Prabhakar Yeshwant Joshi & Ors. versus the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Seniority-Fixation of~Maharashtra Service of Engineers-Seni"o: ity inter se of promotees and direct recru/111-Jf violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶10

c The petitioners were direct recruits to the post of Deputy Engineers in Bombay Service of Engineers Class II. In petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution they challenged the promotion, by the first respondent. of responJents 2 to 5 and others similarly situated to the posts of officiating Executive Engineers contrary to the principles of natural justice arid in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was contended that under the rules in force the respondents were. on¹ y officiating Deputy Engineers and they had to put in after confirmation as Deputy Engineers D seven years of actual service before being eligible for promotio1;1 as offi- ciating Executive Engineer:;; further, particularly in the case of employees from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad the first respondent bad contrary to the ruJes relating to promotion, by a resolution in 1967 directed those employees to be. treated as having been appointed in the reorgan•sed Bom~ bay State as temporary Deputy Engineers only for the purpose of fixation of their ·seniority in the grade of Deputy Engineers and for promotion to higher posts and therefore those employees did not satisfy the 7 year E requirement. Dismissing the 11etitions,

¶11

HELD: (i) There is nothing in rules 6 7 'and 8 of the 1960 Resolution to militate against the interpretation that the service specified there can be the total service of any description whether 11rovisional, temporary or 11erm.anent. If promotion from Class II as officiating Executive Engineer can only be made after 7 years of permanent service then there would be no meaning in including the temporary service in Class II for the purpose F of absorption as Executive Engineers. If temporary service can be taken into account for confirmation as an Executive Engineer so can officiating service and if officiating service can be taken into consideration there is no impediment to a Deputy Engineer with 7 years' service whether officiating, temporary or permanent to be entitled for promotion as an E.i:ecutive En!!ineer The Resolution of 1963 makes it abundantly clear th&t the seniority of promotees should be considered as from the d_ate of promotion to officiate continuously irrespective of whether the appointments were G made in temporary or permanent vac:u.cies. [626 G-627 E]

¶12

G

¶13

(ii) Those respondents who were from Hyderabad State were iu fact selected by the Hyderabad Public SerVice Commission as Assistant Engh neers ·and would have been appointed. as such but for the States Reorganisation Act which came into force from J 956. Had they be>n appointed earlier they would have had to be equated with the posts in Bombay. The allocation of persons after• the reorganisation from one State to another H was subject to ihe Reorganisation Act which dealt with matters pertaining to allocation, transfer. fixation of service conditions, seniority etc. The claims of the respondents who were allotted from the Hyderabad State arose earlier than the. aj)pointrnents of the petitioners and the Govern-

¶14

616

¶15

[1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶16

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶17

A

¶18

meat of Bombay and subsequently the .Maharashtra Government wu entitled to consi.der these claims and to give redress. There is no statutory bar or rule which prohibits the Government of Maharashtra from deeming their appointment as from 31-3-1967 for the limited purpose of seniority and promotion. [628 E--629 CJ

¶19

(iii) Further, wheii promotions are made on the basis of seniority-cum· merit all that can be required is that persons entitled to promotion should be considered and if having been considered they have been left out they would have no claim to promotion as: a matter of right. The petitioners did not possess the required length of service in Class II for them to be entitled to promotion when the respondents were included in the List and promoted; as such they cannot cha1lenge the appointments made as beini in Yiolation of Arts. 14 or 16. 629 D-E]

¶20

State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood, f1968] 3 S.C.R. 363.

¶21

B

¶22

c

¶23

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 112 to 114 of 1968.

¶24

Petition under Art. 32 of the Cc:mstitution of India for the enlorceent of fundamental rights.

¶25

S. V. Gupte, M. J. Rana and B. R. Agarwala, for the petitioners.

¶26

D

¶27

M. C. Chag/a, G. L. Sangh/ and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 1.

¶28

S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, Y. S. Chitle, S. N. Prasad and R. B. Datar, for respond~nts Nos. 2, 4, 6 to 23, 27 to 30 and 32 to 34.

¶29

E

¶30

Respondent No. 3 appeared in person.

¶31

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶32

lagarunohan Reddy, l. The three petitioners by these petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution have challenged the promotion by the first respondent, who, ignoring the claims of the petitioners, have promoted respondents 2 to 5 and other persons i:imilarly situated to the post of officiating Executive Engineers contrary to the principles oi natural justice and in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. All the three petitioners were directly recruited by the Public Service Commissicn as Deputy Engineers in the Bombay Service of Engineers Class II, now known as Maharashtra Service of Engineers Class II. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 belonged to the erstwhile State of Bombay; respondents 3 and 4 belonged to the fonner State of Hyderabad, while respondent No, 5 to the fonner State of Madhya Pradesh, and were allocated to the State of Bombay under the States reotganisation. Likewise the other respondents who were formerly in the service of different States referred to above, now belong to the Maharashtra Service of Engineers.

