V. J. Thomas & Ors Vs. Union of
India & Ors [1985] INSC 97 (23 April 1985)
DESAI, D.A. DESAI, D.A. MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION: 1985 AIR 1055 1985 SCR (3) 881 1985
SCC Supl. 7 1985 SCALE (1)1068
CITATOR INFO: R 1988 SC2073 (20) F 1989
SC1256 (4)
ACT:
Civil Service-Telegraphic Engineering Service
(Group Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981, Note to sub-clause (4) of Appendix
I-Constitutional validity of.
HEADNOTE:
Clause (1) in Appendix I to the Telegraphic
Engineering Service (Class II) Recruitment Rules, 1966 (1966 Rules, for short),
provided that promotion of a Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer
shall be entirely by promotion on the basis of selection of Junior Engineers
through a qualifying departmental examination. Sub-clause (1) provided that the
departmental qualifying examination shall be open to Junior Engineers who were
recruited and absorbed in that grade against the vacancies of a year,
ordinarily not less than five years prior to the year of announcement of the
said examination. Sub-clause (4) of Appendix I to the Telegraphic Engineering
Service (Group Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 (1981 Rules, for short) which
superseded the 1966 Rules envisaged a qualifying- cum-competitive examination
for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. and the Note appended to
sub-cl. (4) provides that for a period of 2 years after the commencement of the
1981 Rules, the first two examinations shall only be competitive for which the
eligibility shall be restricted to only those officers who have already
qualified in the Departmental Qualifying Examination held before the
commencement of these Rules." The appellants/Junior Engineers, who were
recruited in the year 1973, challenged in the High Court the constitutionality
of the Note appended lo clause (4) of Appendix I to 1981 Rule 5 on the ground
that note 4 appended to clause I introduces discrimination in that Junior
Engineers Or 1972 and prior batches will alone be able, if they had cleared the
qualifying examination, to take the competitive examination which would be held
under 1981 Rules and as only the competitive examination was to be held, Junior
Engineers of 1973 and subsequent batches, even if they have put in five years
of qualifying service, would be denied an opportunity to take the examination,
and that this is an invidious manner of denying them the opportunity to take
the examination and thereby deny them equality of opportunity in the matter of
promotion. The learned Single Judge held that the Note to clause (4) of
Appendix I to the 1981 Rules was ultra vires. On appeal by the respondent Union
of India, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the Note was not ultra
Vires.
882 Dismissing the appeal by the appellants,
the Court, ^
HELD: (I) By sheer passage of time, this
appeal and even the main petition have become infractions. Even in service
jurisprudence the clock of history, sometimes, cannot be put back and even if
it is found that the respondents have committed an error in implementing the
statutory rules no relief can be granted. This is one such case. [885F-G] (2)
If by 1982, nearly 4,000 Junior Engineers of pre- 1973 batches had become
eligible for taking competitive examination, the department would be perfectly
justified in keeping the examination open only to persons who have put in such
long service and leaving others to wait for the next examination. If for taking
examination this aspect introduces classification, it is based on rational and
intelligible differentia which has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
By the note, for a period of two years only pre-1973 Junior Engineers who had
cleared qualifying examination were given a chance to take competitive
examination. If this introduces a classification, it is valid. It caters to a
well-known situation in service jurisprudence that there must be some ratio of
candidates to vacancies. And it is based on long experience as a rational basis
for classification. Viewed from this angle, there is nothing in the policy
underlying the note to rule (43 as being either discriminatory or arbitrary or
denying equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. lt had the desired
effect of not having glutt of Junior Engineers taking examination compared to
fewer number of vacancies. Length and experience were given recognition by the
note. The promotion can be thus by stages exposing the promotion; l avenue
gradually to persons having longer experience. This seems to be the policy
underlying the note and therefore there is nothing improper or unconstitutional
in it.
[888D-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2183 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.1984
of the Kerala High Court in W. P. No. 131 of 1982.
. M. K. Ramamurthi, V. J. Francis and N. M.
Popli for the Appellants.
G. D. Gupta, Ms. Halida Khatun, Subba Rao, R.
N.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.1984
of the Kerala High Court in W. P. No. 131 of 1982.
Poddar, Ms. Subhadra, Ms. Alka, B. B.
Tawaklcy and Mrs. Urmila Kapur for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court Was delivered by DESAI,
J. Chagrined by the failure of the attempt to pressurise junior engineers to
boycott the examination and further irritated by the holding of the examination
the appellants have knocked at the 883 doors of this Court, putting forth
utterly unsustainable contentions.
Appellants are junior engineers in the
Telegraph Wing of the Post & Telegraph Department. The next avenue of
promotion for a Junior Engineer is the post of Assistant Engineer. Promotions
were governed by Telegraphic Engineering Service (Class Il) Recruitment Rules,
1966 ( '1966 Rules' for short ). By these rules Telegraphic Engineering Service
( Class Il ) was formed. The Rules were to apply to posts as specified in
Clause (I) of the Schedule which specified the post of Assistant Engineer and
other equivalent posts having allied designations. Clause (I) in Appendix I to
the 1966 Rules provides that recruitment to the service shall be entirely by
promotion on the basis of selection of Junior Engineers through a qualifying
departmental examination. An approved list shall he' prepared by a duly
constituted Departmental Promotion Committee, by selection from amongst the
officials who qualifying the departmental examination. Sub-Clause (4) provided
that the departmental qualifying examination shall be open to Junior Engineers
who fulfill, amongst others, the condition specified therein. It reads as
under:
"Those recruited and absorbed in that
grade against the vacancies of a year, ordinarily, not less than five years
prior to the year of announcement of the said examination.
