Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18
PETITIONER:
A.N.SEHGAL AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJE RAM SHEORAN AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/04/1991
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
SINGH, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1406 1991 SCR (2) 198
1992 SCC Supl. (1) 304 JT 1991 (2) 123
1991 SCALE (1)601
ACT:
Civil Service - Haryana Public Service of Engineers
Class I PWD (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1966-Rules
2(1), (7), (10), (12), 5,6,7,8,9,11,12 - Post of Asst.
Executive Engineer, Executive engineer and Superintending
Engineer - Direct recruits and promotees - Inter se fixation
of seniority - Year of allotment - Alterability of.
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16-Direct
recruit Assistant Executive Engineer to cadre post and ex
cadre post - Treatment at par as member of service-Validity
of-Rule 2(12)(a), Haryana Public Service of Engineer Class I
PWD (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1966-Whether
discriminatory.
Interpretation of Statutes-Proviso of particular
provision of a statue-Construction of-Whether carves out an
exception to the main provision (Haryana Public Service of
Engineers, Class 1, PWD (Roads and Building Branch) Rules,
1966-Rule 5(2)(a).
Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Road and
Buildings Branch) Rules, 1966-Rule 2(1), (3), (7), (12)(a),
5(2)(a), 8, 9, (2), 11, 12, (3), (5), (6), (7) - Harmonious
construction-Reasons indicated.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants, ‘the promotees’ from Class II service
were promoted as Executive Engineers by relaxing five years
length of service as Class II Engineers in officiating
capacity on various dates between January 6, 1969 to May 29,
1971. Only the appellant no. 1 and two other were confirmed
as Executive Engineers w.e.f. July 11, 1973, December 11,
1974 and December 9, 1975 respectively.
The respondent No.1 was recruited and appointed
directly as Asstt. Executive Engineer w.e.f. October
25,1971. he was also given relaxation of the length of
service of five years as Asstt. Executive Engineer and was
promoted as Executive Engineer on October 8, 1973 and was
confirmed w.e.f. December 22, 1976.
199
All the appellants except one M.R. Gupta were further
promoted as Superintending Engineers on different dates
between 1980 to 1984 whereas the respondent no. 1 was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18
promoted as Superintending Engineer on March 4, 1987.
The applicant no. 1 was further promoted as Chief
Engineer The validity of the promotion of respondent no. 1
to the post of Chief Engineer was challenged.
The respondent no. 1 who was shown junior to the
appellants, field Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the second respondent, State Government to
consider his case for promotion as Superintending Engineer
from the date on which the respondents were promoted
assigning the seniority over the appellants and the
consequential reliefs.
On reference, a Division Bench of the High Court held
that respondent no. 1 was a member of the service from the
date of his initial appointment as Asstt. Executive Engineer
and the appellants and the proforma respondents were not
members of the service and directed the Single Judge to
dispose of the matter on merit, against which, this appeal
on leave was filed.
The appellants contended that the appellants being
promoted as Executive Engineers against regular vacancies,
which were neither a stop-gap arrangement nor fortuitous,
and being continued in service without any break from the
respective dates o their promotion, they were members of the
service in a substantive capacity as Executive Engineers
from the respective dates of promotion; that since the
respondent no. 1 was recruited as Asstt. Executive Engineer
w.e.f. August 30, 1971 long after the promotion of the
appellants, the appellants were seniors to the respondent
no. 1 as Executive Engineers, as Proviso to Rule (5)2
entitles them to remain in a substantive capacity as
Executive Engineer since requisite number of qualified
Asst. Executive Engineers were not available for promotion;
that in view of their continous officiation as Executive
Engineers in terms of Rule 2(12)(a) of the rules, they must
be deemed to be the members of the service from the dates of
promotion and, therefore, they were seniors to the
respondent no.1.
The respondents contended that unless the appellants
were appointed substantively to the cadre posts they could
not be members of the service. The respondent no. 1 became a
member of the service
200
from the date of his initial appointment as Asstt. Executive
Engineer, therefore, he was senior to the appellants and
proforma respondents.
As agreed by the parties, this Court declare the law on
the interpretation of the rules and leave the matter for the
State Govt. to decide the inter seniority on merits.
Disposing the appeal, it is.
HELD: 1. Appointment to a post in accordance with the
rules is a condition precedent and no one can claim
appointment to a post or promotion, as of right, but has a
right to be considered in accordance with the rules,
Appointment by promotion or direct recruitment, therefore,
must be in accordance with the rules so as to become a
member of the service in a substantive capacity. Seniority
is to be fixed in accordance with the principle laid down in
the rules. [213G-214A]
2. The promotee has right to confirmation in the cadre
post as per Rule 11(4) if a post is available to him within
his quota or at a later date under rule 5(2) read with rule
11(4) and gets appointment under rule 8(11). His seniority
would be reckoned only from the date of the availability of
the post and the year of allotment, he shall be next below
to his immediate senior promotee of that year or the junior
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18
most of the previous year of allotment whether officiating
or permanent occupying the post within 50% quota. [214G-
215A]
3. A direct recruit on promotion within his quota,
though later to the promotee is interposed in between the
periods and interject the promotee’s seniority; snaps the
links in the chain of continuity and steals a march over the
approved promotee probationer.[215B]
4. Mere officiating appointment by promotion to a cadre
post outside the quota; continuous efficiation therein and
declaration of probation would not clothe the promotee with
any right to claim seniority over the direct recruits. The
necessary conclusion would, therefore, be that the direct
recruit shall get his seniority with effect from the date of
the year of the allotment as Asstt. Executive Engineer which
is not alterable. Where the promotee would get his seniority
w.e.f. the date of the availability of the posts within 50%
quota of the promotees. [215D]
5. The seniority of the promotee from Class II service
Executive Engineer shall be determined with effect from the
date on which the cadre post was available to him and the
seniority shall be determined accordingly.[215F]
201
6. Under the Rules ‘determination of seniority would be
made only after the promotee becomes a member of the
service’. Therefore the year of allotment must be determined
having regard to (i) availability of the cadre post within
quota; (ii) satisfactory completion of the probation, and
(iii) appointment to the post in the substantive capacity in
term of Rules 12(6) and (7) read with Rule 11(4) and Rule
8(12). Any other construction would be contrary to the
avowed object of the rules as a whole.[218B-C]
7. There is neither invidious discrimination nor
arbitrariness in Rule 2(12)(a) offending Arts. 14 & 16. The
differentiation drawn between direct recruit and the
promotee bears rational relation to the object of Rule
2(12). [219H]
8. The Government of Haryana to determine the cadre
posts, if not already done, regularly from time to time
including the post created due to exigencies of service in
terms of Rule 3(2) read with appendix ‘A’ and allot the post
in each year of allotment as contemplated under rule 12 read
with Rule 5(2)(a) and issue orders appointing substantively
to the respective posts within the quota and determine the
inter se seniority between the appellants promotees and the
direct recruit in the respective quota cadre posts of
Executive Engineers etc. within four months from the date of
receipt of this judgment. The inter se seniority of
promotees and direct recruits shall be determined
accordingly. [220D-E]
M.S. Mighlani v. State of Haryana & Anr. [1983] 1 SLR
421; J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1990] 2 SCC 189; K.K.
