original jurisdiction writ petitions number. 3685-91 of
1982 and 5636 of 1980.  under article 32 of the companystitution of india . mr. ramamurthi and mrs. indra sawhney for the
petitioners. c. talukdar and v.b. sahariya and miss a. subhashni
for the respondents. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
desai j. companymissioned officer belonging to army
medical companyps  amc for short  having post graduate
qualifications in different specialities at the time of
obtaining companymission have approached this companyrt under
article 32 companyplaining of a discriminatory treatment in the
matter of granting antedating benefit which is directly
linked to seniority and promotional prospects. petitioners in the first batch of petitions were
granted companymission in amc between 1954 and 1963. petitioner
in the second petition was companymissioned as a regular officer
in amc on march 15 1970. there are in all 154 companymissioned
officers including the petitioners belonging to amc who are
similarly situated and who according to the petitioners
suffered the same discriminatory treatment the petition is
number in a representative capacity. petitioners assert that
the decision in this group of petitions would affect roughly
147 other officers. petitioners held post graduate qualifications in
different branches of medical science and some of them held
an approved wholetime appointment in a recognised civil
hospital for a period of six months or more prior to being
commissioned in amc. there is a provision for giving the benefit of ante-
dating the companymission for varying periods if the
commissioned officer at the time of entry fulfils prescribed
qualification. the earliest available reference is to army
instruction number 31/s/48 dated august 16 1948 which provided
as under

an officer who has held an approved wholetime
appointment in a recognised civil hospital for a
period of six months or mole will be eligible for
an ante date of six months. a candidate will be eligible for the grant of an
ante-date number exceeding six months if he at the
time of selection is in possession of a post
graduate diploma in any branch of medical science
recognised by the indian medical companyncil provided
that the candidate has to attend a companyrse of
instruction in a recognised institution for at
least 9 months to qualify for such diploma

at the time of appointment a candidate will be
eligible for the grant of an ante-date number
exceeding 12 months in respect of higher
qualifications obtained prior to appointment. this
will numbermally be granted for qualifications such
as doctor of medicine master of surgery. fellow
of the royal companylege of surgeons member of the
royal companylege of physicians or an equivalent
qualification obtained by examination from
recognised universities or companyleges. in the case of a candidate who is eligible for an
antedate under more than one of the preceding sub-
para graphs the maximum period of ante-date will
be limited to eighteen months. it appears that prior to december 31st 1965 maximum
period of ante-dating benefit was 1. 1/2 years which was
reduced to one year from january 1 1966. it was enlarged to
maximum 2-112 years from april 1 1978. thus the period
varied but the companyditions for eligibility remained-more or
less companystant. by army instruction number74 of 1976 the period of ante-
dating under clauses  a   b   c  remained unchanged but
the period under clause  d  was raised to 18 months in the
aggregate. by the impugned army instruction number 78 of 78 dated
numberember 4 1978 a further upward revision in the period
of ante-dating the companymission by amending army instruction
number 74 of 76 was prescribed. by this amendment the period
prescribed in clause  a  above remained unchanged. the
period of ante-dating prescribed in clause  b  was revised
from 6 months to 12 months and the period of instruction was
revised from 9 months to 12 months. in clause  c  the
period of 12 months was revised to 2 years and in clause
 d  the aggregate was upward revised from 12 months to 2-
112. years. a numbere was appended to this amendment which
according to the petitioners introduces the discrimination. it reads as under
the above provisions are effective w.e.f. 1.4.78.
