SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 672

1999(5) Supreme 430
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Subhash Chander Sharma & Anr. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3174 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9099 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3175-3176 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 9315-9316 of 1998)
Decided on 14-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate, K. Sultan Singh, Vikas Pahwa, Ms. Nanita Sharma, Lokesh Kumar, R.S. Sodhi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, N.D. Garg, Ms. Amita Gupta, (Rao Rajit) Advocate. (NP), R.K. Chopra and P.N. Puri, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
If the intention of the rule making authority was to do away with the requirement of degree qualification then it was not at all necessary to incorporate the last proviso in Rule 5.

Headnote:Special Leave Petition-Service Matter-Punjab Service of Engineers Class II (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941 - Rules 3 and 5-Appellants working as Junior Engineers/Overseers in Punjab Overseers Service Irrigation Branch PWD since 1962-Holding Diploma in Engineering - Government decided to fill vacancies not by direct recruitment but by promotion from amongst temporary Engineers, Section Officers and Head draftsman-Notification issued fixing percentage-Challenged by those Junior Engineers who are graduate in Engineering-Division Bench of High Court held that Junior Engineers not possessing University degree or other qualification in Appendix A to rules not eligible for promotion under Rule 5 except in cases where relaxation in that behalf made by Government in exercise of power under last proviso to Rule 5 read with Note to Rule 3 of Rules-Writ Petitions dismissed SLP-High Court right in holding that temporary Junior Engineer not possessing degree qualification is not eligible for promotion to post of Assistant Engineer-Impugned notification fixing quota for promotion bad to that extent.

       Held : If only the conditions specified in the second proviso were intended to be relaxed then the last proviso would have been worded in a different manner. The important words in this context in the last proviso are "this Rule may be relaxed". The Rule which is obviously referred to is the Rule that no person shall be appointed unless he possesses the qualification specified in Rules. The Note to Rule 3 also specifically refers to the last proviso of Rule 5 and that is also indicative of the fact that educational qualification is to be relaxed only in respect of persons specified in the last proviso if they are of outstanding merit. (Para 6)

       In our opinion the High Court was right in holding that a temporary Junior Engineer who does not possess a degree qualification is not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and, therefore, the impugned notification fixing quote for promotion was bad to that extent. (Para 7)

       

JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellants are working as Junior Engineers/Overseers in the Punjab Overseers Service, Irrigation Branch, P.W.D. since about 1962. They hold diploma in engineering. For Junior Engineers/Overseers the next post of promotion is the post of Assistant Engineer. Infact, the Assistant Engineers constitute Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II (Irrigation Branch). The recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer is governed by the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941.

2. On August 20, 1957 the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) issued a letter regarding recruitment to PSE Class II. It was stated therein that in view of large number of temporary engineers being in employment in irrigation branch due to heavy expansion of Bhakra Nangal and other projects, the Government has decided that till further order no officer shall be appointed by direct recruitment to P.S.E. Class II and henceforth the same shall be filled by promotion from amongst temporary engineers and section officers and head draftsman in the ratio mentioned in the letter. Later on the said percentage was revised in October 1969, May 1972 and February 1974 but it is not necessary to go into those details. Again by a notification dated April 23, 1992 the percentage was fixed as under :

"I. Direct recruitment:

Temporary Engineers. 55%

II. By promotion

(i) from Junior Engineers  (Civil) 20%

(ii) from Junior Engineer  (Mech.) 5%

(iii) from members of Drawing  staff 6%

(iv) From A.M.I.E. qualified

Junior Engineers 11%

Drawing staff 3% 14%"

This notification was challenged by those Junior Engineers who are graduates in engineering by filing writ petitions in the Punjab & Haryana High Court on the ground that no promotion can be made of those Junior Engineers who do not have the requisite educational qualifications prescribed by Rule 3 and, therefore, no quota could have been legally fixed for their promotion. The Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the reasoning of the Single Judge of the High Court in R.C. Todon v. State of Punjab1 held that the Junior Engineers who do not possess university degree or other qualifications prescribed in Appendix A to the Rules are not eligible for promotion under Rule 5 except in cases where relaxation in that behalf is made by the Government in exercise of its power under the last proviso to Rule 5 read with Note 2 to Rule 3 of the Rules. Taking this view the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions.

3. Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court has not only over-looked the fact that if Junior Engineers, who do not possess graduate degree or an equivalent question is held ineligible for promotion then they will not have even one chance of promotion throughout their career but has also mis-interpreted Rule 5. He submitted that the second proviso to Rule 5 which is in respect of promotion of temporary engineers, is an independent provision and keeping the object of the provision in mind it ought to have been held that for promotion of a temporary engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer the eligibility criteria is (1) he has been declared by the Commission on the report of the Chief Engineer to be fit for the service; (2) has held an appointment for not less than two years continuously before the date of entry into the service; (3) is not less than 26 years or more than 50 years of age on the first day of June, immediately preceding the date on which taken into the service and (4) in case of promotion of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service or Draftsmen Service unless he has passed b






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top