Jagmal Singh Yadav vs M. Ramayya

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Jagmal Singh Yadav, Appellant
Versus
M. Ramayya and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1260 of 1973,
D/- 6-1-1977.
Advocates Appeared
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Ashok Grover, Advocate with her), for Appellant; Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate (M/s. D. N. Mishra and O. C. Mathur, Advocates with him), (for Nos. 3 and 4); Mr, G. D. Gupta, Advocate, (for No. 8) and Mr. Gobind Das Sr. Advocate (Mr. Girish Chandra, Advocate with him), (for No. 13) and Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate (Mrs. Urmila Kapoor and Miss. Kamlesh Bansal, Advocates with him), (for Nos. 55, 64, 75, 80 and 89, for Respondents.

Advocates:
ASHOK GROVER, D.N.Mishra, GIRISH CHANDRA, GOBIND DAS, Kamlesh Bansal, M.C.BHANDARE, O.C.MATHUR, O.D.Gupta, S.T.DESAI, SHYAMALA PAPPU, URMILA KAPUR

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Recruitment Rules – Rule 4(c),25,3(a) and 4(b) – Recruitment – Appointments - Appellant, who joined service in cadre of Assistant Engineers in Central Engineering Service, was respondent in High Court - Other respondents in the High Court in similar position as that of appellant have been impleaded here as respondents and they are supporting appellant through their counsel - For the sake of convenience appellant and respondents will be described herein below as direct recruits in Class II Service - Union of India, Engineer-in-Chief, C. P. W. D., and Union Public Service Commission are respectively respondent and are represented counsel - Respondents 1 to 12 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondents) preferred an application in High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for certain reliefs which High Court has summarised - Whether there has been a determination by Government under R. 4 (c) – Held, court also do not feel justified in placing exaggerated importance on use of the words "specified quota" in some of the correspondences relied upon by learned counsel - Court are of opinion that such a reference to "specified quota" was only a usual way of a compendious expression to facilitate identification of the subject-matter of the proposal of Ministry of Works & Housing in course of long correspondence between the several authorities - When officers are qualified to hold certain posts after recruitment, according to rules, and they have put in number of years, without break, in Service to the satisfaction of the authorities, it is impermissible to invoke a recondite rule and call it in aid to deprive a large section of officers of benefit of their otherwise satisfactory service - Matter may be different when posts in Service are abolished, appointments to the Service are transitory or fortuitous or incumbents are found unsuitable for absorption - History of this Service is that temporary posts are first created and then after some years they are converted into permanent posts - Government, cannot merely be an onlooker where it could rightly claim to be a legitimate arbiter on its own authority and having proper regard to all just claims - Court also cannot help feeling that thinking in Ministry has not always been uniform, sympathy waning or waxing from time to time for reasons not always manifest - As found submissions of appellant are devoid of force - In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

P. K. GOSWAMI, J. - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition of the first twelve respondents was partly allowed.

2. The appellant, who joined service in the cadre of Assistant Engineers in the Central Engineering Service, Class II (Gazetted), was respondent No. 51 in the High Court. Other respondents in the High Court in similar position as that of the appellant have been impleaded here as respondents (16 to 110) and they are supporting the appellant through their counsel Mr. S. T. Desai. For the sake of convenience the appellant and the respondents 16 to 110 will be described herein below as direct recruits in the Class II Service. The Union of India, Engineer-in-Chief, C. P. W. D., and the Union Public Service Commission are respectively respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 15 and are represented by Mr. Gobind Das.

3. The respondents 1 to 12 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondents) preferred an application in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on 16th February, 1970, praying for certain reliefs which the High Court has summarised under the following four heads:

(1) That the confirmation of the direct recruits should be held as illegal.

(2) That the respondents and other persons who are similarly situated like them and who had joined the service earlier should be directed to be confirmed first according to the dates of their joining the service as Assistant Engineers after giving weightage in preference to the direct recruits.

(3) That the appointment of 38 specified direct recruits should be held as illegal.

(4) That the respondents (13 to 15 herein) should be directed to revise the classified list published in 1968.

The High Court has also noted that the respondents did not seek to disturb the appointments of the direct recruits already made and that their main contention was that they were entitled to be confirmed before those of the direct recruits who were appointed subsequent to them.

4. This appeal was heard by us in two stages. After the first stage of the hearing the parties were given some time to settle the matter by evolving a reasonable formula to satisfy the legitimacy of their mutual claims. It, however, appeared that they could not compose their differences and the appeal was, therefore, finally heard and concluded.

5. We may now briefly give the history of the litigation.

6. The respondents (who are the twelve writ petitioners in the High Court) are either graduates in Civil Engineering or possess similar requisite qualifications, namely, an Engineering Degree or an equivalent thereof. They were all initially appointed on different dates as temporary Section Officers in the Central Public Works Department (hereinafter to be referred to as the C. P. W. D.) in the Subordinate Engineering Service, Class III (Non-gazetted). They were subsequently appointed on various dates between 18th October, 1958 and 8th January, 1963, "to officiate temporarily and until further orders" as Assistant Engineers in the Central Engineering Service, Class II (Gazetted) (briefly the Service). The appellant and the respondents 16 to 110 are what is described as direct recruits to the Service. Each of the direct recruits possesses a Degree in Engineering or an equivalent thereof. Fiftyeight of them were directly recruited as temporary Assistant Engineers in the Central Engineering Service Class II (Gazetted) on different dates between 12th May, 1961 and 13th December, 1967, on the result of a competitive examination held by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The remaining thirtyeight also possess a Degree in Engineering or an equivalent thereof and they were directly recruited as temporary Assistant Engineers in the Service on different dates between 2nd November, 1964 and 7th November, 1967, but without any competitive examination.

7. By a Notification dated 13th June, 1967, excepting seven direct recruits namely, (resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document