¶33

G

¶34

H

¶35

P. Y. JOSHI v. MAHARASHTRA (Reddy, J.)

¶36

617

¶37

A

¶38

The petitioners' case is that under the mies in force the respondents who were in the substantive rank of overseers were only officiating Deputy Engineers and that as they did not belong to the cadre of Deputy Engineers they were not entitled to promotion inasmuch as they had to put in after confirmation as Deputy Engineers 7 years of actual service before being eligible B for promotion as officiating Executive Engineers. On the other hand, the petitioners were direct recruits and were entitled to promotion after 7 years oi service from the date of appointment, as their subsequent confinnation related back to that date. It is contended that the first respondent, contrary to these rules. appointed respondents 2 to 34 as officiating Executive Engineers c before they had completed 7 years of actual service after the date of confinnation and particularly in the case of employees from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad it had, contrary to the rules relating to promotion, by a resolution dated the 23rd February 1967 directed respondents 3, 4, 6 to 14 to be treated as having been appointed in the reorganised Bombay State as temporary Deputy Engineers with effect from 31st March 1937 only for the D purpose of fixation oi their seniority in the grade of Deputy Engineers and for promotion to higher posts. By so directing, respondent No. 1 conferred, in an arbitrary manner, an advantage on the said respondents to the detriment of the petitioners while, as a matter of fact, those respondents had not completed either 7 years of actual service after confirmation as required by E the rules nor did they have even 7 years' service as officiating Deputy Engineers on the date of promotion as officiating Executive Engineers.

¶39

In order to understand the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners it will be necessary to state briefly the history al the service and the several resolutions which are applicable to them in F respect of recruitment as well as seniority. The Bombay and subsequeiltly the Maharashtra service of engineers consists of Class I and Class II (Deputy Engineers). They were initially governed by rules framed under the resolutions of the Government in the Public Works Department dated the 22nd March 1937. The recruitment to these services both in class I and class G II was partly bv direct recruitment and partly by promotion from amongst the members of the lower cadres. In 1939 fur.her rules were made to· regulate the method of recruitment to the State services. Under these rules recruitment to the Bombay Service of Engineers Class I was to be from two sources, ( 1) by nomination under r. 3 by virtue of the guarantee given to the engineerH ing college of Poona and (2) by promotion from the existing Bombay Service of Engineers (since discontinued) or from the Bombay Service of Engineers Class TI. The recruitment to the Bombay Service of Engineers Class n under the rules Of 1939

¶40

[1970] 2 $.C.R.

¶41

~18

¶42

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶43

was also to be similarly from two sources, ( 1 ) by nomination under r. 11 in accordance with the guarantee to the Royal College of Poona (which was withdrawn in 1947) and (2) by promotion from (a) Bombay Subordinate Engineer Service, (b) permanent and temporary supervisors and ( c) temporary engineers appointed on annual sanction. These rules however did not specify the principles upon which the seniority of the di~ect recruits and the promotee officers was to be determined. The Government of Bombay accordingly by a resolution dated 21st November 1941 laid down the following principles to be applicable to direct recruits and promoted officers in the provincial service except the Bombay Service of Engineers Class I :- ·

¶44

( 1) "In the case of direct recruits appointed directly on probation, the seniority should be determined with reference to the date of their appointment on probation; (2) In the case of officers promoted to substantive vacancies the seniority should be determined with reference to the date of their promotion to the substantive vacancies provided there has been no break in service prior to their confirmation in those vacancies." •

¶45

It may here be stated that the Bombay Government had appointed a committee known as Gurjar Committee to examine whether class I and class II cadres in the said services should be continued or whether they should 1Je combined into one class and what should be the ratio between the direct recruits and the departmental promotees to the said service. The Committee made it~ recommendations in 1951. The Government after due considerations of the recommendation$ and the earlier ;rules regulating the condition of service in the Bombay Service of Engineers passed a re5olution dated 29th April 1960 setting down the principles for recruitment to the Bombay Service of Engineers Class I and Class II. Before this resolution, as we have noticed earlier, the Deputy Engineers Class II service cadre consisted of (a) direct recruits to the Bombay Service of Engineers Class II, (b) Deputy Engineers confirmed from the subordinate services of Engineers, ( c) temporary deputy engineers recruited by the Bombay Public Service Commission and ( d) officiating Deputy Engineers and siimlar other categories. These four categories were being com - piled into 2 lists only, namely, ( l) Bombay Service of Engineers Class II cadre of permanent Deputy Engineers and (2) the list of officiating . Deputy Engineers. It also further continued the existing constitution of class I and class II engineering service. . The appointments to be made were to be both by direct recruitment through the competitive examinations held by the Public . Seivice Commission and by promotion, provided however that

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

1'. Y. JOS.lil v. MAHAMSH!il (Reddy, J.)