Khosla v. State of haryana, [1990] 2 SCC 199; V.B. Badami,
etc. v. Stat of Mysore [1976] 1 SCR 815; K.C. Joshi & Ors.
etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1990] 29 Scale 951-referred
to.
R.P. Khanna v. S.A.F. Abbas & Ors, [1973] 3 SCR 548 at
557 C-J; Baleshwar Dass & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc.,
[1981] 1 SCR 449 at 463; B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana,
[1980] 1 SCr 1024; The Direct Recruit, Clall II Engineering
Officers’ Association v. State of Maharasthra & Ors., [1990}
2 SCC 715 at 745-Distinguished.
9. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a
proviso to a particular provision of a stature only embraces
the field which is covered by the main provision. It carves
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18
out an exception to the main provision to which it has been
enacted by the proviso and to no other. The proper function
of proviso is to except and deal with a case which would
otherwise fall within the general language o the main
enactment,
202
and its effect to confine to that case. Where the language
of the main enactment is explicit and unambiguous, the
proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of
the main enactment, so as to exclude from it, by implication
what clearly falls within its express terms. [211E-F]
10. The scope of the proviso is to carve out an
exception to the main enactment and it excludes something
which otherwise would have been within the rule. It has to
operate in the same field and if the language of the main
enactment is clear, the proviso cannot be torn apart from
the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify by
implication what the enactment clearly says nor set a naught
the real object of the main enactment, unless the words of
the proviso are such that it is its necessary effect [211G-
H]
11. In interpreting the rule, effect must be given to
allow everyone drawn from the sources to have their due
share in the service and chances of involvement to
effectively discharge the duties of the posts honestly and
efficiently with dedication. Any wanton or deliberate
deviation in the implementation of the rules should be curbed
and snubbed and the rules must be strictly implemented to
achieve the above purpose. If wanton doviations are allowed
to be repeated, it would breed indiscipline among the
services and amounts to undue favour to some and denial of
equity for many for reasons known or unknown subverting the
purpose of the rules.{213F]
12. Rules 2(1), 2(3), 2(7), 2(10), 2(12)(a) 5(2)(a) 8,
9(2) 11, 12(3) 12(5) to 12(7) to be construed harmoniously.
lest the legislative animation would be defeated and the
rules would be rendered otiose and surpluses. It would also
adversely effect the morale and efficiency of the
service.[215C]
13. With a view to have efficient and dedicated
services accountable to proper implementation of Govt.
policies, it is open and is constitutionally permissible for
the State, to infuse into the services, both talented fresh
blood imbued with constitutional commitments,
enthusiasm,drive and initiative by direct recuritment,
blended with matured wealth of experience from the
subordinate services.[212G]
14. It is permissible to constitute an integrated
service of persons recruited from two or more sources,
namely, direct recruitment, promotion from subordinate
service or transfer from other services. Promotee from
subordinate service generally would get few chances of
203
promotion to higher echolans of services. [212H]
15. Avenues and facilities for promotion to the higher
services to the less privileged member of the subordinate
service would inculcate in them dedication to excel their
latent capabilities to man to cadre posts {213A]
16. Talent is not the privilege of few but equal
avenues made available would explore common man’s
capabilities overcoming environmental adversity and open up
full opportunities to develop one’s capabilities to shoulder
higher responsibilities without succumbing to despondence.
Equity talented young men/women of great promise would enter
into service by direct recruitment when chances of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18
promotions are attractive. [213B]
17. The chance of promotion would also enable a
promotee to imbue involvement in the performance of the
duties, obviate frustration and eliminate proclivity to
corrupt practices, lest one would tend to become corrupt,
sloven and mediocre and a dead wood. In other words, equal
opportunity would harness the human resources to augment the
efficiency of the service and undue emphasis on either would
upset the scale of equality germinating the seeds of
degeneration. {213D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4094 of
1984.
From the Judgment and order dated 9.7.1984 of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5371
of 1981.
P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv. and Janendra lal for the appellants.
S.C. Gupta, Rajinder Sachhar, Sudarshan Goyal, Vivek
Bhandari, S.C.Patel, mahabir Singh and C.M. Nayar (NP) for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.RAMASWAMY, J. The appellants and the proforma
respondents, thirty in number are employed in the Punjab
Service of Engineers, Class II. The Governor, in exercise of
the power under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of
India framed the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I,
P.W.D. (Road and Buildings) Rules. 1960 for short the Rules
constituting the Punjab Service of
204
Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (Roads and Buildings Branch),
After the formation of State of Haryana w.e.f. November 1,
1966, the rules are called Haryana Service of Engineers,
Class I, P.W.D. (Roads and Buildings Branch). The services
consist of Asstt. Executive Engineers, Executive Engineers,
Superintending Engineers, and Chief Engineers, as may be
specified by the Government of Haryana from time to time
(Rule 3(1). The recruitment to the service is made by the
government as per Rule 5(1); (a) by direct recruitment; (b)
by transfer from any other services of the State Govt. or of
the Union of India; and (c) by promotion from Haryana
Engineers, Class II Service. The appellants for short ’the
promotees" from Class II Service were promoted as Executive
Engineers by relaxing five years length of service as Class
II Engineers in officiating capacity on various dates
between January 6, 1969 to May 29, 1971, There of them,
namely, A.N. Sehgal, Raj Kumar and H.C. Sethi were confirmed
as Executive Engineers w.e.f. July 11, 1973, December 11,
1974 and December 9, 1975 respectively. The rest are yet to
be confirmed. Raje Ram Sheoran was recruited and appointed
directly as Asstt. Executive Engineer w.e.f October 25,
1971. He too was given relaxation of the length of service
of five years as Asstt. Executive Engineer and was promoted
as Executive Engineer on October 8, 1973. He was confirmed
w.e.f. December 22, 1976. All the appellants except M.R.
