Balakrishna Eradi, J. - (1.)In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners - 31 in number - who are all officers serving in the Aviation Research Centre (for short, the 'ARC') have challenged the constitutionality of Rules 6 to 8 of the "Aviation Research Centre (Technical) Services Rules, 1976" issued by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309, of the Constitution as also the legality and validity of the "absorption" of respondents Nos. 8 to 67 in the said Department pursuant to the impugned Rules. There is a further prayer in the writ petition to declare the Seniority List dated November 6, 1978 (Annexure 'G') published by the Department as illegal, unconstitutional and void yet another relief claimed by the petitioners is that all the promotions granted to respondents Nos. 8 to 67 in the ARC service from 1968 till 1978 should be declared by this Court as illegal and void, and that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should be issued to respondents Nos. 1 to 7 - the Union of India, the Cabinet Secretary, the Director of Department of Personnel, the Director General of Security, the Director of ARC and the Adviser (Technical), A. R. C., respectively - to constitute the ARC afresh in accordance with law and to rearrange the seniority in the Service in conformity with law.
(2.)The petitioner's case is that shortly after the formation of the ARC in 1963 the petitioners were directly recruited to the said department on a regular basis during the period between 1963 and 1966 in the category of Assistant Central Intelligence Officers Grade-II, (which has since been redesignated as Deputy Field Officer (Tech.) (for short DFO) under the impugned Rules while respondents Nos. 8 to 67 are officers whose services have been borrowed on deputation to 'the ARC from some Departments of Central Government and from the Police Cadre of State Governments. The petitioners contend that by virtue of their regular appointments in the ARC, they were, as of right entitled to be promoted to the higher posts of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, Grade-I - now called the Field Officer (Tech.) - Deputy Central Intelligence Officer (Tech.)/Assistant Technical Officer subject only to the right of the Department to supersede those found unsuitable for such promotions. However, instead of promoting the petitioners to the vacancies that arose in such higher categories of posts, the Department filled up those vacancies by granting promotions to the deputationists, thereby illegally denying to the petitioners the opportunities legitimately due to them for promotion in the Department. It is contended by the petitioners that the deputationists were occupying the posts in the Department only on ad hoc basis and such ad hoc appointees who were having the benefit of lien in their parent departments and were getting promotions in those departments had no claim whatever to seniority or promotions in the borrowing Department, namely, the ARC. On this basis the petitioners have raised a challenge in this writ petition against the legality of the various promotions given to respondents Nos. 8 to 67 in the year 1968 and thereafter.
(3.)A draft combined seniority list of Assistant Central Intelligence Officers Grade-II (Tech.) working in the ARC was published in March 1971 (Annexure 'A'), wherein the officers on deputation as well as those who are directly recruited in the ARC had all been included and the seniority of the deputationists had been fixed by taking into account the total length of service put in by them in the rank of ACIO in their parent departments as well as in the ARC. According to the petitioners, the said list had ben prepared in violation of the principle that the same period of service of a Government servant cannot be legally considered twice over for service benefits in two Departments, namely the Parent department and the borrowing department.