¶55

619

¶56

A lhe ratio of appointments by nomination and by promotion shall as rar as pracucabie oy 7 :i : 25. The canuiaates appointed to e1lher ot me two services by nomination had to be on probation tor 24 years before being confinned provided t.urther that an Assistant Engineer would be confirmed as Executive Engineer after nine years' service unless the period is exiended by the government. The Deputy Engineers Permanent in class II cadre had '° put in at least 1 :i years of service in class II in temporary and permanent capacities and must be officiating executive Engineers at tne time ot their absorption.

¶57

The resolution ol 1960 provided that in future recrui!I!J.ent to Bomoay Service of Engineers class II cadre shall be made ( 1) by c nommation of canaiaates recruited directly by a competitive exanunation held oy the Commission and (2) by promotion from the list of ofhciatmg Deputy Engineers. The direct recruitment 01 temporary Deputy Engmeers was to cease and the officiating vacancies were to be. filled from the ranks of subordinate service of Engineers tor which purpose a statewise select seniority list of D members of the subordinate service ol Engineers cadre considered fit to hold sub-divisional charges was to be compiled and main· tained as on 30th June each year. On July 29, 1963 the Government of Bombay further amended the rules prescribed in Government Resolution of November 21, 1941 for regulating the seniority C'f direct recruits and promoted officers. In supersession of the E previous rules it proviaed that the seniority of the direct recruits is to be determined according to the date of appointment on probation and of the promotees according to the date of promotion to officiate continuously irrespective ol whether the appointments are made in temporary or in permanent vacancies subject to the provisions contained therein.

¶58

F In so far as promotion from lower to higher grade of post is concerned, the principle of seniority-cum-merit was always followed by the Government which subsequently also formed tl1e bases of the Government resolution dated 18th December 1950 which inter alia prescribed that no officer who had positive qualification should be passed owr by an officer junior to him unless G the latter had in addition really exceptional ability or qualification. This resolution was passed after consultation of the Bombay Public Service Commission and in supersession ol the orders of the previous resolutions dated 22nd May 1944, 23rd March 1945 and the 18th March 194 7. Thereafter by another resolution dated 4th March 1957 the principle for the preparation and main- H tenance of a select list of Deputy Engineers who were considered fit for promotion as Executive Engineers was formulated. Acoording to this resolution,. a committee consi~ting of 3 Chl•f Engineers under the chairmanship of the senior Chief Engineer L3Sup:CJ'/7()-9 '··

¶59

(1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶60

SUPRiME COURT REPORTS

¶61

620

¶62

was to review in December each year the claim of officers in the Bombay Service oi Engineers class II for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. This committee had to prepare a select list with due regard to the provisions of the government resolution dated the 18th December 1950. Likewise, the Government by a resolution dated 20th August 1965, revising its previous resolution dated 24th August 1954 and 14th December 1959, formulated the principles for preparation, maintenance and revision of a list of overseers fit for promotion as Deputy Engineers. Under this resolution statewise list as on !st April of every year of each of the categories of overseers had to be made comprising of ( 1) graduate overseers, (2) diploma holder overseers (DCB-Poona) or equi· valent, (3) subordinate overseers holding the Diploma oi the Osmania University, and ( 4) non qualified overseers. The length of service required for eligibility to promotion to the post of officiating Deputy Engineer in respect of the first category W:li 3 years, second category 8 years, third category 10 years including past service as sub-overseers of those allocated from the ex-Hyderabad State, and fourth category 13 years.

¶63

We may now briefly state the different grades of service and the channels of promotion in the Engineering service of the Maharashtra State created as a consequence of the various rules. At the apex of the service are the Chief Engineers, Superinter.iing Engineers and the Executive Engineers who constitute class I service. The channels of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers is from two sources, (a) direct recruit to class !- Assistant Engineers, and ( 2) Deputy Engineers class II. The cadre of Deputy Engineers class II is constituted by direc~ iecruits 75 per cent and promotees 25 rer cent. The channels of promotion to the promotecs class I were from temporary engineers and from the subordinate service, namely, graduate engineers, now known as junior engineers, diploma holder overseers and junior or non-technical overseers promoted from still lower ranks.