Gupta were further promoted as Superintending Engineers on
different dates between 1980 to 1984 and Mr. Sheoran was
promoted as Superintending Engineer on March 4, 1987 A.N.
Sehgal was further promoted as Chief Engineer, Equally Mr.
Sheoran was also promoted as Chief Engineer but the validity
was challenged and it is not necessary to refer any further
as it is subject matter of proceedings in the High Court.
R.R. Sheoran who was shown junior to the appellants,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18
field Writ Petition No. 5371/81 and sought a writ of
mandamus directing the second respondent, State Government
to consider his case for promotion as Superintending
Engineer from the date on which the respondents were
promoted; to quash the gradation list; to assign the
seniority over the appellants and the consequential reliefs.
On reference, a Division Bench of the High Court by its
judgement dated July 9, 1984 agreed with the ratio laid down
in M.S. Mighlani v. State of haryana & Anr., [1983] 1 S.L.R.
421 and held that R.R. Sheoran was a member of the service
from the date of his initial appointment as Asstt. Executive
Engineer and the appellants and the proforma respondents are
not members of the service and directed the learned Single
Judge to dispose of th matter on merit. This appeal on leave
arises against the judgement of the Division Bench.
205
The controversy centres round the inter se seniority of
the appellants and R.R. Sheoran. For its determination the
Rules need interpretation. The counsel for parties agreed
that we should decide the principles on consideration of the
Rules and leave the matter for the State Govt. to determine
the inter se seniority by applying the law, so for as the
controversy relating to relaxation of the length of service
is concerned it is set at rest by this Court in J.C. Yadav
v. State of Haryana, [1990] 2 SCC 189 and K.K. Khosla V.
State of Haryana, [1990] 2 SCC 199 by a bench of three
Judges to which one of us (K.N. Singh, J.) was a member. The
only question which survives is as to when ‘the appellants’
and ‘R.R. sheoran’ become members of the respective
services.
Shri P.P.Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
contends that the appellants were promoted as Executive
Engineers against regular vacancies, which were neither a
stop-gap arrangement nor fortuitous, and they continued in
service without any break from the respective dates of their
promotion, therefore, they are members of the service in a
substantive capacity as Executive Engineers from the
respective dates of promotion. He further argued that since
Raje Ram Sheoran was recruited as Asstt. Executive Engineer
w.e.f. August 30, 1971 along after the promotion of the
appellants upto B.L. Goyal, the appellants are senior to
R.R. Sheoran as Executive Engineers. Proviso to Rule 5(2)
entitles them to remain in a substantive capacity as
Executive Engineers since requisite number of qualified
Asstt. Executive Engineers were not available for promotion.
In view of their continous officiation as Executive
Engineers in terms of Rule 2(12)(a) of the rules, they must
be deemed to be the members of the service from the dates of
promotion and, therefore, they are seniors to R.R.Sheoran .
M/s. Sachhar, learned counsel for the State and Gupta for
R.R. Sheoran on the other hand contended that unless the
appellants were appointed substantively to the cadre posts
they could not be members of the service. R.R. Sheoran
became member of the service from the date of his initial
appointment as Asstt. Executive Engineer, therefore, he is
senior to the appellants and proforma respondents and the
High Court rightly interpreted rule 5(2). Since the High
Court did not enter into the merits of the respective claims
of the appellants and Sheoran, we express no opinion on
merits except, as agreed by the parties, we declare the law
on the interpretation of the rules and leave it to the State
Govt. to decide the inter se seniority on merits.
It is necessary to have a look into the Rules
regulating the
206
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18
service. Rule 3(1) postulates that the service shall
comprise of Assistant Executive Engineers, Executive
Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers.
Rule 3(2) read with appendix ‘A’ enjoins the State of
Haryana to determine the cadre strength of service each
year. Appendix ‘A’ lays down procedure to determine the
cadre strength of service. The senior posts include
Executive Engineers and above while junior scale posts
include Asst. Executive Engineers . Ex-cadre posts also are
contemplated in the respective senior posts and junior scale
posts. Rule 5(1)(a) posits recruitment to the service: (a)
by direct recruitment; (b) by transfer and (c) by promotion
from Class II service. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 says that all
direct appointments to the service shall be to the post of
Asstt. Executive Engineer. Proviso therein gives power to
the government to appoint by direct recruitment as Executive
Engineers, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be
recorded in writing. Rules 6 and 7 prescribe qualifications
and method of appointment by direct recruitment . Subrule
(3) of Rule 7 states that appointment to the service shall
be made according to the number of vacancies to be filled by
direct recruitment strictly in the order of merit as
indicated by the Public Service Commission. As per Rule
11(1) and direct recruit shall remain on probation for a
period of two years or extended period upto maximum of three
years. On satisfactory completion of probation, the
government may confirm under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of
Rule 11 or to discharge him from service otherwise. The post
of Asstt. Executive Engineer is a junior scale post. Under
rule 12(3), they year of allotment of an Asstt. Executive
Engineer shall be the calendar year in which the order of
appointment is issued by the government.
Rule 2(1) defines appointment to the service which includes
an appointment made according to the terms and provisions of
the rules to an officiating vacancy or to an ex-cadre post
provided that an officer so appointed shall not be deemed to
have become a member of the service as defined in Clause
(12) of Rule 2. The Asstt. Executive Engineer means a member
of the service in the junior scale of pay, (Rule 2(2)).