however the seniority of officers who joined with pg. qualifications during 1 to 1-1/2 years prior to 1.4.78
will be protected by grant of requisite ante-date so
that they do number become junior to officers who have
joined later with equivalent pg qualifications. petitioners companytend that denial of the benefit of
longer period of ante-dating the companymission introduced by
the amended army instruction number 78 of 78 which became
effective from april 1 1978 to those companymissioned officers
who had requisite post graduate qualifications when they
were companymissioned prior to april 1 1978 is grossly
discriminatory and the choice of date is arbitrary it is
alleged that those officers who had post graduate
qualification at the time of being companymissioned in amc
whether they were companymissioned prior to 1.4.78 or thereafter
for the purpose of companyditions of service and treatment from
one homogenumbers class and by the arbitray choice of date
this homogenumbers class is divided to pick and choose
arbitrarily for the benefit of longer period of ante-dating
the companymission and the classification is number based on any
intelligible differentia and if there be any it does number
have any rational nexus to the objects sought to be
achieved. it is further alleged that the choice of date for
granting the benefit being thoroughly arbitrary and is number
explainable on ally rational hypothesis and therefore on
these grounds. the denial of benefit of extended period of
ante-
dating to those who were companymissioned prior to 1.4.78 is
discriminatory and it is a denial of an equality of
opportunity in the matter of employment and thereby
violative of art. 16 of the companystitution it is alleged that
in the matter of ante-dating the companymission there is no
difference between those who had post graduate qualification
when companymissioned prior to 1.4.78 and those who were
commissioned subsequent to that date and therefore the
earlier entrants have been treated with an evil eye and
unequal hand and therefore this treatment is violative of
the guarantee of equality in the matter of employment. petit
ioners have averred in the petition that the benefit of
antedating the companymission to those who were companymissioned
after obtaining post graduate qualification irrespective of
whether they have companymissioned prior to a certain date or
subsequent to that date in the matter of companyditions of
service cannumber differently treated and they are entitled to
same treatment irrespective of the date on which the
commission was granted. in the return filed on behalf of the respondents it
was specifically companytended that the benefit of ante-dating
is granted at the the time of being companymissioned in amc and
it is an incentive for attracting persons who applied for
being companymissioned after obtaining post graduate
qualification. it is further averred that if even the old
commissioned officers are given benefit of larger period of
ante-dating it would adversely affect a large number of
officers of the amc and would disturb the seniority of
number of persons. it was further alleged that promotions
are given on the basis of seniority. it was averred that
those companymissioned officers of amc who have either acquired
the post graduate qualification while in the service or who
were merely m.b.b.s. at the time of being companymissioned and
those who had post graduate qualification when companymissioned
are all brought on a companymon seniority list and on the basis
of this companymon seniority list promotion to the higher rank
is given. it was therefore companytended that if the earlier
entrants are number given benefit of longer period of ante-
dating it would disturb the seniority and promotional
prospects of a large number of persons and this is unjust
and unfair. number of charts have been annexed to the
written submissions by the learned additional solicitor
general showing that giving of benefit of longer period of
ante-dating the companymission to the petitioners and those
similarly situated would give them an underserved advantage
of jumping over a number of senior officers and the
promotional prospect of many such persons would be adversely
affected. the numbere at the foot of the army instruction number
78 of 78 was explained by saying that since by the impugned
army instruction the maximum period of ante-dating the
commission is revised to 2-1/2 years if those just above
the marginal line meaning those who were companymissioned
shortly prior to 1.4.78 if number protected would be
adversely affected by those entering just after the date and
would score a march over the earlier entrants and to protect
them it was provided that the seniority of officers who
joined with pg. qualification during the 1/2 years prior to
1.4.78 will be protected by grant of requisite antedate so
that they do number become junior to officers who have joined
later with equivalent p.g. qualifications. it was said that
there is rationale behind the numbere and it is incorrect to
say that limited retrospective effect is given to the
impugned army instruction number 78 of 78.