¶64

The case of the first respondent and the other respondents is that the 7 years' qualifying service required for promotion as Offi. ciating Executive Engineers is continuous officiating service as Deputy Enigneer and not as contended by the petitioners to be reckoned from the date of confirmation as Deputy Engineer>. It is contended first, that the interpretation of rr. 6, 7 and 8 of the 1960 Resolution does not ex facie lend itself to the interpretation suggested by the petitioners; secondly, that it ignores the subsequent amendment effected by the 1963 Resolution; thirdly, that for the purpose of promotion the seniority which is relevant is not the seniority in the department but the seniority in the Select List to be prepared in accordance with the Resolution of 1957 in which the petitioners cuL1ld not ~nu did not find a place during the

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

I'. Y. JOSHI v. MAHARASilTli (Jteddy, J,)

¶74

G21

¶75

A relevant period, fourthly, the basis of promotion being senioritycum-merit the petitioners who had at no ti~e complained 'that their names were not considered cannot complain ol a violation of Art. 14 or Art. 16, nor could a writ of mandamus lie in such circumstances; and fifthly, that the Resolutions to which references have been made and which are relied upon by the J?etitioners are

¶76

B . not made ei•her under Art. 309 or any other provis10n of law but are merely executive instructions which the Government would be entitled to issue in the absence of rules which have statutory bind· ing force. In so far as respondents who are allotted from Hyderabad service are concerned, it ii: contended that they were all selected by the Hyderabad Public Service Commission in June 1956 and would have been appointed as Assistant Engineers in

¶77

C that State in a few months had not States reorganisation taken place. In view of the tact that they had been selected by the predecessor State and also the successor state it was open to the Government to make the appointment of the respondents having regard to the various provisions of the States R~ganisation Act, and accordingly the Government directed that their appointments

¶78

D be treated as temporary Deputy Engineers effective from 31-3-1957 for the purpose of seniority and promotion. What in fact the Government has done is to recognise the just claims of those who had ·already been selected for class I posts in the Hyderabad State which posts have been equated with the post of Deputy Engineers in the Bombay State while arriving at the equation envisaged under

¶79

E the States Reorganisation Act and under the allotted Government Service Rules of 19 5 7. In fact the claim of the respondents was that the Assistant Engineers of class I of the Hyderabad State should be equated with the posts of Assistant Engineers Chss I of the Bombay State.

¶80

Shri Gupte learned counsel for the petitioners however contends

¶81

F that all the respondents from the erstwhile Hyderabad State were allotted to the Bombay State as overseers which posts they were holding substantively on and after 1st November 1956. They were thereafter promoted as officiating Deputy Engineers between 1958 and 1963 and were not confirmed in their respective posts on the date when they were appointed officiating Executive Engi-

¶82

G neers.. The learned Advocate further contends that these persons were m fact not appointed as Assista11t Engineers in the erstwhile Hyderabad State though they might have been selected by the Hyderabad Public Service Commission ar.d that in any case as the Bombay Public Service Commission did not select them they could not be cla_ssified in the category of temporary Deputy Engineers

¶83

H selected by the Bombay Public Service Commission. Apart from this category, there are respondents who were appointed as offi· ciating Deputy &gineers before the reorganisation on 1st November 1956 and were confirmed only after the petitioners were directly

¶84

[ 197UJ j S.C.R.

¶85

SUPREME COURT REPORIS

¶86

appointed. The first petitioner was appointc<l on 9th June 1959, the second petitioner on 11th June 19:i9 and the third petitioner on 12th June 1959. Though the petitioners were confirmed _2_ years thereafter, namely, on 9th June 1961, 24th June 1961 and the 18th June 1961 respectively, none the less for the purpose of seniority the dates on which they were first appointed in June 1959 would be relevant dates because confirmation under the rules relates back to that date and therefore they would be senior to those respondents who were confirmed thereafter. There are yet a few respondents who were promoted as officiating Deputy Engineers after the 1st November J 956, namely, those persons who were non gazetted sub divisional officers of the former State of Madhya Pradesh and the former State of Hyderabad who were treated as Deputy Engineers from lst November 1956 and there were others who were not so deemed but were not cr>nfinned as Deputy Engineers on the date when they were promoted as officiating Executive Engineers. The contention of Shri Gupte in the main is that officiating Deputy Engineers could only be considered as promoted to the grade of Deputy Engineers on confirmation and therefore the 7 years qualifying service necessary for their being promoted as officiating executive engineers is to be reckoned from the date of their confirmation as Deputy Engineers and since good many of them were confirmed after the appointment of the petitioners and most of them were not so confirmed even on the date of their promotion as Executive Engineers under the rules they would not be entitled to those promotions. Shri Chagla and Shri Kumaramangalam, on the other hand, contend that the rules nowhere prohibit the promotion to Executive Engineers from officiating Deputy Engineers, nor is tfiere anything to indicate either expressly or otherwise that the 7 years' qualifying service should be from the date of confirmation. All that is required is that a person in order to become eligible for promotion as officiating Deputy Engineer should be promoted as Deputy Engineer that in either case he should have 7 years in that capacity whether as permanent Deputy Engineer or continuosly as an officiating Deputy Engineer and that he should be selected and put on a Select List. The respondents, it is contended, have fulfilled all these requirements. The second respondent who appeared in person h3s adopted these arguments of the learned Advocate for the respondents.