Cadre post means permanent post in the service as per Rule
2(3). ‘Class II Service’ means the Punjab Service of
Engineers, Class II, in the Buildings and Roads Branch and
includes, for purposes of promotion to and fixation of
seniority in the Class I Service, Temporary Asstt. engineers
when a suitable Class II Officer is not available vide Rule
2(5). Direct appointment means an appointment by open
competition but does not include-(a) an appointment made by
promotion; (b) an appointment by transfer of an officer from
the service of the State Government or of the Union, (Rule
2(7). Ex-cadre
207
post means a temporary post of the same rank as a cadre post
vide Rule 2(10). A member of the service means an officer
appointed sub-stantively to a cadre post and includes (a) in
the case of a direct appointment an officer on probation, or
such an officer who, having successfully completed his
probation, awaits appointment to a cadre post vide Rule
2(12)(a).
A reading of the rules clearly indicates that an Asstt.
Executive Engineer appointment by open competition to a
substantive vacancy in a cadre post and put on probation is
a member of the service. Equally such Asstt. Executive
Engineer recruited by open competition and appointment to an
ex cadre post and put on probation and who having
successfully completed his probation and awaits appointment
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18
to a cadre post would also become a member of the service.
The contention of Shri P.P.Rao is that an officer appointed
substantively to a cadre post is a direct recruit and the
inclusive definition encompasses within its ambit the
promotee and the phase ‘‘such an officer who having
successfully completed his probation and awaits appointment
to the cadre post’’ is only referable to a promotee. So
promotee is also a member of the service from the date of
initial promotion. We may make it clear at this juncture
that in normal service jurisprudence a direct recruit would
always be recruited and appointed to a substantive vacancy
and from the date he starts discharging the duty attached to
the post he is a member of the service subject to his
successfully completing the probation and declaration
thereof at a later date and his appointment relates back to
the date of initial appointment, subject to his being
discharge from service on failure to complete the probation
within or extended period or termination of the service
according to rules. Equally it is settle law that a promotee
would have initial officiating promotion to a temporary
vacancy or substantive vacancy and on successful completion
and declaration of the probation, unless reverted to lower
posts, he awaits appointment to a substantive vacancy. Only
on appointment to a substantive vacancy he become a member
of the service. But confirmation and appointment to a
substantive vacancy always an inglorious uncertainty and
would take unduly long time. Therefore, the confirmation or
appointment to a substantive capacity would not normally be
a condition precedent to reckon the continuous length of
service for the purpose of seniority. On the facts of the
case and the settled legal position, at first blush the
argument of Shri P.P.Rao carried weight that the appellants
would get their seniority from the respective dates of the
initial promotion as Executive Engineers. But we find that
in the instant case the rules have made departure from the
normal service jurisprudence as would
208
appear from the scheme under the rules.
Para 11(b) of appendix ‘A’ read with Rule 3(2), while
determining the cadre strength of the service, adumbrates
creation and appointment of Asstt. Executive Engineers
(direct recruit) to an ex-cadre junior scale post in each
year. Therefore in a given situation, a direct recruit
appointed to an ex-cadre post, cannot be kept in lurch until
he is appointed to a cadre post so as to become a member of
the service. Obviously to avoid such a hiatus, Rule 2(12)(a)
was introduced. The main part o Rule 2(12)(a) declares that
an appointee substantively to a cadre post i.e., permanent
post is a member of the service. The inclusive definition
brings an officer ‘by direct appointment on probation’ who
having successfully completed probation and awaits
appointment to a cadre post is also a member of the service.
Take for instance if direct recruitment is made to fill in
five posts of Asstt. Executive Engineers of which four are
cadre posts and one ex-cadre post and four persons are
appointed to cadre posts in the order of merit and the last
one to the ex-cadre post. The first four officers appointed
on probation to the substantive vacancies and they are
covered by the main part of Rule 2(12)(a). The fifth one
intended to cover the field of operation of the inclusive
definition which says that ‘and also includes an officer
directly appointed on probation ’ ‘and such an officer who
having successfully completed his probation, awaits
appointment to a cadre post’. The words ‘and such an
officer’ ‘directly appointed’ would obviously referable to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18
an Asstt. Executive Engineer directly appointed to an ex-
cadre post; who may be placed on probation and awaits
appointment to a cadre post. By operation of the definition
clause he also becomes the member of the service from the
date of initial appointment. This view is further fortified
by the definition the ‘appointment to the service’ in Rule
2(1) which says that appointment to the service includes an
appointment made according to the terms and provisions of
these rules to an officiating vacancy or to an ex-cadre
post. Rule 2(7) says that direct appointment means
appointment by open competition but excludes ‘promotee’ or
‘transferee’. So a promotee promoted to an officiating
vacancy or on ex-cadre post does not become member of the
service unless he is appointed substantively to a cadre
post. We, therefore, hold that a direct recruit appointed to
an ex-cadre post alone is a member of the service even while
on probation and Rule 2(12)(a) applies to them and it does
not apply to promotee from Class II service.
An Asstt. Executive Engineer, on putting five years of
service under rule 9(3)(a) and passing the department
examination as
209
required under rule (15), (unless the qualifications are
relaxed in exercise of the power under rule (22) of the
rules) becomes eligible for promotion as Executive Engineer.
The State Govt. had relaxed the required length of five
years service of the promotees as well as direct recruits.
R.R.Sheoran therefor became eligible to be considered for
promotion. As per the procedure prescribed in this regard
under rule 9(2), he was found fit and suitable and was
promoted as an Executive Engineer w.e.f. October 8, 1973.
Though M/s. Sachhar and Gupta contended that the direct
recruit need not undergo the required probation ad Executive
Engineer, we find no force in the contention. The normal
channel of appointment to the post of Executive Engineer, a
senior post, is by way of promotion to which a direct
recruit Asstt. Executive Engineer is entitled to be
considered. On promotion he shall be on probation for a
period of one year as per Rule 11(1)(a), but the period
spent on officiation as Executive Engineer shall be taken
into account for purposes of completing the period of
probation and on its successful completion, he shall remain
in service As Executive Engineer. On a conjoint reading of
Rule 12(3) and 12(5) it is clear that the year of allotment
of the Asstt. Executive engineer in the post of Executive
Engineer, shall be the calendar year in which th order of
appointment as Asstt. Executive Engineer had been made. Thus
his seniority as Executive engineer, by fiction of law,
would relate back to his date of initial appointment as
Asstt. Executive Engineer and in Juxta position to Class II
officers’ seniority as Executive Engineer is unalterable.