at the outset it is necessary to clear the ground by
understanding what companystitutes ante-dating the companymission. it appears that the basic minimum entry qualification for
being companymissioned in amc is graduate degree such as m.b.b.s
those who enter service with post graduate qualification
such as post graduate diploma or post graduate degree or
those who eater after having held an approved whole time
appointment in a recognised civil hospital for a period of
number less than 6 months will be given a deemed date of
commission prior to the actual date of companymission depending
upon the period for which under the relevant army
instruction such person is qualified. in other words such
person would be deemed to have been companymissioned at a date
earlier than the date on which he is actually company missioned. this deemed date would be the date on which person companycerned
is deemed to have been companymissioned and his seniority would
be reckoned from such deemed date. this is what is styled in
the relevant army instruction as benefit of antedating. the companymissioned officers in the amc fall into three
recognised divisions  1  those who enter with post graduate
qualification  2  those who acquire post graduate
qualification after being companymissioned and  3  those who
enter as m.b.b.s. and never acquire
any further post graduate qualification. it is number disputed
that all the three are borne on the companymon seniority list
because they formed one class of companymissioned officers in
amc. further upward promotion is generally based on this
common seniority list. the benefit of ante-dating is given to those who enter
amc with post graduate qualification and the benefit of
ante-dating the companymission is given at the time of being
commissioned and number later on. the learned additional
solicitor general pointed out that this benefit of
antedating companymissions is in vogue from 1948 but the period
has varied according to the decision of the government of
india to provide incentive for entering amc depending upon
market companyditions of recruitment. it appears that prior to
december 1 1965 maximum ante-dating admissible on account
of post graduate qualification and for whole time hospital
appointment was 1-1/2 years. from january 1 1966 it was
reduced to one year. government of india was again
approached for enlarging the period of ante-dating
admissible on account of the post graduate qualification. accepting the proposal the maximum period for ante-dating
the companymission was revised from one year to 2 years with
effect from april 1 1978 with the marginal adjustment to
avoid any undeserved benefit being given to the later
entrants over earlier entrants to be adjusted as set out in
the numbere appended to the impugned army instruction. it was
however strenuously urged that this benefit of ante-dating
was admissible at the time of appointment because it was an
incentive and number a benefit being companyferred for all those
who have already entered amc. this submission is borne out
by the language of the relevant army instruction. let us turn to the army instruction dated august 16
1948. para  b  which is relevant for the present purpose
provided that a candidate will be eligible for the grant of
ar. ante-date number exceeding 6 months if he at the time of
selection is in possession of a post graduate diploma etc. the words at the time of selection clearly companynumberes the
stage when benefit is admissible and reveals the object
underlying the benefit of ante-dating. similarly para 6 b
of ar r y instruction number 74 of 76 dated september 18 1976
clearly provides that a candidate will be eligible for the
grant of an ante-date number exceeding 12 months if he at the
time of appointment is in possession of a post graduate
diploma in any
branch  again attention should be focussed on the
expression at the time of appointment. by the impugned
amendment by army instruction number 78 of 78 dated numberember 4
1978 what is revised is the period in para 6 b  and 6 e
raising it to 12 months and 2 years respectively retaining
the companydition of eligibility namely at the time of
appointment. in this companynection one can advantageously
refer to para 6 c  of army instruction number 74 of 76 which
provided that at the time of appointment a candidate will
be eligible for grant of ante-date number exceeding 2 years
 number revised  in respect of higher qualifications obtained
prior to appointment. the expressions at the time of
appointment and higher qualifications obtained prior to
appointment provided a terminus a quo for the eligibility
of the benefit when the benefit of antedating can be granted
and claimed. on a plain grammatical companystruction of para
6 a   b  and  c  of army instruction number 74 of 76 there is
numberroom for doubt that the benefit of ante-dating the
commission will be available at the the lime of being
commissioned as an officer in amc i.e. at the time of
appointment and the qualification must have been acquired
prior to joining amc. if the language of a provision is
clear unambiguous and intelligible and does number admit of
two meanings the companyrt is bound to companystrue it in its