A

B

c

D

F

G

We may here read the relevant rules as set out in tile rc-spcctivc resolutions.

¶94

1957 Rules-

¶95

( 1) Government should review in December cacl\ vear the claims of all officers in the Bombay Service of Engineers, -Class JI for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers by setting up a Committee consistin_g of the three Chief Engineers under the

¶96

H

¶97

JOSHI v. MAHARASHTRA (Reddy, /.)

¶98

623

¶99

P. Y.

¶100

A Chairmanship of the Senior Chief Engineer, which should draw up a select list of those considered by them suitable for promotion.

¶101

( 2) The Committee should scrutinise the case of each officer and prepare a select list with regard to the provisions of Government Resolution and Government Circular Memorandum, B Political and Services Department Nos. 4099 I 34, dated the 18th December, 1950. Only such officers should be selected for inclusion in the select list as hav~ put in at least seven years' service (excluding the period of training but including the period of probation) in the grade of Deputy Engineer. The officers should also possess the necessary personality, initiate, strength of charac.c ter, fitness to assume independent responsibility and capacity for outdoor as well as office work. No officer should be included in the Select list merely on the negative ground that he is not manifestly unfit.

¶102

( 3) The seniority of the officers on the Select list should be determined by the date of entry of their names in the select list. D The seniority inter se of officers whose names are entered on the same day should be determined in accordance with their seniority in the Class II cadre, unless in consultation with the Commission, it is decided to give an officer accelerated promotion on account of really exceptional ability or qualification.

¶103

( 4) The Committee should submit to Government the Select E List for approval in consultation with the Bombay Public Service Commission. While submitting the list, the Committee should give full justification for supersession involved, if any, and full information regarding qualifications and previous service of those recommended to be brought on the Select List should be given.

¶104

F

¶105

• • • • •

¶106

1960 Rules-

¶107

G

¶108

(i) The number of posts to be filled in the Bombay Service

¶109

H of Engineers, Class I by promotion of officers from the Bombay Service d Engineers, Class II shall be about 25 i;er cent of the total number of superior posts, in th~ Bombay Service of Enginers Cjass I cadre; this percentage should be aimed at for ~onfir·

¶110

[1970] 2 s.c.R.

¶111

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶112

~24

¶113

mations made after 1st November 1956, subject of course, to Class II officers of the requisite fituess and length of service being available.

¶114

(ii) For absorption into Class I, a Class II Officer must be in the permanent Bombay Service of Engineers, Class II adre, should have at least 15 years service to his credit in Clas II in temp_or~ry and permanent capacities, and should be . holdrng an officiating divisional rank at the time of such absorption. On such absorption, the Class' II Officer shall be confirmed as an Executive Engineer.

¶115

(iii) The seniority of the Class n promotees shall be fixed below the bunch of Assistant Engineers, any one of whom is due for confirmation as Executive Engineer during that calendar year, provided that no Class II promotee shall be placed senior to a direct recruit to Class I Assistant Engineer who has been officiating as Executive Engineer from a date earlier than the Clas! II promotee. In the latter case, the Class II promotee, though holding a post and lien as a confirmed Executive Engineer shall be shown both under permanent Engineers, and, also along with the direct recruited Class I Assistant Engineers with a !uitable remark under the Permanent "Executive Engineers list. Thi& is also subject to further conditions as in paragraph 7 below.

¶116

(i) Since the percentages in the superior posts of direct Class I recruits and promotees from Class Il is to be ·about 75 an~ 25, the number of promotions from Class Il in any year would be about one third the number of direct recruited Assi,tant Engineers confirmed as Executive Engineers during that year. Recruitments in the past have, however, been erratic and insufticient even to the extent of there being no recruitments to Class I in certftin vears. In order to deal with such situations, the following rules shall be supplemental and exceptional to those in paragraph 6 above :-

¶117

(ii) As far as possible, promotions as officiating Executive Engineers shall be so made that the promotee, under consideration from Class II has to his credit at least 6 years longer service than a promotee under consideration from Class I, subject. ~' frr as practicable, to the condition that a Class I Officer shall not hold a divisional rank at less than 4, and a Class II Officer at less than 7 years service.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

Subject to availabilities, and, the above criteria. an attempt should be made to maintain the percentages. stated in parn!!l"ar>h 6 ( i) above, between direct Class I and promoted Class II officers in the total of permanent plus officiating superior posts.