The date of the seniority of Mr. R.R.Sheoran 1971.
The question then is what is the date from which the
seniority of a promotee as Executive Engineer shall be
reckoned? The contention of Shri P.P. Rao is that Rule 5(2)
reserve 50% of the posts to the direct recruits but the
proviso thereto makes a built in relaxation, namely, so long
as the required number of direct recruits are not available
to occupy those posts, the promotees are entitled to hold
those posts also. Admittedly except R.R. Sheoran no other
direct recruit was available. The promotees are eligible to
occupy all the cadre posts even in excess of their quota.
The seniority has to be determined from the respective dates
of initial officiating promotion. Shri Rao’ further
contention that the phrase ‘such an officer appointed to an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18
officiating post’ has reference only to promotees cannot be
accepted for the reasons given earlier. The officer
appointed directly is referable only to Asstt. Executive
Engineer and a promotee by operation of Rules 2(7) stands
excluded until he is appointed substantively to a cadre
post.
210
When an officer is appointed substantively to a cadre
post, is the next question. It is settled law that all the
rules should be harmoniously construed giving life, force
and effect to every part of the rule of clause or word so
that no part would be rendered redundant, ineffectual,
nugatory or otiose. Rule 5(1) regulates recruitment to the
service from three sources, namely, direct recruitment; by
transfer and by promotion from Class II service. Sub-rule
(2) thereof prescribes the ratio between the promotees and
others. It says that, "recruitment to the service shall be
so regulated that the number of posts so filled by promotion
from Class II service shall not exceed 50%" of the number of
posts in the service excluding the posts of Asstt. Executive
Engineers; provided that till such time the adequate number
of Asstt. Executive Engineers who ar eligible and considered
fit for promotion are available, the actual percentage of
officers promoted from Class II service ‘may be larger than
50%. A reading thereof clearly manifests the legislative
animation, namely, that the promotees from Class II service
shall not exceed 50% of the posts in the service. The word
‘shall’ indicates that it is mandatory that the remaining
50% shall be kept open only to the Asstt.Executive Engineers
who were directly recruited but later were found eligible
and fit for promotion as Executive Engineers. Therefore,
unless the government resorts exceptionally with prior
permission of Public Service Commission, vide Rule 10 to
recruitment by transfer of an officer from other service of
the State Govt. or of the Union, the remaining 50% of the
posts as Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and
Chief Engineers shall be occupied only by the direct recruit
Asstt. Executive Engineers. It is settled law that
prescription of quota for recruitment from different sources
is constitutionally a valid rule.
Rule 5(2) limits 50% posts to the promotees from Class
II Service and no further, but the proviso to the Rule lays
down that till adequate number of Asstt. Executive Engineers
are available, the rigour of 50% quota may be relaxed and
Class II officers may be promoted in excess of their quota.
What is the intendment of the class ‘the actual percentage
of officers promoted from Class II service may be larger
than 50% is the question. The mandate of Rule 5(2) is that
the officers promoted from Class II service shall in no case
exceed 50% of the number of posts in the service. Unless
it is relaxed, the appointment and occupation of the posts
by promotee in excess thereof is irregular or illegal and
the government have no power to promote persons from Class
II service to fill in such posts of Executive Engineers
Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers. It is common
knowledge that direct recruitment as Asstt.Executive
Engineers
211
or Executive Engineer; in exceptional circumstances is a
tardy process and even after appointment they have to put in
five years service. The balance 50% of the posts cannot be
kept vacant. With a view to allow the wheels of the
administration moving, the proviso carves out an exception
and allows the promotees to occupy temporarily the posts in
excess of their quota. In this view the contention of Shri
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18
Rao that the seniority as Executive Engineer is to be
counted from the date of initial temporary promotion cannot
be accepted as it would allow the promotees to occupy 100%
posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and
Chief Engineers leaving little room for Rule 5(2) (a) to
operate in full force. The exception would eat away the
flesh and blood of Rule 5(2)(a) freezing the channel of
promotion to the direct recruits to senior posts for a very
long time to come. In the absence of rule of rotation there
may be no chance to a direct recruits to occupy the senior
posts. That does not appear to be the intendment, scope and
operation of the proviso. The intendment appears to be that
so long as the direct recruit Asstt.Executive Engineer,
eligible and considered fit for promotion is not available,
the promotee from Class II service in excess of the quota is
eligible to occupy on officiating capacity the senior posts,
i.e., Executive Engineers and above. The moment direct
recruits are available, they alone are entitled to occupy
50% of their quota and the promotees shall give place to the
direct recruits.
It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso
to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the
field which is covered by the main provision. It carves out
an exception to the main provision to which it has been
enacted by the proviso and to no other. The proper function
of a proviso is to except and deal with a cause which would
otherwise fall within the general language of the main
enactment, and its effect is to confine to that case. Where
the language of the main enactment is explicit and
unambiguous, the proviso can have no repercussion on the
interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude from
it, by implication what clearly falls within its express
terms.
The scope of the proviso, therefore, is to carve out an
exception to the main enactment and it excludes something
which otherwise would have been within the rule. It has to
operate in the same field and if the language of the main
enactment is clear, the proviso cannot be torn apart from
the main enactment nor can it he used to nullify by
implication what the enactment clearly says nor set at
naught the real object of the main enactment, unless the
words of the proviso are such
212
that it is its necessary effect.
In V.B. Badami, etc. v. State of Mysore, [1976] 1SCR
815 dealing with the problem arising out of quota rule
between promotees, this Court observed that:
"In working out the quota rule, these principles
are generally followed. First, where rules
prescribe quota between direct recruits and
promotees, confirmation or substantive appointment
can only be in respect of clear vacancies in the
permanent strength of the cadre. Second,
confirmed persons are senior to those who are
officiating. Third, as between persons appointed
in officiating capacity, seniority is to be
counted on the length of continuous service.
