring and improved utilisation of personnel. The applicants had expressed apprehension that operational personnel would be required to undertake complex technical work after only fifteen days of training. The respondents, however, had relied upon existing common training courses and proposed additional training under the restructured Recruitment Rules. The Tribunal is not in a position, on the pleadings before it, to substitute its own assessment of the adequacy of the training framework for that of the technical and administrative authorities entrusted with the functioning of DCPW. The applicants also argued that this could damage the sophisticated equipment, cause electrocution and disrupt police communication. These apprehensions could not be disregarded. However, the impugned cadre review did not by itself establish that every operational employee would be immediately assigned every specialised technical function without qualification, supervision or training. The respondents specifically stated that training arrangements were part of the restructuring process. We have further considered the applicants' submission regarding seniority and promotional prospects. The possibility that the integration of cadres might require fixation of seniority could not invalidate the cadre review itself. The respondents indicated that seniority in the merged posts would be regulated in accordance with the applicable instructions. Any individual dispute concerning actual fixation of seniority or promotion after implementation of the revised structure would constitute a separate cause of action and could be considered in appropriate proceedings, if such occasion arose. It was also significant that the applicants had not demonstrated that the impugned order had reduced their existing pay or taken away an accrued promotion. Their challenge was essentially to the organisational structure, designation and future implications of the restructuring. An employee did not ordinarily possess a vested right to insist that the Government should retain a particular cadre, nomenclature or organisational arrangement indefinitely.
The Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the respondents in P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs. Union of India (supra) had been cited for the proposition that matters concerning constitution and pattern of cadres, nomenclature of posts, their creation or abolition and prescription of qualifications and promotional conditions fell primarily within the executive domain. The respondents relied upon that principle in support of the proposition that cadre restructuring was essentially a policy matter. We are conscious that executive discretion in service matters are not absolute. If a cadre review had been shown to be contrary to a statutory rule, wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, actuated by mala fide or unsupported by any rational consideration, judicial review could certainly have been exercised. However, the burden in the present case was on the applicants to establish such a jurisdictional or legal defect.
On the material before us, the applicants have not discharged that burden. They have demonstrated that the Technical and Operational Wings had historically been distinct and that their entry qualifications and functions were different. They have also demonstrated that earlier committees had expressed reservations about merger at earlier points of time. But these facts do not establish that the competent authorities are legally prohibited from undertaking a later cadre review. The earlier proceedings in OA No. 3692/2012 and OA No. 977/2013 also did not support the applicants' case to the extent claimed by them. Those proceedings had resulted in directions concerning cadre review and promotional structure. The respondents had thereafter constituted a Cadre Review Committee and undertaken the exercise. The applicants might have preferred a different result, but preference for a different administrative solution was not a sufficient ground for judicial interference. We also did not find substance in the contention that the impugned order merely replicated the earlier order dated 22.10.2014. Though there were similarities in the broad concept of merger, the later cadre review had altered sanctioned strengths, designations and promotional structures and had extended to several cadres. It is therefore not appropriate to treat the 2017 exercise as nothing more than an unauthorised revival of the 2014 order. The fact that the applicants or their Association had not been parties to some of the earlier proceedings did not invalidate the subsequent cadre review. They had been given an opportunity to challenge the fresh orders dated 30.03.2017 and 04.05.2017 in the present OA, and their detailed pleadings and rejoinders had been considered. The RTI related contention also did not alter the result. The applicants had asserted that certain records relating to the 2002 pay scale upgradation and amended Recruitment Rules were not available. Even if some historical records were unavailable, that circumstance did not by itself render the 2017 cadre review illegal, particularly when the respondents had relied upon a fresh cadre review process and approvals obtained from the competent authorities. The applicants sought interference principally on the ground that the Tribunal should assess whether the merger was administratively desirable. That was not the proper scope of judicial review. The Tribunal was required to examine legality, procedural fairness and arbitrariness, and not to decide whether the applicants' preferred organisational model was better than the one approved by the Government.
In the present case, the decision had emanated from the competent administrative authorities. The record showed consideration by a departmental committee, consultation with the concerned associations, examination at the Ministry level and approval by the competent authorities. The decision had a noticeable administrative basis. There is no material before us establishing that the competent authority had acted without jurisdiction or for an extraneous purpose. We therefore hold that the applicants have failed to establish that the Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2017 and the consequential order dated 04.05.2017 suffer from any illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fide as would warrant interference under judicial review. The applicants also prayed for interim protection against operation of the order dated 04.05.2017. In view of the conclusion reached on the merits, no question of granting or continuing such interim relief survives.
For the reasons recorded above, we found no sufficient ground to quash the impugned Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2017 or the consequential order dated 04.05.2017. The challenge raised by the applicants therefore fails. The instant OA is devoid of merit; deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.