¶126

(iii) In the interests of manning superior administrative ranks. it is considered necessary to have at least two confirmations to the Executive Engineers ranks every year. In years when this is not

¶127

P. Y. JOSHI v. MAHARASHTRA' (Reddy, J.)

¶128

ezs

¶129

A possible of achievement according to the percentages as per (i) above, the number of promotions from Class II may be increased to get the two confirmations, mentioned hereinabove.

¶130

Per contra, there would be a reduction in the percentage promotions from Class II in the following years in order to work up to the overall percentages of about 75 to 25.

¶131

B

¶132

(iv) Confirmatiom, if any, made from ·the bunch of Temporary Executive Engineers, who have, at present lien on no cadre, shall be counted against the 25 per cent meant for the non-direct recruits to Bombay Service of Engineers, Class I.

¶133

(i) The Sub-Divisional posts in the Department are, at c present, manned by direct recruits to Bombay Service of Engineers, Class II cadre, Deputy Engineers confirmed from subordinate Service of Engineers, the temporary Deputy Engineers recruited by the Bombay Public Service Commission, officiating Deputy Engineers and similar other categories. These various categories are being compiled into two lists only viz. Bombay Service of Enginers, D Class II cadre of permanent Deputy Engineers and a list ~ Officiating Deputy Engineers. The future recruitments to Bombay Service of Engineers, Class II cadre shall be made by nomination of candidates recruited direct by competitive examination, held by the Commission, and, by promotions from the list of officiating Deputy Engineers. The number of such promotions shall be about one-third the.number of direct recruits appointed in that year.

¶134

E

¶135

(ii) All direct recruitment of temporary Deputy Engineers having been stopped, further officiating vacancies will be manned from the ranks of the Subordinate Service of Engineers. For thi~ purpose, a statewise Select Seniority List will be maintained of members of the Subordinate Service of Engineers cadre, considered fit to hold subdivisional charges. This list shall be compiled F as on 30th June each year.

¶136

For inclusion in this list a graduate shall have to his credit not less than 3; a diploma holder not less than 8, and, a non. qualified person not less than 13 years' service as ovcrilecr.

¶137

For confirmation as a Deputy Eni;ineer, the Officer would be G expected to have put in not less than 3 years' service as Officiating Deputy Engineer.

¶138

(iii) The probationers recruited directly to in the Bombay Service of Engineers, Class n cadre in any year shall, in a bunch, be placed senior to promotees confirmed during that year.

¶139

H

¶140

1963 Rules-

¶141

( A) The seniority of direct recruits and promoted officers in the State services should be determined according to the tkte of

¶142

[1970) 2 S.C.R,

¶143

62,6

¶144

StJP!UiMI COtJR.T QPORTi

¶145

1

¶146

appointment on probation in the case of direct recruits . . . . and according to the date of promotion to officiate continuously in the case of these appointed by promotion, irrespective of whether the appointments are made in temporary or in permanent vacancies, subject to the provisions of the following clauses :-

¶147

B

¶148

(B) A list of services in respect of which special orders for fixation of seniority are in force and to which these orders will not apply will be issued in due course.

¶149

It would be apparent from the 1941 rules that lhey merely provide for fixation of seniority of the direct recruits and officers promoted to the substantive vacancies but have nothing to do with the qualifications required for promotion to the next higher rank. Rule 6 of 1960 deals with class I posts. Clauses l, 2 and 3 of this nde provide ( 1) that 25 per cent posts in clas8 I are to be filled up by promO!ees, (2) that for absorption into class I. class II Officer must have (a) permanent service in class II cadre, (b) have 15 years ol servi<:l? In clas~ n in temporary and permanent capacities, and ( c) that he must be holding an officiating divisional rank_ at the time of such absorption. Clause 3 deals with inter se seniority between the Assistant Enineers and Class Il promotees to the post of Executive Engineers. The abs.orption referred to in r. 6 is a permanent absorption because cl. 2 provides that on such absorption the clas.s Il officers shall be confirmed as Executive Engineers, Clause 6 ·gives no indication that class H officers whether direct recruits or promotees cannot be prom.Jic:d as officiating Executive Engineers. That is dealt with by cl. 2 of as officiating Engineers. That is dealt with by cl. 2 of r. 7 which r. 7 which provides that Class II officers should have as far as possible at least 6 years longer service than the promotee under consideration from class I, viz., Assistant Engineers, and further that be· should at least have seven years service.. Even this rule does not indicate that the qualifvin service of either of six years or of 7 years specified in the rule has to be permanent service. In cl, (ii) of r. 6 it is provided that 15 years of service in class II for ab&orPtion as Executive Enneer can be in temJ)Orary or perma· nent cat1acities. There i. nothing in r, (ii) to militate against the interpretation that the service specified there can he the total service of anv description whether orovisional. temoorary or penna· nent. If oromotion frnm clas' n a• officiatinQ" Executive En~neer can onlv be made after 7 veArs of oennanent service, then there would be no meaninR" in inclt1din2 the temoorArv service in class II for the t111rpose of absorotion as Executive Enllineer; Even r. 8 upon which -Shri Oupte has laid ~re at emphasis in supPort of his contontion, does. not. in-our view, justify an interpretatjon that the

c

D

E

F

G

ff

-·

p, Y. JOSHI V. MAHAlASHTRA. {Reddy., J,)

