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

1984 Supreme(SC) 25

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
A.S. Parmar and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others,Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 10585 and 10586 of 1983
Decided on 24-1-1984.
AND
S.L. Gupta and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others, Respondents.

Advocates:
E.M.S.ANAM, F.S.NARIMAN, K.G.Bhagat, M.K.Dua, P.C.BHARTARI, P.N.PURI, P.P.Rao, PREM MALHOTRA, R.N.Poddar, S.K.MEHTA

Headnote:

Class II Service - Promotion - Engineers - Gradation list - Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P. W. D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 - R. 6 (a), 5 ,2 (2), 9 and 6 - All holders of diploma in Engineering - They do not possess a degree in Engineering - They were promoted along with nine others from Class II Service to Class I Service by an order dated passed by Haryana State Government on a temporary basis subject to approval of Haryana Public Service Commission - In case of these officers, Government of Haryana passed an order relaxing condition of degree qualification in public interest - Above order of promotion in so far as these persons were concerned was questioned by eleven officers in Class II Service; who were below them in the gradation list of Class II Service, having entered that service in writ petition out of which these appeals arise - It was, therefore, urged that promotions of said persons should be quashed - State Government and officers whose promotions had been challenged stated that order of relaxation was justified in circumstances of case and promotions were not liable to be annulled - Held, promotee should also have a degree, tried to relax that condition by making orders relaxing it as it found that its construction had led to unjust results - It is only in this Court that question of interpretation of R. 6 of Class I Rules was raised - Power is beyond question and it to not, therefore necessary to refer to those decisions which lay down that classification on basis of educational qualifications of officers belonging to a cadre for purposes of promotion to a higher cadre is permissible - Question, however, in these cases is whether Class I Rules as they now exist debar promotion of an Assistant Engineer in Class II Service who does not possess a degree to cadre of Executive Engineers even when he satisfies requirements of clause (b) of R. 6 of Class I Rules and is selected by Public Service Commission - Order of relaxation made in case of promotees is validly passed or not becomes immaterial - Court therefore, set aside judgment of High Court and dismiss writ petition filed before High Court - Since Court have disposed of these appeals on a ground different from ground urged before High Court, Court express no opinion on validity of order of relaxation - Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :— These appeals are filed against the judgment dated March 3, 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2018 of 1981 on the file of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the promotion of eight officers-of the Class II Engineering Service of the Haryana Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch) (hereinafter referred to as the Class II Service) as Executive Engineers in the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) (hereinafter referred to as the Class I Service). The said officers are S. L. Gupta, I. C. Dewan, S. K. Chopra, Bodh Raj, A. S. Parmar, O. P. Gupta, Sumair Chand Jain and G. L. Sharma. They entered the Class II Service in accordance with the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, P. W. D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Class II Rules) on the dates mentioned against their names in the following table :

Name Date of entry into Class II Service S. No. in the gradation list of Class II Service

1. S. L. Gupta 19-8-1969 54

2. I. C. Dewan 29-1-1970 62

3. S. K. Chopra 29-1-1969 63

4. Bodh Raj 14-8-1969 65

5. A. S. Parmar 20-2-1970 66

6. O. P. Gupta 14-8-1969 70

7. Sumair Chand Jain 10-4-1970 71

8. O. L. Sharma 9-4-1970 72

2. They are all holders of diploma in Engineering. They do not possess a degree in Engineering. They were promoted along with nine others from the Class II Service to the Class I Service by an order dated May 7, 1981 passed by the Haryana State Government on a temporary basis subject to approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission. In the case of these officers, the Government of Haryana passed an order relaxing the condition of degree qualification in public interest. The above order of promotion in so far as these persons were concerned was questioned by eleven officers in the Class II Service; who were below them in the gradation list of the Class II Service, having entered that service in 1972 in the writ petition out of which these appeals arise. The officers who filed the said petition were all holders of degrees in Engineering. Their principal contention was that an officer in the Class II Service could not be promoted to the Class I Service unless he possessed a degree in Engineering as prescribed by R. 6 (a) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Class 1 Rules) which govern the recruitment to the Class I Service in the State of Haryana and the relaxation of that requirement alleged to have been ordered by the State Government in exercise of the power under the proviso to R. 6 (a) of the Class I Rules in the cases of the officers whose promotion had been challenged was illegal and void. It was, therefore, urged that the promotions of the said persons should be quashed. The State Government and the officers whose promotions had been challenged stated that the order of relaxation was justified in the circumstances of the case and the promotions were not liable to be annulled. The question whether the qualification of a degree in Engineering was necessary or not in the case of officers in the Class II Service for promoting them to the Class I Service was, however, not raised before the High Court. After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the order of relaxation passed by the State Government was unsustainable and hence the impugned promotions were liable to be set aside. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed quashing the impugned promotions. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, these appeals have been filed by special leave of this Court.

3. Civil Appeal No. 10585 of 1983 is filed by A. S. Parmar, I. C. Dewan and S. K. Chopra. Civil Appeal No. 10586 of 1983 is filed by S. L. Gupta, O. P. Gupta and Sumair Chand Jain. Bodh Raj and G. L. Sharma have already retired from service. Sumair Chand Jain is stated to have died in May, 1983 after the special leave petition was filed





























































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