1998 Supreme(SC) 637

1998(5) Supreme 155
Supreme Court of India
(From M.P. Administrative Tribunal)
S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Dharam Bir -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7333-7334 of 1995
Decided on 8-6-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. Madhur Dadlani, S.K. Agnihotri, Ashok K. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : K. Swami, A. Raghunath and Ms. Prabha Swami, Advocates.

Important Point
Reading Rules 13 and 14 of M.P. Industrial Training (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 along with Schedule IV and Column (5) of Sched­ule III, it becomes clear that in order to be eligible for promotion to the post of Princi­pal, Class II, the officer concerned should not only have put in 3 years of service but should also possess a degree/diploma in Engineer­ing as provided in Column (5) of Schedule III and such qualification is applicable not only to direct recruitment but also to appointment by promotions.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Art. 309 -M.P. Industrial Training (Gazet­ted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985-Rules 8(2), 13 and 14, Sche­dule IV r/w Schedule III, Co­lumn (5)-Principal-Promotion to post of - Eligibility - Degree/dip­loma in Engineering with 3 years service as Group Instructor/Techni­cal/Assistant/Junior Adviser-Man­datory for both direct recruits as well as promotees.

       Held : It is specifically mentioned in Schedule IV that Group Instructor/ Technical Assistant/Junior Adviser etc. who have completed 3 years of service would be eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, Class II. The requirement does not stop here. It proceeds further to say, “provided they possess the technical and educational qualification specified in Column (5) of Schedule III”. Reading Rules 13 and 14 along with Schedule IV as also Column (5) of Schedule III, it becomes apparent that in order to be eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, Class II, the officer concerned should not only have put in 3 years of service but should also possess the technical and educational qualification set out in Column (5) of Schedule III, namely, that they should have either a Degree or Diploma in Engineer­ing. Column (5) of Schedule III which prescribes educational qualifi­cations for direct recruitment thus becomes a part of Schedule IV on the principles of “legislation by reference or incorporation”. These qualifications will, therefore, be applicable not only to direct recruitment but also to promotions. Schedule IV also indicates that Group Instructor/Technical Assis­tant/Junior Adviser Apprenticeship/Mill Wright Foreman, Superintendent, Technical who do not possess Degree or Diploma in Engineering will be eligible only for promotion to the post of Vice-Principal provided that they have put in 10 years of service. (Paras 16 & 17)

       Admittedly, the respondent does not possess either a Degree or Diploma in Engineering. He possesses Diploma in Craft and consequently was not eligible for promotion to the post of Principal, Class II or Class I. The Tribunal failed to notice the relevant provisions of the Service Rules in their true perspective and proceeded to allow the claim of the respondent on an erroneous view that the requirement of possessing a Degree or Diploma cannot be applied to appointments by way of promotion. (Paras 19 & 20)

       It is next contended that the Rules would apply to a situation where the post was lying vacant and was intended to be filled up after the promulgation of the Rules. It is also contended that having worked on the post of Principal since 1976, he cannot be shifted to the post of Vice-Principal after such a long period of dedicated service on the higher post. These contentions are devoid of merit. It is not disputed that the respondent was promoted to the post of Principal, Class II for a short period of six months or till the availability of candidates duly selected by the Commission, whichever was earlier. It is also not disputed and the Tribunal itself has found it as a fact that the respondent was placed on the post of Principal only in an ad hoc capacity. Consequently, the post, having not been filled up on a regular basis in accordance with the Rules, was rightly treated by the appellant to be vacant. That being so, the respondent had only ad hoc status which he would continue to hold till it was altered by the specifically envisaged provision in the statutory rules. (Paras 22 & 23)

       Held further : The plea that the Court should have a “human approach” and should not disturb a person who has already been working on this post for more than a decade also cannot be accepted as the Courts are hardly swayed by emotional appeals. In dispensing justice to the litigating parties, the Courts not only go into the merits of the respective cases, they also try to balance the equities so as to do complete justice between them. Thus the Courts always maintain a human ap­proach. In the instant case also, this approach has not been departed from. We are fully conscious that the respondent had worked on the post in question for quite a long time but it was only in ad hoc capacity. We are equally conscious that a selected candidate who also possesses necessary educational qualification is available. In this situation, if the respondent is allowed to continue on this post merely on the basis of his concept of “human approach”, it would be at the cost of a duly selected candidate who would be deprived of employment for which he had striven and had ultimately cleared the selection. In fact, it is the “human approach” which requires us to prefer the selected candidate over a person who does not possess even the requisite qualification. The Courts as also the Tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possess­ing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the Statutory Provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution. (Para 31)

       Held also : “Experience” gained by the respondent on account of his working on the post in question for over a decade cannot be equated with Educa­tional Qualifications required to be possessed by a candidate as a condition of eligibility for promotion to higher posts. The educational qualification has direct nexus with the nature of the post. The Principal may also have an occasion to take classes and teach the students. A person who does not hold either a Degree or Diploma in Engineering cannot possibly teach the students of Industri­al Training Institute the technicalities of the subject of Engineering and its various branches. The plea of experience, therefore, must fail. (Paras 32, 33 & 34)

       Finally held : Moreover, this would amount to a relaxation of Rule relating to educational qualification. Power to relax the Rule vests exclusively in the Governor as provided by Rule 21. This power cannot be usurped by the Court or the Tri­bunal. (Para 34)