¶158

627

¶159

A 7 years' service required to entitle persons in class IT for promotion as an officiating Executive Engineer should be permanent service in class IT. Shri Gupte however relied on the requirement in cl. (ii) of r. 8 that the recruitment to Bombay Service of Engineers, Class TI cadre shall in so far as promotees are concerned be by promotion from the list of officiating Deputy Engineers. Relying on this rule B the learned Advocate contends that for promotion as Deputy Engineer Class II he must be on the list of officiating Deputy Engineers before he is entitled to promotion as Deputy Engineer Clilss II and be confirmed in that po>t after satisfying the requirements of 3 years' service as officiating Deputy Engineer. Until he is so confirmed. he will not be considered to have been promotc ed as Deputy Engineer or to belong to class TI service for p•omotion as officiating Executive Engineer as required under cl. (ii) of r. 7. As we have seen earlier, cl. (ii) of r. 7 does not use the 'Yord 'belong' bt requires only that the person uder consider~· tton for promotion should be from class II service. To be m cla8s II service the Deputy Engineer promoted from subordinate service has to put in at least 3 years of service as officiating Deputy D Engineer· before being confirmed and thereafter he can when he is p•omoted to the next higher ramk be confirmed as Executive Engineer if .he has put in 15 years in class TI service in temporary or permanent capaeities and is holding'. an officiating divisional rank, namely of an Executive Engineer. If temporary service can be taken into account for confirmation as an Executive Engineer, E so can officiating service, and if officiating service can be taken into consideration, there is no impediment to a Deputy Erigineer with 1 years' service whether officiating, temporary or permanent to entitle hitri for promotion as an Executive Engineer.

¶160

D

¶161

E

¶162

The list that Is reterred to in cl. ( i) of r. 8 must be read with the. further provision in that ru1e that for in.clusion in that list of persons a graduate shlill nave to his credit not less than 3, a diploma holder not less .than 8 and a non qualified per8Qil not less th.llli. 13 years of service as ove11eers. In our view it is the ).ist qf such.persons that is referred to in cl. (ii) of r. 8 and not that there .sh0J1ld be a list ol. persons actually officiating as Engineers for further promotion to the same post which will have little mean. ing, for there cannot be a promotion of a person in the sallle cadre of. service who ls already promoted whether as. an officiating or teD1pcirary .or permanent incumbent, If cl. (i) of r. 8 provides that class ti cadre shall. be recruited by competitive examination, the vt'Qnio!ees. al~o are prdm,oted from the list of persons considered flt to hold .sub diyisiQnal charge, i.e., posts of .Deputy Engineers. It In. the c·se ~ direct recruits the appointllient is Without reference to cotlf!nntion, it. cal\IlOt be any different in the case of promotees.

F

G

H

We camiot,., $erofore; accem the contention of Shri Gupte that ·ir promotee olll4iatin~ Peputy Engineer Class U is not entitled to

¶167

(1970] 2 sc.R.

¶168

628

¶169

SUPIU!ME· COURT RllPORTS

¶170

be considered for promotion under r. 7 to tlw post of an officiating Executive Engineer lllllless he has put in 7 years of service from the date of confirmation. On the other hand, the subsequent resolution of the Govermuent of 1963 makes it abundantly clear that the seniority of promotees should be considered a8 from the date of promotion to officiate continuously irrespect:ve of whether the appoi:ntments are made in temporary or permanent vacancies. It is no doubt submitted that this does not have the force of rules and cannot therefore have the effect of amendinl( the rules of 1960. As we have already held on an interpretation of the rules of 1960 that they do not support the contention of the petitioners, the question whether the resolutiQll has the force of rules may not be relevant in this context, but none the less in our view, there is force in the contention of Shri Kumaramangalam, learned advocate for the respondents, that even the 1960 rules h·.1ve no statutory force aind are no better than the executive instructions issued from time to time by means of resolutions. It may be observed that the rules referred to are part of the resolution of 1960. The resolution itself lays down the principles and in the end formulates those principles in terms of rules, which however are not purported to be made under any provision of law or even under Art. 309, There also is nothing to indicate that the procedure and fonnalitie~ required for making rules have been gone through.

