1. Dispute regarding promotion of diploma holder Assistant Engineers to Executive Engineer under the 1954 Rules and the validity of a proviso requiring outstanding ability and record. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 42
1997(2) Supreme 497
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
J.N. Goel & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5363 of 1990
With
Civil Appeal No. 5364 of 1990
Decided on 14-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S.B. Wad, N.N. Goswamy, Ms. Shyamla Pappu, Sr. Advocates, J.P. Gupta, P.D. Sharma, Sohan Lal, G.K. Aggrawal, P.P. Tripathi, Anis Ahmad Khan, Y.P. Mahajan, V.K. Verma, S.N. Terdol, M.R. Krishnamurthi, Pramod Sharma, and R.C. Kaushik, Advocates.
Important Points
The Court held that educational qualifications are a valid basis for classification for promotion. The requirement of 'outstanding ability and record' for diploma holder Assistant Engineers to be promoted to Executive Engineers is not arbitrary or discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Subject
Employment Law - Promotion
Act Referred
CENTRAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL GROUTTAR PRADESHA SERVICE RULES: .
CENTRAL ENGINEERING SERVICE GROUTTAR PRADESHA RECRUITMENT RULES: R.21(3)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.16, Art.14
CENTRAL ENGINEERING SERVICE GROUTTAR PRADESHA RECRUITMENT RULES: R.21(3)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.16, Art.14
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Central Engineering Service Group A Recruitment Rules, 1954-Rule 21(3), Proviso, as it stood prior to amendment of 1972-Validity of-Promotion to cadre of Executive Engineer from amongst graduate Assistant Engineers-Proviso enabled a diploma holder Assistant Engineer to be promoted if he had outstanding ability and record -Whether suffers from vice of arbitrariness ?-(No)-Criterion of outstanding ability and record prescribed by proviso cannot be regarded as vague or arbitrary-Regularisation of diploma holder Assistant Engineers who are working as Executive Engineers on ad hoc basis against vacancies which occurred after promulgation of 1996 Rules will have to be made in accordance with provisions of 1996 Rules. (Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (Department of Urban Development) Central Engineering (Electrical and Mechanical) Group "A" Service Rules, 1996). (Paras 10 & 11)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether restricting promotion to graduates or requiring outstanding ability for diploma holders violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 3 , 8 )
3. Educational qualifications are a valid basis for classification in promotions; failure to properly implement a merit-based proviso does not render the rule itself arbitrary or discriminatory. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Classification for promotion based on educational qualifications is permissible to ensure administrative efficiency, and merit-based relaxations for lesser-qualified candidates are not inherently arbitrary. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Tribunal judgment modified; promotions prior to 1996 Rules governed by 1954 Rules, and ad hoc promotions to be reviewed and regularized accordingly. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Can educational qualifications be used as a basis for classification in promotions?
Yes. The court held that classification based on variant educational qualifications is not unjust for promotion to higher posts, as higher mental equipment is often necessary to achieve administrative efficiency in specialized services. (Para 9 )
7. Does the failure of a Departmental Promotion Committee to correctly apply a merit-based criterion invalidate the underlying rule?
No. The failure to properly implement a proviso—such as requiring outstanding ability and record—makes individual promotions open to challenge but does not render the rule itself arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16. (Para 10 )
8. Is a requirement of outstanding ability and record for promotion of lesser-qualified candidates considered arbitrary?
No. Outstanding merit is a well-recognized concept in service jurisprudence for selection posts. Such assessments based on the record of performance of the employee are not vague or arbitrary. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
S.C. Agrawal, J.-These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in O.A. No. 704 of 1988 and O.A. No. 910 of 1989. The appeals relate to promotion of Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineer in the Central Public Works Department (for short the C.P.W.D. ), of the Government of India.
2. In the C.P.W.D. Assistant Engineers are appointed by direct recruitment as well as by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers. The cadre of Assistant Engineers consists of graduates holding a degree in Engineering as well as holders of diploma in Engineering. Recruitment in the post of Executive Engineer was earlier governed by the Central Engineering Service Group A Recruitment Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Rules ). Under the 1954 Rules appointment to the post of Executive Engineer was being made by promotion of Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers. The promotion of Assistant Engineers as Executive Engineers was governed by Rule 21(3) of the 1954 Rules which provided as follows :
"Rule 21(3). No Assistant Engineer shall be eligible for promotion to the service, unless he :
(a) would, but for age, be qualified for admission to the competitive examination under Part III of these rules.
(b) has rendered at least three years service in a permanent or temporary capacity as an Assistant Engineer and subordinate under the Central Government, and
(c) satisfied the commission that he is in every respect suitable for appointment to the service."
In view of sub-clause (a) of Rule 21(3) only graduate Assistant Engineers were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer because the qualification prescribed for recruitment by Competitive Examination under Rule 11 (falling in Part-II of the 1954 Rules) was "a degree in Engineering from a University incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legislature in India, or any other educational institution established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as Universities under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, or a foreign University approved by the Government from time to time, or a qualification which has been recognised by the Government for the purposes of admission to the competitive examination". Execution instructions were, however, issued in 1956 for promotion of diploma holder Assistant Engineers as Executive Engineers on ad hoc basis. This practice of promoting diploma holder Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis continued for a considerable time. A Writ Petition (C.W.P. 818 of 1972) was filed by one C.P. Gupta, a decree holder Assistant Engineer, in the Delhi High Court wherein the action of the Government in promoting diploma holder Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis was challenged. The said Writ Petition, which was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and registered as T-52 of 1985, was decided by the Tribunal, by judgment dated December 19, 1986, whereby it was held that administrative instructions could not override the statutory provisions of the 1954 Rules and that promotions made on the basis of administrative instructions, being contrary to the statutory rules, were invalid. During the pendency of the said petition, the following proviso was inserted in sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 of the 1954 Rules by Notification dated October 31, 1972 :
"Provided that Government in consultation with the Commission may promote an Assistant Engineer of outstanding ability and record, to Group A service in relaxation of the educational qualifications provided in clause (a)."
3. After the insertion of the said proviso promotions of diploma holder Assistant Engineers were being made on the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis under the said proviso. Feeling aggrieved by such promotion the graduate Assistant Engineers filed an