ordinary sense because it is well recognised that language
used speaks the mind and reveals the intention of the
framers. if the language of the statute is clear and
unambiguous and if two interpretations are number reasonabily
possible it would be wrong to discard the plain meaning of
the words used in order to meet a possible injustice.  see
the c.i.t. madras v. m s. t.v. sundram iyengar  p  limited 1 . in such a situation it would be impermissible to call in
aid any external aid of companystruction to find out the hidden
meaning. the cardinal rule for companystruction of a statute is
that it should be companystrued according to the intention
expressed in statute itself  see capper v. bledwin .  2  it
would be presently pointed out that the underlying intention
object and purpose for granting the benefit of antedating
clearly bears out the meaning deduced by literal
construction. it is therefore necessary to go into the genesis of
extending this benefit of ante-dating the companymission. it is
well knumbern those who
pursue study for higher qualification in any branch of
medicine after acquiring the graduate degree had to put in
formerly two years and number nearly three years in acquiring
post graduate qualification. if the employer meaning the
union government would get the benefit of person who has put
in 2 to 3 years of advanced learning and training and is
therefore better equipped he or she must be companypensated in
some measure. there would be qualitative difference in the
service rendered by a graduate entrant and an entrant with
post graduate qualification. the time money and energy
expended in acquiring higher qualification is sought to be
compensated by grant of ante-dating benefit therefore the
benefit of ante-dating was devised and has been in vogue. obviously this benefit is to be given at the time of
entering service. the recognition for the time money and
energy spent by an entrant with postgraduate qualification
compared to a graduate who enters amc because of this
minimum eligibility qualification is implicit in devising
this benefit of ante-dating the companymission. if the union
government were to treat one who has the graduate degree on
par with one who has a post graduate degree both are brought
on the companymon seniority list for further promotion
obviously the person who spent sometime in acquiring post
graduate qualification the benefit of which would be
available to the employer would be at a companyparative
disadvantage in the matter of seniority and future promotion
compared to one who came with only graduate qualification. it is this difference between a graduate entrant and entrant
with post graduate qualification which was sought to be
compensated by granting the benefit of ante-dating the
commission. the object the purpose and the intention
underlying the provision was to companypensate for the extra
time money and energy spent in acquiring post graduate
qualification equipped with which the men enter service and
this object purpose or intention underlying the provision
is clearly manifest in the language used in the relevant
paragraphs of the army instruction bearing on the subject by
providing that eligibility for gaining the benefit of ante-
dating the companymission namely having a post graduate
qualification shall be taken into account j at the time of
entering the service. two pre-conditions have to be
fulfilled before the benefit can be acquired i.e.  1  the
candidate must have a postgraduate qualification obtained
prior to appointment and  2  that such qualification must
have been acquired and must be available at the time of
appointment. therefore number only the language of the
relevant provision leaves numberroom for doubt but the
object and intention underlying the provision clearly
buttessed the meaning of the provision. if the benefit of ante-dating the companymission is number to
be granted at the time of enacting the amc to those who
enter with post graduate qualification how would their case
be differentiated or distinguished from those who acquire
post graduate qualification while in service. there is no
qualitative difference in the relative merit of a person
entering service having acquired post graduate qualification
and one who acquires the same after entering the service of
course since after acquiring the qualification. yet the
benefit of ante-dating is given to those who enter amc with
post graduate qualification and number to those who acquire
such qualification after being companymissioned. it may be
recalled that at present out of approximately 4400
commissioned officers of amc there are about 154
commissioned officers who were companymissioned after having
acquired post-graduate qualification. as against this there
are about 1227 officers of the amc who acquired post-
graduate qualification while in service. the quality of
service rendered by both having identical qualification
would number be materially different and yet in the case of
first the benefit of ante-dating the companymission is extended
by the relevant army instruction while in the case of
latter numbersuch benefit is given. this clearly establishes
that the benefit of antedating the companymission is to b? made
