Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.D.Vyas, S.D.Shah
A.C.SHAH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A.1606 of 1975
Decided On : 07/30/1993
Court is of the opinion that Supervisors who belong to a separate class since 1972 are not rendered equal to Junior Engineers even after completion of eight years service. By prescribing a different period of experience of service of eight years for Diploma Holders, the Legislature has taken notice of the fact that they were a separate class and were required to be treated separately. By prescribing a longer period of experience, they were not rendered equal to Junior Engineers but they are simply rendered eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer. Acquiring the eligibility for consideration for promotion after putting in the requisite service is not equivalent to rendering an employee equal to a separate class of Junior Engineer which is differently treated by the Rule Making Authority. What is distinct is maintained all throughout distinct and separate by the Rule Making Authority and in our opinion, it has never made an attempt to unify Supervisors with Junior Engineers.
[Para 13]
It becomes clear that unless it is shown to the Court that prescription of ratio of 2:1 for Junior Engineer and Supervisor is irrational, unfair and unreasonable so as to violate the equality clause, this court would not undertake an exercise as to whether it is more beneficial to a class or other or as to whether it is going to cause more hardship to one class or other. It is not the function of the Court.
[Para 16]
Service & Employment - Promotion - Prescribing lesser experience for Junior Engineers vis-a-vis Supervisor for promotion - In view of educational qualification of Junior Engineer variation not unfair - No grievance can be made there-against.
It is permissible for the Rule Making Authority to prescribe requisite service experience to render a class of employees eligible for promotion. Prescription of longer or shorter service experience in light of possession of educational qualifications may vary from one class to another. In the case before us the two cadres are legally and constitutionally separate and distinct since 1972. The Junior Engineers therefore cannot be equated with Supervisors or vice-versa as Rule Making Authority has classified them into separate cadres. Such classification is held to be constitutional by this Court, which has become final. Therefore, if lesser experience is prescribed for Junior Engineer to render him eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer, keeping in mind his educational qualifications, no grievance can be made.
[Para 11]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 & 16 - Prescribing ratio of 2:1 between Junior Engineers and Supervisor - Merely because hopes and aspirations of supervisors to get promotion may not be fulfilled or delayed can not provide foundation to declare the ratio prescribed unreasonal unfair or arbitrary as violative of Arts. 14 & 16.
Merely because the hopes and aspirations of Supervisors to get promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer may not be fulfilled or may be delayed or that operation of the prescribed ratio may result into stagnation of supervisors compared to Junior Engineers cannot provide foundation to declare the prescription of ratio as being unreasonable, unfair or arbitrary. Except submitting before us that chances of promotion of Supervisors are reduced by prescription of this ratio, no further attempt is made to establish or prove before this Court as to how this ratio can be said to be unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. Consistent with the need of the State to have better personnel in the higher echelon in the engineering service and to see that cadre of Deputy Engineer is manned by better equipped persons, if a ratio of 2:1 is prescribed between Junior Engineers and Supervisors, it cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
[Para 18]
( 1 ) A perennial dispute of inequality of opportunity in the matter of promotion to the post of Deputy Engineer in the Electrical engineering Branch of Public Works Department of the State of gujarat between Junior Engineers (Degree Holders) and Supervisors (Diploma. Holders) was brought to the Court as back as 1975 and the following directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1749 of 1980 has revived this petition for our decision. By judgment and order dated 1 6/03/1993 (reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1304, State v. A. C. Shah), the supreme Court observed as under (at page No. 1306 para 4) :"we stand deprived of the pleadings of the parties before the High Court. The pleadings now introduced do not help us. Significantly, the High Court judgment is silent as to the basis en which it was persuaded to strike down of 2 : 1 for junior Engineers and Supervisors respectively. The tenor of the judgment of the high Court does however suggest that the executive flexibility, with which the government works could not justify the fixation of the ratio of 2 :1. The High court could not and did not substitute what was the right ratio in the circumstances and left it to the Government to devise another ratio. Had the factum of the legislation on the subject the Rules dated 4-7-1978, been brought to its notice, perhaps the High Courts angle of vision would have been different. State has no doubt compulsively carried out the mandate but has done so with reservation so as to meet the eventuality. No such measure can ever be permanent that would hold good for all times, to meet not only the present needs but also future exigencies as well. Hands of the State cannot be so tied down. That would be step retrograde to the growth and working of a democracy. The State is now left to devise a ratio other than the ratio of 2:1 and cause a variation. It cannot come to that ratio again. This appears to us an undesirable situation. It must be left to the State to get at it again. Though obeying the mandamus of the High Court the State must be free to arrive at the original ratio of 2 : 1. On some basis the governor of the State appears to have legislated on the subject. It was on the writ petitioners (now respondents) to lay data before the High Court and bear the onus to show that the legislative measure was unfair and arbitrary, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. As said before no such data appears to have been placed before the High Court. "
( 2 ) AS regards one of the questions regarding difference of length of qualifying service, the Supreme Court has directed that the controversy with regard to the said contention does not survive in view of Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. , reported in 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 116 and. therefore, this Court is directed not to advert now to the disparity in length of qualifying service from two sources of promotion. The further observations made in the operative part of the judgment read as under :"in these terms we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment. The High Court may pass appropriate orders afresh, after permitting the parties to amend the pleadings, if necessary, and putting the onus on the writ petitioners to prove unfairness in the 1978 Rules or violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. "
( 3 ) IN view of the aforesaid directions, the judgment and order of the division Bench of this Court dated 26/03/1980, allowing the petition of the Supervisors is quashed and set aside and the said petition is revived before us to decide precisely the question of prescription of ratio between Junior Engineers (Degree Holders) and Supervisors (Diploma holders) fixed under Deputy Engineer (Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 1978 issued vide Notification dated 4/07/1978. By Rule 2 (a) of the said rules ratio of 2 : 1, i. e. , 2 Junior Engineers by one Supervisor is fixed for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Engineers (Electrical) and validity and constitutiona
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