Fourth, direct recruitment is possible only by
competitive examination which is prescribed
procedure under the rules. In promotional
vacancies, the promotion is either by selection or
on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, a
promotion could be made in respect of a temporary
post or for a specified period but a direct
recruitment has generally to be made only in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18
respect of clear permanent vacancy either existing
or anticipated to arise at or about the period of
probation is expected to be completed. Fifth, if
promotions ar made to vacancies in excess of the
promotional quota, the promotions may not be
totally illegal but would be irregular. The
promotees cannot claim any right to hold the
promotional posts unless the vacancies fall within
their quota. If the promotees occupy any
vacancies which are within the quota of direct
recruits, when direct recruitment takes place the
direct recruits will occupy vacancies within their
quota. Promotees who were occupying the vacancies
within the quota of direct recruits will either be
reverted or they will be absorbed in the vacancies
within their quota in the facts and circumstances
of a case".
With a view to have efficient and dedicated services
accountable to proper implementation of Govt. policies, it
is open, and is constitutionally permissible for the State,
to infuse into the services, both talented fresh blood
imbued with constitutional commitments, enthusiasm, drive
and initiative by direct recruitment, blended with matured
wealth of experience from the subordinate services. It is
permissible to constitute an integrated service of persons
recruited from two or more sources, namely, direct
recruitment, promotion from subordinate
213
service or transfer from other services, Promotee from
subordinate generally would get few chances of promotion to
higher echolans of services. Avenues and facilities for
promotion to the higher services to the less privileged
members of the subordinate service would inculcate in them
dedication to excel their latent capabilities to man the
cadre posts. Talent is not the privilege of few but equal
avenues made available would explore common man’s
capabilities overcoming environmental adversity and open up
full opportunities to develop one’s capabilities to shoulder
higher responsibilities without succumbing to despondence.
Equally talented young men/women of great promise would
enter into service by direct recruitment when chances of
promotions are attractive. The aspiration to reach higher
echolans of service would thus enthuse a member to dedicate
honestly and diligently to exhibit competence,
straightforwardness with missionary zeal exercising
effective control and supervision in the implementation of
the programmes. The chances of promotion would also enable
a promotee to imbue involvement in the performance of the
duties; obviate frustration and eliminate proclivity to
corrupt practices, lest one would tend to become corrupt,
sloven and mediocre and a dead wood. In other words, equal
opportunity would harness the human resources to augment the
efficiency of the service and under emphasis on either would
upset the scales of equality germinating the seeds of
degeneration.
With a view to achieve this objective, the rule making
authority envisaged to appoint direct recruits as well as by
promotion from Class II Service, otherwise by transfer from
other services. In interpreting the rules, effect must be
given to allow everyone drawn from these sources to have
their due share in the service and chances of involvement of
effectively discharge the duties of the posts honestly and
efficiently with dedication. Any wanton or deliberate
deviation in the implementation of the rules should be
curbed and snubbed and the rules must be strictly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18
implemented to achieve the above purpose. If wanton
deviations are allowed to be repeated, it would breed
indiscipline among the service and amounts to undue favour
to some and denial of equality for many for reasons known or
unknown subverting the purpose of the rules.
It is settled law that appointment to a post in
accordance with the rules is condition precedent and no one
can claim appointment to a post or promotion, as of right,
but has a right to be considered in accordance with the
rules. Appointment by promotion or direct recruitment,
therefore, must be in accordance with the rules so as to
214
become a member of the service in a substantive capacity.
Seniority is to be fixed in accordance with the principles
laid down in the rules.
Rule 8 prescribes procedure for appointment by
promotion from Class II services. Rule 9(2) states that
promotion would be made by selection on the basis of merit
and suitability in all respect and no member of the service
shall have any claim, to such promotion as a matter of right
by mere seniority. The committee as constituted under Rule
8 shall prepare the list of officers considered fit for
promotion in the order of merit and on approval by the
public Service Commission, the State Govt. shall appoint the
persons from the list in the order in which the names have
been placed by the Commission, Appointment by promotion may
be made under Rule 8(12) to an excadre post or to any post
in the cadre in an officiating capacity from the list
prepared as aforesaid. On promotion, as per Rule 11(1),
officer shall be on probation for a period of one year, but
if the officer had been officiating as an Executive Engineer
the period of officiation would be counted towards
probation. Rule 11(4) provides the on satisfactory
completion of the probationary period, the Govt. confirms
the officiating promotee and "appoint him in a substantive
capacity on a cadre post provided the post is available to
him". If no cadre post is available, the officer has to
wait for an appointment to the cadre post.
A promotee within quota under rule 5(2) gets his
seniority from the initial date of his promotion and the
year of allotment, as contemplated in Rule 12(6) shall be
the next below "the junior most officer in the service
whether officiating or confirmed as Executive Engineer
before the former’s appointment’ counting the entire
officiating period towards seniority, unless there is break
in the service or from the date of later promotion. Such
promotee, by necessary implication, would normally become
senior to the direct recruit promoted later. Combined
operation of sub-rules (3) to (5) of Rule 12 makes the
direct recruit a member of the service of Executive Engineer
from the date of year of allotment as an Asstt. Executive
Engineer. The result is that the promotee occupying the
posts within 50% quota of the direct recruits, acquired no
right to the post and should yield to direct recruit though
promoted later to him, to the senior scale posts i.e.,
Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief
Engineer. The promotee has right to confirmation in the
cadre post as per Rule 11(4) if a post is available to him
within his quota or at a later date under rule 5(2) read
with 11(4) and gets appointment under s. 8(11). His
seniority would be reckoned only from the date of the date
of the availability of the post and the year of allotment,
he shall be next below to his immediate
215
senior promotee of that year or the junior most of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18
previous year of allotment whether officiating or permanent
occupying the post within 50% quota. The officiating period
of the promotee between the dates of initial promotion and
the date of the availability of the cadre post would thus
be rendered fortuitous and stands excluded. A direct
recruit on promotion within his quota, though later to the
promotee is interposed in between the periods and interjects
the promotee’s seniority; shaps the links in the chain of
continuity and steals a march over the approved promotee
probationer. Harmonious construction of rule 2(1), 2(3),
2(7), 2(10), 2(12),(a) 5(2)(a), 8,9(2), 11, 12(3), 12(5) to
12(7) would yield to the above result, lest the legislative
animation would be defeated and the rules would be rendered
otiose and surpluses. It would also adversely effect the
morale and efficiency of the service. Mere officiating
appointment by promotion to a cadre post outside the quota;
continuous officiation therein and declaration of probation
would not clothe the promotee with any right to claim
seniority over the direct recruits. The necessary
conclusion would, therefore, be that the direct recruit
shall get his seniority with effect from the date of the
year of the allotment as Asstt. Executive Engineer which is
not alterable. Whereas the promotee would get his seniority
w.e.f. the date of the availability of the posts within 50%
quota of the promotees. The year of allotment is variable
and the seniority shall be reckoned accordingly.
