1996 Supreme(SC) 1596

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 119 to 123 of 1994 and 14086 of 1996
Decided On: 03.10.1996
Vijay Singh Deora and Ors. Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan and Anr. Respondent

Headnote:

The Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 – Rules 6,27 – Constitution of India,1950 - Article 309 – Application - advertisement - Graduate Junior Engineers - Due to long drawn history of litigation and frequent amendments made to rules, there is lot of confusion in this case. But for the purpose of disposal of these appeals, it is not necessary to traverse the whole gamut of litigation. Suffice it to state that there are three sets of officers in Rajasthan Civil Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch). Graduate Junior Engineers appointed temporarily prior to June 30, 1978 drawn from the Department of Manpower are called Group A officers. Sub-Engineers, who are diploma-holders, were appointed by advertisement. Thereafter. they acquired degree of Engineering, either RE. or A.M.LE. and are called Group-B Officers. Sub-Engineers with diploma who were appointed substantively in the lower cadre, on acquiring degree qualifications were appointed by transfer to the cadre of Junior Engineers and they are called Group-C Officers, Rules prescribe 20% of the quota for direct recruitment of Graduate Junior Engineers. Earlier, Junior Engineer Graduates and Junior Engineers Diploma-holders were two distinct cadres but later, by amendment dated December 7, 1985, the distinction was done away. The question relates to integration and fixation of seniority among these three sets of officers for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers which is the next channel of promotion. - is : whether the graduate qualified Engineers appointed temporarily in the initial appointment could be treated to have been substantively appointed to the post of Junior Engineers from the date of initial appointment after screening? - . What will be the method or procedure for the purpose of determination of inter se seniority? - is: what is the inter se seniority for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Engineers? – Held,In this behalf, one should not lose sight of the hard reality, namely, the Graduate Engineers Group-A officers have been substantively discharging the duties of the posts right from the date of their appointment, It is settled rule that a temporary appointee has no right to the post nor does he get seniority unless regularly recruited in accordance with the rules and seniority would be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment when he started discharging the duty of the post. If appointments were made de hors the Rules, the entire length of service was required to be treated as fortuitous and excluded. If appointments are made after due consideration and according to the procedure, though on temporary basis, the seniority would start from the date of appointment. But when recruitment was temporarily made and appointments are regularised later the question would be : from what date their seniority would be reckoned? Admittedly, on appointment made prior to 30.6.1978, Group A officers started with 10 advance increments from the inception. Group-B officers were appointed with diploma qualification and later as Group-A officers and acquired degree qualification subsequently. Group-C officers on acquiring degree qualification were appointed on application by transfer later to 30.6.1978. In other words, unqualified became qualified subsequent to the appointment of qualified graduates. The question is : whether Group-A officers, when appointed as per rules were made juniors to Groups B & C officers due to delay and laches on the part of Government in getting them screened and appointed regularly? Necessarily, therefore, when they were screened by the committee, all those found eligible for confirmation in the temporary appointments made prior to June 30, 1978, must, of necessity and under equity and justice, be construed to have been regularly appointed to the post in the above factual backdrop. - The qualifYing service of all those Group-B officers appointed and fitted into the substantive vacancies from their respective dates of availability of the substantive vacancies should be reckoned from their respective dates of coming into substantive vacancies. If there is any short-fall of qualifying service prescribed for the post of the Asstt. Engineer, the balance period be taken into consideration from their 1/3rd service rendered as diploma- holder Junior Engineers. This should stop upsetting the general seniority determined in that order as laid down earlier. Regarding Group-C officers, their seniority, as stated, is to be reckoned from the date of the appointment by transfer or from the date of availability of substantive vacancy, whichever occurred later. In deter-mining the qualifying service for promotion as Assistant Engineers if there is any shortfall, the one-third of the service rendered by them in the post of Sub-Engineers would be taken into account only for making good the balance of qualifying service but not the entire 1/3rd service to be tagged. In case even one third of service as Sub-Engineers was not sufficient as qualifying service, they would not become qualified for consideration for promotion. This procedure would do justice to all the three Groups and no one would jump over the other and would not illegitimately steal a march over the legitimate right of the other. Otherwise, in effect the qualified graduates would be pushed downwards and unqualified later entrants on acquisition of qualification would steal a march over the qualified. The High Court was not justified in treating amended Rule 6(1 A) with retrospective effect, since admittedly it has been given prospective operation. The High Court also was not justified in striking down the latter clause of the rules for computation of one-third service for the purpose of next higher post. - appeals are accordingly disposed of