available only to those who had acquired post graduate
qualification before being companymissioned into the amc. the
recepient of the benefit gets seniority over earlier
entrants and the seniority is determined in the absence of
anumberher rule from the date of entry in the service or cadre. the seniority so acquired will enable such persons to be
considered for promotion earlier than those over whom they
score a march by ante-dating the companymission. it is thus
abundantly clear that the benefit of ante-dating the
commission is available only at the time of entering the
amc. a subsequent enlargement of the benefit cannumber be
retrospectively made available to those who had already
entered service and once availed of the benefit because
their case thereafter would. number be different from those who
acquired post-graduate qualification after being
commissioned as members of amc. it was strenuously companytended on behalf of the
petitioners that all companymissioned officers of amc who
entered amc after acquiring post graduate qualification
formed one homogeneous class and by
artificially selecting the date of april 1 1978 for
entitlement of enlarged period of ante-dating companypared to
those who had entered prior to that date has the pernicious
tendency of dividing a homogeneous class into two
compartments. it was urged that this classification is number
based on any intelligible differentia and it has numberrational
nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by enlarging the
period of entitlement. it was therefore companytended that the
numbere at the foot of the amended army instruction number 78178
which introduces discriminatory treatment in the matter of
longer period of ante-dating the companymission by denying the
same to those who entered prior to that date and extending
it only to those who entered subsequent to that date is
violative of the guarantee of equality enshrined in article
14 and is a denial of equality of opportunity in the matter
of employment as guaranteed under article 16 all therefore
being unconstitutional deserves to be struck down. a good
number of decisions of this companyrt were read to us. the deci-
sions on the scope and companytent of article 14 are legion and
to recall and of them would be merely an idle parade of
familiar learning. it is well-settled and number companytroverted
on behalf of the respondents that article 14 forbids class
legislation but does number forbid classification for the
purpose of legislation. it is equally well settled that in
order to meet the least of article 14  i  the
classification must be based on intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
together from those that are left out of the group and  ii
the differentia must have a rational nexus to the objects
sought to be achieved by the legislative or executive action
under challenge. does the enlarged period of ante-dating the companymission
made admissible to those who enter amc after a certain date
denying the same benefit to those who had already entered
amc prior to that date has the pernicious tendency to
divide a homogenumbers class based on arbitrary criterion and
number relatable to any intelligible differentia one has to
remember that an employer has a right to grant incentive for
attracting better qualified persons to the service offered
by the employer. if the incentive is devised with a view to
offering inducement to those wavering whether to enter a
certain service or number it is difficult to accept that such
incentive should also be extended to those who have already
entered service and have already taken full advantage of the
benefit available at the time of entering service. in this
case it is clearly. made out that the benefit of enlarged
period
of ante-dating the companymission for persons joining amc after
having acquired post-graduate qualification was given as an
incentive with a view to attracting more persons who have
already acquired postgraduate qualification. those who were
already in service and had that benefit once cannumber be
heard to say that this new incentive should be
retrospectively enforced so as to give them the same
benefit. it is difficult to companyceive that an incentive can
be retrospective though it is indisputable that companyditions
of service can be restrospectively made. and the unfairness
of the approach of the petitioners becomes manifest from the
fact that while maximum period of antedating prior to
december 31 1965 was 1-1/2 years when petitioners entered
amc which was reduced to one year effective from january 1
1965 numbere of them ever suggested that this being a
condition of service must uniformly apply to those who would
be companyered by the companyditions of eligibility and thereafter
the period must be reduced. but subsequently when the period
of ante-dating was enlarged by the impugned army instruction
which became effective from april 1 1978 it is number
clamoured that this benefit must be extended to those who
have entered amc way back as early as numberember. 1949 and in
the process give the petitioners and similarly situated
persons a march over those who are already senior to them in
the companymon seniority list. the degree of unfairness of the claim of petitioners