Appointment to the cadre post substantively and confirmation
thereof shall be made under rule 8(11) read with Rule 11(4)
of the rules. A promotee Executive Engineer would only then
become member of the service, ‘Appointed substantively’
within the meaning of Rule 2(12) (a) shall be construed
accordingly. We, further hold that the seniority of the
promotee from Class II service as Executive Engineer shall
be determined with effect from the date of which the cadre
post was available to him and the seniority shall be
determined accordingly.
In K.C.Joshi & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[1990]2 Scale 951 a Bench of three Judges to which one of us
(K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member, considered similar
question. In that case U.P. Forest Service Rules, 1952
provides, two sources of recruitment to the post of Asstt.
Conservators of Forest. The petitioners therein were Forest
Range Officers in U.P. Forest Subordinate Service. The
respondents were direct recruits as Asstt. Conservators of
Forest. The rules prescribed ratio between direct recruits
and promotees. Due to delay in recruitment as Asstt.
Conservators of Forest, the Forest Rangers were promoted in
excess of their quota as Asstt. Conservators of Forest
temporarily and continued in service without any break for 5
to 12
216
years. The promotees claimed seniority from the date of
their initial promotion. Considering the scope of the rules
and rights acquired by the petitioners therein and the
direct recruits, the Court held that:
"When promotion was outside the quota, the
seniority would be reckoned from the date of the
vacancy within the quota, rendering the pervious
service fortuitous. The previous promotion would
be regular only from the date of the vacancy
within the quota and seniority shall be counted
from that date and not from the date of his
earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In
order to do justice to the promotees it would not
be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18
The rule of quota being a statutory one must be
strictly implemented and it is impermissible for
the authorities concerned to deviate from the rule
due to administrative exigencies of expediency.
The result of punishing down the promotees
appointed in excess of the quota may work hardship
but it is unavoidable and any construction
otherwise would be illegal, nullifying the force
of statutory rules and would offend Arts. 14 &
16(1). Therefore, the rules must be carefully
applied in such a manner as not to violate the
rules or equality assured under Art. 14 of the
Constitution. This Court interpreted that equity
is an integral part of Art. 14. So every attempt
would be made to minimise, as far as possible
inequity. Disparity is inherent in the system of
working out integration of the employees drawn
from different sources, who have legitimate
aspiration to reach higher echolans of service. A
feeling of hardship to one, or heart burning to
either would be avoided. At the same time equality
is accorded to all the employees".
Shri P.P. Rao urged that the cadre posts in Rule 2(12)
must include not only the permanent posts but also temporary
posts continued for more than three years and notional posts
which may have existed for short spells during preceding
three years taking into account the number of months and
days for which each post had existed as per the formula
prescribed in appendix ‘A’ read with Rule 3 of the rules.
He further urged that the promotees appointed to such posts
should be treated to be ‘members of the service’ interms of
Rule 2(12)(a) and that their promotion should be
retrospectively declared to have been promoted w.e.f. the
dates on which the posts were created. We are unable to
accept this contention. Rule 3 read with
217
appendix ‘A’ confers power and also imposes duty on the
State Govt. to determine the cadre posts from time to time
and in the first five years on the first day of each year.
This exercise should be done in the light of the criteria
prescribed in appendix ‘A’. The present controversy does not
concern itself with the method and manner of determination
of th cadre posts, though determination of seniority hinge
upon it. Therefore, for determining seniority, the State
Govt. should undertake the exercise interms of Rule 3 read
with appendix ‘A’. The rules postulate that substantive
appointment to a cadre post is a condition precedent to
become a member of the service. A class II officer shall be
promoted to a temporary post or in an officiating capacity
to a cadre post if vacancy exist’ when he occupies a vacancy
in a substantive post and continued uninterruptedly it would
be open to the appointing authority to put the promotee
Executive Engineer on probation. Though confirmation is an
inglorious uncertainty depending neither on the efficiency
of the officer nor generally on the availability of the
post, the mandate of Quota of 50% in Rule 5(2) should be
adhered to. Declaration of probation and confirmation to a
cadre post, if available, under Rule 11(4) shall be made.
Seniority of such approved or confirmed promotee should be
counted from the date of either initial officiating
promotion of continous later officiation from the date of
availability of the cadre post, however, should be next
below his senior promotee or the junior most of the
preceding year of allotment within the quota. If no post is
available till such date of the availability, the entire
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18
period of continuous officiation would be rendered
fortuitous. The contention, therefore, that the promotion
would relate back retrospectively to the date of creation of
the post and the appointment to the vacancy shall be with
reference to the date of the creation of the post, would
result anomalies and render Rule 5(2) to the direct recruits
surplusage.
Shri P.P. Rao’s further contention that the de facto
promotion and the retrospective declaration of cadre post
would make the Class II officers as de jure members of the
service from the very date of temporary appointment w.e.f.
the date of initial appointment also lacks force for the
same reasons. The principles laid down in R.P. Khanna v.
S.A.F. Abbas & Ors., [1973]3 SCR. 548 at 557 C-J . is not
applicable to the facts of this case. In that case the
certain posts in State services were required to be declared
as senior cadre posts in the All India Service, but before
such declaration could be made some of the promotee officers
officiated in the senior cadre post. In that context the
Court observed that 1the promotee could not get the benefit
of officiation unless the post was declared a equivalent to
a senior cadre
218
post before the promotee was appointed; to officiate him
would defeat the policy of the government’ and held that
they are entitled to the benefit of the retrospective
declaration ‘in the absence of things practical as well as
reasonable. The scheme of the rules made a definite
departure to the normal service jurisprudence and the
operation of the scheme in the rules must be given full
effect. In the instant case under the Rules ‘determination
of seniority would be’ made only after the promotee becomes
a member of the service. Therefore, the year of allotment
must be determined having regard to (i) availability of the
cadre post within quota; (ii) satisfactory completion of the
probation; and (iii) appointment to the post in the
substantive capacity in term of Rules 12(6) and (7) read
with 11(4) and Rule 8(12). Any other construction would be
contrary to the avowed object of the rules as a whole.
