2003 Supreme(SC) 862

2003(7) Supreme 145
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh)
Brijesh Kumar and Arun Kumar, JJ.
Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others -Appellants
versus
Rajesh Kumar Basandhi and Another -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2731 of 1997
Decided on 8-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Inperson.
For the Respondent : Ms. Amita Gupta and Ms. Neelam Tiwari, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Expression for the time being means that it must in every case indicate a single period of time. To come to a conclusion as to whether it is for one time or for indefinite period of time, the context, purpose and the intention of the use of the phrase will have to be seen and examined.

Headnote:Service Law-Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1992-Recruitment to post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer-Maximum age limit for appointments to Union Territory of Chandigarh-Expression for the time being as used in Rules of 1992-Meaning-Advertisement dated 16-5-1996-Age limit was required to be between 21-30 years as on 1-1-1996-Respondent then aged 33 years applied as one of the candidates for the post-He being beyond the maximum age limit as provided in the notification, his application not entertained-However, by an interim order, he was allowed to appear in examination-Whether amendment to Punjab Civil Services Rules 1989 made subsequent to 13-1-1992 shall be applicable for recruitment to posts in Union Territory of Chandigarh-(Yes)-Maximum age for technical posts was increased to 33 years from 30 years by amendment-Respondent held eligible for appointment.

       Held : The Punjab Civil Services Rules were framed in 1989 and Rule 7A prescribed the maximum age limit as 30 years for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney/Law Officer. An amendment was made in the Punjab Civil Services Rules 1989 in the year 1994 according to which the maximum age for technical posts was raised to 33 years. Thereafter, came yet another amendment in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1989 in 1996, increasing the maximum age limit to 35 years. In this view of the position, according to the respondent, his candidature could not be defeated on the ground that he was over age. The case of the appellant however is that amendment made to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1989 would not be ipso facto applicable for recruitment to the Union Territory of Chandigarh unless such amendments were also adopted by the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. This having not been done, the Rules of Punjab Civil Services, 1989 as stood on 13.1.1992 at the time the Notification was issued, for applying those rules, for the services of employees of Union Territory of Chandigarh, would alone be applicable and not the subsequent amendments unless specifically adopted. (Para 5)

       To be more specific the case of the appellant is that the provision of the Punjab Rules was amended on 24.12.1991 introducing the condition of two years practice at the Bar whereas the notification was issued by the Chandigarh Administration subsequently i.e. on 13.1.1992 therefore amended position of the Punjab Rules till that date namely 13.1.1992 was incorporated in the notification for recruitment. But it would be pertinent to point out that it was conveniently skipped by the appellant to notice that Punjab Rules were made applicable with effect from 1.4.1991 though the notification to that effect was issued on 13.1.1992. The consequence of giving effect to the notification dated 13.1.1992 w.e.f. 1.4.1991 would be that Punjab Rules as existing on 1.4.1991 would be applicable. If the argument of the appellant is accepted that the phrase "for the time being" was applicable for only one time and not for future amendments, Punjab Rules, as existed on 1.4.1991 alone would apply without taking note of the subsequent amendment in the rules i.e. as made on 24.12.91 regarding requirement of two years practice. But the appellant did not adhere to that position which is being canvassed now but in the notification for recruitment the position as brought about by amendment in the Punjab Rules as on 24.12.1991 was incorporated and given effect to. The appellant cannot have it both ways. Once having given effect to the notification dated 13.1.1992 with effect from 1.4.1991 it should have adhered to the rules as existed on 1.4.1991 if it wanted to say that the phrase "for the time being" was meant for a single time and not for future varying situation and amendments. Thus the stand taken by the appellant becomes self-contradictory to its own conduct in incorporating the rule as amended on 24.12.1991 i.e. subsequent to 1.4.1991 with effect from which date the Punjab Rules were made applicable to the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. (Para 17)