¶171

It is next contended that the persons from the Hvderabad St:rvice did not have 7 years even as offi.ciatinq Deputy EnjJinecrs but were only deemed to have been appointed as temporary engineers as from 31-3-1957. This contention also, in our view, has no force because the respondents who were from Jl'·derabad State were in fact selected by the Hyderabad Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers and would have. been appointed as such but for the States Reorganisation Act which came into force as from 1-11-1956. Had thev been appointed earlier. they would have had to be equated with the posts in Bombay. In fact as the notification issued bv the Hyderabad Public Service Commission furnished by Mr. Joshi shows. the candidates who were to be selected were required to serve in any of the districts of Hyderabad State. Hyderabad proper or accordinl( to the allocation in the reoranised set up of the State if and when it took place. It was, therefore, in the contemplation of the Public Service Commislon that the State would !:le reorgainised and the candidates selected may be required to serve in the reorganised State. The allocation of persons alter the reoro:anisation from one State to the other was •ubject to the Reorganisation Act which dealt with matters pertaining to allocation, transfer, fixation of service conditions, seniority etc. The claims of the resporidents who were allotted from the Hbad State arose earlier than the appointments of the petitioners and the Govemment of Bombay and subllequently the

A

B

c

D

E

F

H

•

P. Y. JOSHI V. MAHARASHTRA (Reddy, J.)

¶181

629

¶182

A Maharashtra Government was entitled to consider these claims and to ~ve redress.

¶183

It ii again argued that if they had a claim under the States Reorganisation Act, they should have been treated as Deputy Engineers from 1st Nov. 1956 and not from 31st March 1957 B and therefore they could not be considered as having been dealt with under the States Reorganisation Act. We are unable to accept the force of this argument because it was open to th~ Govemmeint of the State to which they were allotted to take into consideration the fact that they would have been appointed in the erstwhile State from a particular date, to treat them as such and c to equate their posts which they would have held. In these circumstances, there is no statutory bar or rule which prohibits the Government of Maharashtra from deeming their appointment as from 31-3-1957 for the limited purpose of seniority and promotiQD..

¶184

Apart from these contentions it appears to us that there is another formidable obstacle in the way of the petitioners' success D and it is that under the 1957 Resolution for promotion to the post of officiating Executive Engineers, they should be put on the Select List by a committee of the Chief EnginCers to be prepared each year for that purpose. When promotions are made on· the basis of seniority-cum-merit, all that can be required is that persons entitled to promotion should be considered and if ha·:ing been considered they have been left out, they would have no claim to E p~omotion as a matter of right. lJ1 State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood(') this Court had so held. Bachawat, J. speaking for the Court observed at p. 366 ..

¶185

"Where tht promotion is based on seniority-cum· merit the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter Of right by virtue cl. his seniority alone. If he is found unfit F to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed over and an officer junior to him may be promoted."

¶186

It is however stated that no list was made for 1966 which is the crucial year in so far as the petitioners are concerned because their 7 years would have been completed in June 1965 and they would have been entitled to be considered for promotion in 1966. In aill6wer to this contention the affidavit on behalf of the respondents shows that the select list of the Deputy Engineers fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers in class .I '!as prepared for e year 1964 and 1965 according to the pnnc1ples and rules 181 down in the resolutions of 14th December 1957 ~ 29th .Apnl H 1960. None cA the petitioners, it is averred, was included IQ the Select Liat for 1964 or 1965 because not only did any of them not [1] [19SB] 3 S. C. R. )eJ,•

¶187

[1970] 2 s.c.R.

¶188

630

¶189

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶190

A

¶191

B

¶192

have the requisite seven years' service as Deputy Engineer at the relevant time but they were also not entitled to be included because of the classes of recommendation earned by them during the relevant period. The petitioners however denied in their rejoinder that the lists were prepared keeping in view the criteria faid down by the rules, but, in our view, it is signiiicant that they did not possess the required length of service in class II for them to be Mtitled to promotion when the respondents were included in the list and promoted as such they cannot challenge the appointment• made as being in violation of Art. 14 or Art. 16.

¶193

In the result these petitions merit dismissal and are ~ccordingly dismissed.

¶194

Y.P.

¶195

Petitions dismissed.

Prabhakar Yeshwant Joshi & Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Yeshwant Joshi & Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

All India Film Corporation Ltd. & Ors. versus Shri Raja Gyan Nath and Ors.

State of Bihar versus Union of India & Anr.

Kedar Nath Lal & Anr. versus Ganesh Ram & Ors.

Chandramouleshwar Prasad versus Patna High Court & Ors.

Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.

Jayanarayan Sukul versus State of West Bengal