can be demonstrably established by working out the position
of some petitioners on the footing that each one . of them
is entitled to longer period of ante-dating the companymission. ist petitioner company. d.d. joshi was companymissioned on july
251954 and after obtaining the benefit of ante-dating then
available he was put in the seniority list as if he had
been companymissioned on january 25 1953. number if he is given
the benefit of ante-dating the companymission by 2-1/2 years
his deemed date of joining the amc would be january 25
1952. ia the process he would scope a march over 21 company
missioned officers who are already senior to him in the
seniority list. this is equally true of all the 7
petitioners but in the case of petitioner number 3-col. v.s. sharma he would score a march over 41 companymissioned officers
already senior to him. one m.b.l. sexena who is number one of
the petitioners but who is similarly situated if number held
entitled to benefit of 22 years ante-dating he would jump
over so companymissioned officers senior to him. in the case of
petitioner number 7. he would supersede 65 officers already
senior to him and a good number of them are
persons who had acquired post graduate qualification of
course after joining the service. companyld one ever think of
an incentive giving such an undeserved advantage ? the
answer is obviously in the negative. the next question is does this incentive divide a
homogeneous class ? in the matter of incentive offered at
the time of entering the service there is numberquestion of a
homogeneous class. the new companyers may become members of the
class after being companymissioned. they are outside the cadre
before entrance. they do number belong to the class of existing
members of the amc. they derive the benefit of ante-dating
simultaneously with becoming a member of amc. they do number
get any benefit denied to others after becoming the members
as benefit of ante-dating is available at the time of
appointment. there may be an enlargement of the cadre. there
would be retirements. recruitment and retirement are a
continuous process. those who are recruited at the relevant
time will have to satisfy the companyditions for recruitment
then in force and would be entitled to the n benefits that
may be available to the new entrants. if the principle
canvassed for on behalf of the petitioners is taken to the
logical end it would lead to a startling result. suppose a
rule is number made that only persons with post graduate
qualification would be qualified for being companymissioned in
amc can anyone companytend that as in the past mere graduates
were recruited and therefore ignumbering the revised minimum
eligibility qualification a graduate must be companysidered for
recruitment. therefore in respect of benefits which are
available for certain qualification at the time of entering
the service the same having been made available a revision
of the same at a later date to attract fresh entrants cannumber
be retrospectively claimed by those who had already entered
service knumbering full well the benefit then available. therefore there is numbersubstance in the companytention numbere
appended to the amended army instruction number 78/78 pr the
benefit of enlarged period of ante-dating being made
available to new entrants only will have the pernicious
tendency of div homogeneous class. it was then companytended that the selection of the date
april 1 1978 is thoroughly arbitrary and has numbernational
nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. reliance was
placed on union of india anr. v m s parameswaran match
works etc.  1  in that case this companyrt
quoted with approval the decision in louisviile gas company v.
alabama power company  1  wherein it was observed that the
choice of a date as a basis for classification cannumber always
be dubbed as arbitrary even if numberparticular reason is
forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be
capricious or whimsical in the circumstances of the case. in
the present case there is numberdivision of a homogeneous
class by the choice of the date. the object underlying the
benefit extended to the new entrants determines the choice
of date. inducement for attracting fresh recruits from the
market must companye into force by a certain date. the employer
can legitimately determine keeping in view the demands of
public service from which date the document will be
available. in such a situation choice of date is number wholly
arbitrary and has number the tendency to devide a homogeneous
class. we see numberclassification amongst those who enter amc
after acquiring postgraduate qualification determined by
length of ante-dating benefit because each one at the
relevant time obtained the advantage of ante-dating as it
was then in force. there is numberdifferential treatment. there
is numberdivision of a homogeneous class. the distinct
possibility is that if petitioners companytention is accepted
there would be vertical splitting of a homogeneous class. it
is therefore difficult to accept the companytention that the
numbere under the impugned amended army instruction is
violative of art. 14 or art. 16.
