Judgment

RAY, J. :- This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 23 August, 1971 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants.

2. The two appellants were promoted in the years 1958 and 1959 respectively to the Military Engineer Service Class I (hereinafter referred to as the Class I Service). The appellant No. 1 joined the Military Engineer Service as a temporary overseer on 1 May, 1942. He was promoted to the grade of Superintendent Grade I on 1 May, 1949. In the month of April, 1957 he was selected to be promoted to the grade of temporary Assistant Executive Engineer in Class I Service and he was promoted in fact in the month of April, 1958.

3. Respondents Nos. 4 to 21, 107 to 122 and 124 to 126 were appointed to the said Class I Service after they had appeared at competitive examination while the rest were appointed by direct recruitment after having been interviewed by the Union Public Service Commission. All the respondents were appointed to the said Class I Service in the years 1962, 1963 and 1964.

4. The appellants contended first that the respondents who were directly appointed to Class I Service by interview were not within the purview of recruitment to Class I Service by competitive examinations. The Military Engineer Service Class I (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules which came into force on 1 April, 1951 speak in rule 3 of recruitment to the Class I Service (a) by competitive examination in accordance with Part II of the Rules and (b) by promotion in accordance with with Part III of the Rules. The appellants contended that appointment to Class I Service by interview was not one of the methods of recruitment contemplated in the Rules, and, therefore, the respondents who were appointed by interview could not be said to be validly appointed in accordance with the Rules.

5. The second contention of the appellants was that the respondents were recruited to Class I Service by interview and competitive examination after the appellants had been promoted to Class I Service and were therefore not to be confirmed in permanent posts before the appellants.

Class I Rules mention recruitment by competitive examination and by promotion. In 1961 on the results of the competitive examination no candidate were available for allotment to Class I Service against temporary posts. In 1962 there was a state of emergency. Engineers were immediately required to fill the temporary posts in Class I Service. To meet the emergencyd the Union Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission decided to recruit candidates by advertisement and selection by the Union Public Service Commission. The Government with the aid of the selection in interview by the Union Public Service Commission directly recruited some respondents to Class I Service in the years 1962, 1963 and 1964. The candidates were selected after viva-voce examination.

6. It, therefore, follows that the method of recruitment by interview was adopted to meet the emergency specially when the mode of appointment by competitive examination failed. The candidates who were selected were put through a period of probation of 2 years. Only on a satisfactory competition of probation the candidates were allowed to continue in service. On completion of 3 years continued service in the grade and after qualifying the necessary departmental test the respective officers were declared quasi-permanent in the grade in terms of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules.

7. During the years 1962, 1963 and 1964 particularly and until the year 1969 the Class I Service Rules were not statutory in character. The Union Government relaxed the Rules both in regard to recruitment by interview and in regard to the quotas fixed by the Rules for direct recruitment and recruitment by promotion to Class I Service.

8. In the year 1967 rule 20 of Part II of Class I Service Rules was amended by introduction of sub-rules (h), (i), (j) and (k). Rule 20 ref