The inclusive definition of Rule 2(12) (a) must be
interpreted liberally and not restrictively. Undoubtedly
the inclusive definition always receives liberal
interpretation to bring within its ambit cognate but
unforeseen similes. But the rules envisage only three
sources of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment,
appointment by promotion and in exceptional cases with prior
approval of the Public Service Commission as per Rule 10,
the appointment by transfer from other services of the State
or Central Govt. Until the ex-cadre posts are declared to
be cadre posts they remain ex-cadre posts. The promotion to
the ex-cadre post is temporary or to a cadre post could be
only on officiating basis. It may be open to the government
to abolish at any time the ex-cadre posts. Determination of
cadre strength is a condition precedent for Rule 5(2)(a) to
operate. Till a promotee is confirmed in a substantive
capacity as Executive Engineer, he continues to retain line
in Class II service. The interpretation that the promotion
to the temporary post or ex-cadre post within the meaning of
Rule 2(10) should also be deemed to be an appointment to a
substantive post would do violence to the language of the
relevant rules and the scheme. It is true that this Court
in Baleshwar Dass & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc.,
[1981] 1 SCR 449 at 463 held that there cannot be probation
for a government servant who is not to be absorbed
substantively in the service on completion. The ratio
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18
therein does not apply to the facts of this case for the
reason that the Govt. itself did not understand the scope
and operation of the rules properly as is amply demonstrated
from their mutually irreconcilable inconsistent stand taken
in the counter-affidavits filed by the State Govt. in the
High Court and in this Court. That apart, it would appear
that in the instant case after the formation of the State of
Haryana, adequate number of officers were
219
not available to hold the posts. The length of service and
passing of prescribed tests were relaxed enmass. In view of
the above peculiar and special facts merely because the
promotee Class II Officers were put on probation and the
same was declared it does not clothe them with any right to
deemed appointment to substantive vacancies in excess of
their quota with retrospective effect from the date of
initial promotion to the cadre posts. The year of allotment
of a direct recruit is always the year in which he is
appointed to the junior scale post of Asstt.Executive
Engineer but the year of allotment to the promotee is
variable depending on the availability of the cadre post
within quota of 50% and subject to taking the seniority next
below the junior most promotee of the preceding year of
allotment or immediate senior of the same year. If the
contention of Shri P.P. Rao is accepted is accepted it would
render Rule 8(11) mutually inconsistent with Rule 5(2w) read
with Rules 2(7) and 2(12) and Rule 2(1). No countenance
could be given to the contention that the officers put on
probation in terms of Rule 11(1) irrespective whether they
occupied declared posts, but also posts which ought to have
been declared as such from time to time and have
continuously remained in service entitle them to become
member of service and that, as and when the posts occupied
by them are declared as cadre posts with retrospective
effect, they are entitled to be treated as members of the
service w.e.f. the due dates. In other words it amounts to
put a premium on the inaction on the part of the State Govt.
to declare the cadre posts in terms of Rule 3(2) read with
appendix ‘A’ defeating the scheme of the Rules.
The contention that our interpretation renders Rule
2(12) arbitrary and discriminatory violating Arts. 14 and 16
is also not tenable. A direct recruit, by operation of Rule
2(12) (a) read with Rules 2(1) and 2(10), though appointed
to an ex-cadre post, by fiction of law, becomes a member of
the service from the date of his initial appointment since
being a fresh recruit. On his satisfactory completion of
the prohibition and on availability of the cadre post as
Asstt. Executive Engineer, he becomes a confirmed Asstt.
Executive Engineer. While a promotee Executive Engineer
continues to retain his line on the posts as Class II
officers still he is appointed substantively to Class I
service. There is reasonable classification and discernable
distinction drawn between the direct recruit and the
promotee. The nexus is to treat direct recruit Asstt.
Executive Engineer appointed to the cadre posts as well as
ex-cadre post at par as members of the service and the
deeming clause is to serve this purpose. Thus, there is
nether invidious discrimination nor arbitrariness in Rule
2(12)(a) offending Arts. 12 & 16. The differentiation drawn
between direct recruit and the
220
promotee bears rational relation to the object of Rule
2(12), the ratio of the Constitution Bench in B.S. Yadav v.
State of Haryana, [1980] 1 SCR 1024 and The Direct Recruit,
Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18
Maharashtra & Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 715 at 745 cannot be
imported bodily and applies to the ficts of the case in the
light of the operation of the rules in question.
The further contention that Rule 12 adumbrates that not
only a member of the service, but even an officer
officiating as an Executive Engineer before becoming a
member of the service is entitled to an year of allotment
because the rules nowhere say that only members of service
are entitled to year of allotment is devoid of substance.
As already discussed a promotee cannot be given year of
allotment, before he becomes a member of the service and his
seniority cannot be fixed arbitrarily with reference to the
date of his initial promotion to an ex-cadre post or
continuous officiating in a cadre post without break, as the
case may be.
We accordingly, direct the Government of Haryana to
determine the cadre posts, if not already done, regularly
from time to time including the post created due to
exigencies of service in terms of Rule 3(2) read with
appendix ‘A’ and allot the posts ineach year of allotment as
contemplated under rule 12 read with Rule 5(2)(a) and issue
orders appointing substantively to the respective posts
within the quota and determine the inter se seniority
between the appellants promotees and R.R. Sheoran, direct
recruits in the respective quota cadre posts of Executive
Engineers etc. within four months from the date of receipt
of this judgment. The inter se seniority of promotees and
direct recruits shall be determined accordingly. All the
inpugned promotions or those pending proceedings in the High
Court or in this Court shall be subject to the above
determination and the status quo would continue till the
appointments according to the rules are made and seniority
is determined in the light of the law declared inthis
judgment. The appeals is disposed of accordingly. In the
circumstances parties are directed to bear their respective
costs.
V.P.R. Appeal disposed of
221