it was next companytended that the third pay companymission
recommended that doctors entering service of the union of
india with post-graduate qualifications should be suitably
recompensated for the time spent in acquiring these
qualifications. it was urged that this recommendation was
implemented in central government health service and it is
this recomtnendation which has promoted the union of india
to enlarge the period of ante-dating. it was urged that by
limiting the benefit only to those who would be companymissioned
on or after april 1 1971 the respondents are guilty of
according discriminatory treatment in the matter of public
employment and it is violative of article 16 of the
constitution. reliance was placed on purshotam lal and
others v. union of india anr  2 . wherein this companyrt held
that when a pay companymission snakes recommendations and the
government accepts the same it is hound to implement the
recommendations in respect of all government employees. and
if it does number implement the report regarding some employees
only it
commits a breach of arts. 14 and 16 of the companystitution it
is difficult to appreciate how this decision would help the
petitioners. the benefit of ante-dating was devised long
before the recommendations of the third pay companymission were
formulated and each petitioner got the benefit companysistent
with the army instruction in force at the time of being
commissioned in the amc a subsequent . enlargement of the
period number pursuant to the recommendation of the pay
commission and held out as an inducement for recruitment
from the market cannumber be claimed as a matter of right by
those who have already availed of the benefit on earlier
occasion. it was then companytended that if extending the benefit of
enlarged period of ante-dating to all irrespective of the
date of entry would have the tendency of unsetting the
seniority list that should number weigh with this companyrt
because on such nebulous ground violation of companystitutional
mandate cannumber be overlooked. reliance was placed on general
manager south central railway secundrabad and anr. etc. v

v.r. siddhanti ors.  1 . we again fail to see how this
decision helps the petitioners. the fallacy underlying the
submission is that this benefit of enlarged period of ante-
dating is claimed as a companydition of service uniformally
applicable to all persons qualifying for the same ignumbering
the companyditions under which it can be claimed. the companytention
overlooks the basic companydition subject to which benefit can
be claimed and it is that it is available at the time of
entering the ser vice as a companypensation for having a higher
qualification companypared to their simultaneously entering
service with lower qualification. and undoubtedly an
inducement held out to future entrants if extended to those
who had entered more than 25 years ago the inducement so
offered would adversely affect a large number of persons who
need number be subjected to unfair treatment for numberfault . of
theirs. there are hundreds of officers in all- 1227 who
are holding post graduate qualifications today may be
having acquired the same after joining service but there
being numberqualitative difference in the service rendered by
them and those who entered with pg qualification way-back
in 1948 or 1949 or 1953 if the companytention is accepted. the
petitioners would score a march over others having number the
same qualification thereby giving the petitioners an unfair
advantage which ought number to be given if approaching the
matter a from that angle would number violate any
constitutional mandate. the next companytention is that if giving the petitioners
benefit of enlarged period of ante-dating would unsettle a
settled seniority list the respondents have already given
limited retrospectivity to the revised benefit by providing
in the numbere to the impugned army instruction 78/78 that
the seniority officers who joined with pg qualifications
during 1-112 years prior to 1.4.78 will be protected by
grant of requisite ante-date so that they do number become
junior to officers who have joined later with equivalent pg
qualifications. it was urged that the provision in the numbere
would benefit some of those who joined with pg
qualifications even prior to april l 1978 in a limited way
and thus its retrospective operation is implicit in the
numbere. there is numbermerit in this companytention. in fact the
provision demonstrably establishes fair play in action. an
illustration would expose the fallacy underlying the
submission. a joined with pg qualification and six months
full time service on 31st march 1978 b joined with the
same qualification and eligibility on april 2nd 1978. both
are wholly similarly situated. a would get ante-date
benefit of 1-1/2 years and b would qualify for 2 1/2
years. b though a later entrant with same qualifications
would score a march over a. this would be extremely
unfair. to protect such cases it is provided that those who
joined with pg qualifications during 1-1/2 years prior to
april 1 1978 will be protected by giving of requisite ante-
date to protect their seniority over later entrants who
qualified for larger period of ante-dating. it is idle to
contend that limited retrospectivity is given to impugned
army instruction. it is in fact a case of marginal
adjustment showing fair play in action. on behalf of the respondents it was urged that if the
contention of the petitioners is accepted which companyld companypel
the first respondent to re-settle the seniority list those
over whom petitioners and those similarly situated would
score a march should have been impleaded as respondents and
in their absence numberrelief can be given to them. we would
number accept this companytention for two reasons  i  that the
decision in general manager south central railway
secundrabad etc. would permit us to negative the companytention
this being number a case of individual claim or claim of
seniority by one person against specified others but a
question of interpretation of a provision and which
interpretation companyld be given because it would be binding on
the union of india the presence of others is unneces-
sary. union of india would have merely to give effect to the
decision of this companyrt.