These rules were in force till superseded by
Telegraphic Engineering Service (Group Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 ('1981
Rules' for short) enacted in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution with effect from May 7, 1981. The controversy
centers round the Note appended to sub-clause (4 of Appendix I of 1981 Rules
which reads as under:
"40 There shall be normally one
examination, consisting of two parts called Qualifying-cum- Competitive
Examination for promotion to the Service and shall be held at least once in a
calendar year in the manner and in accordance with the syllabus prescribed in
Appendix Ill to these rules.
Note: After the commencement of these rules,
the first two examinations shall only be competitive for which the eligibility
shall be restricted to only those officers who have 884 already qualified in
the Departmental Qualifying Examination held before the commencement of these
rules." Appellants were recruited as Junior Engineers in the year 1973. ln
other words, they belong to 1973 batch. Their grievance is that they have
completed five years of service which conferred on them eligibility to appear
at an examination which was to be held under 1966 Rules. 1966 Rules contemplated
only one examination styled as Qualifying Departmental Examination. 1981 Rules
which superseded 1966 Rules provide for one examination to be held in two parts
namely Qualifying Examination and Competitive Examination.
Before one is permitted to take a Competitive
Examination he has to clear Qualifying Examination. In short, if one has not
qualified at the Qualifying Examination he can not take the Competitive
Examination. The appellants' grievance is that from 1973 to 1982 or to be
specific after 1978 when they became eligible to take Qualifying Examination no
Qualifying Examination was held till May 7, 1981 when 1966 Rules were
superseded by 1981 Rules which introduced the concept of Competitive
Examination which could alone be taken after in qualifying the Qualifying
Examination and for a period of two years as per the Note appended to clause
(4) Qualifying Examination was not to be held. The contention is that this is
an invidious manner of denying them the opportunity to take the examination and
thereby deny them equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion.
Appellants accordingly filed O.P. No. 5714/81
under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Kerala impugning the
constitutionality of the Note appended to clause (4) of Appendix I to 1981
Rule.A learned Single Judge of the High Court, before whom the petition came up
for hearing, held that the policy reflected in the Note appended to clause (4)
of Appendix I to 1981 Rules is irrational as it has no reasonable connection
with the needs of the office or the object sought to be attained.A direction
was given that the Note shall be applied to the appellants. By the judgment
rendered on March 9, 1982, the learned Judge gave a further direction that the
department can either hold the over-due qualifying examination of 1980 or it
can hold the qualifying-cum-competitive examination but it must be done
forthwith so that the appellant who were petitioners before the High Court may
not be altogether 885 excluded from the examination or examinations to be held.
The respondents to the writ petition, the
Union of India and others filed Writ Appeal No. 131 of 1982 which came up
before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench disagreed with
the learned Single Judge observing that the Note to Rule 4 is not ultra-vires
but this was subjects to the further directions given by the Division Bench.
Taking note of the fact that in the meantime, a competitive examination was
conducted, a direction was given that the result be published and the
candidates who are declared successful in the examination should be appointed
to 33-1/3% of the vacancies which arose between May 7, 1981 and May 7, 19 82.A
further direction was given that the second competitive examination
contemplated in note to clause (4) must be conducted after a qualifying
examination as envisaged in 1966 and/or 1981 Rules is conducted within a period
of six months from the date of the judgment and all those examinees found
declared successful at the qualifying examination be permitted to take the
competitive examination which must be held within six months from the date of
the result of the earlier examination.A direction was given that the candidates
declared successful at the competitive examination be appointed to 33-1/3%
quota of posts in the vacancies that arose between May 7, 1982 and May 7, 1983.
There was some further directions which are hardly material for the present
purpose. The writ appeal was disposed of in these terms. Original petitioners
aggrieved by the decision of Division Bench have filed this appeal by special
leave.
By sheer passage of time, this appeal and
even the main petition have become infructuous. Even in service jurisprudence
the clock of history, sometimes, cannot be put back and even if it is found that
the respondents have committed an error in implementing the statutory rules no
relief can be granted. This is one such case.
Appellants are Junior Engineers of the 1973
batch belonging to the service styled as Telegraphic Engineering Service (Class
II) re-designated as Telegraphic Engineering Service (Group Posts). Appellants
as Junior Engineers can look forward to become Assistant Engineers by
promotion.
Indisputably, the recruitment to the post of
Assistant Engineer in the service is by promotion from 886 the cadre of Junior
Engineers. Under the 1966 Rules, Junior Engineers would become eligible for
promotion on qualifying at a qualifying examination. The eligibility criterion
for taking the examination was service of five years. Appellants who are Junior
Engineers of 1973 batch became eligible for taking the examination that may be
held in 1978 and onwards.
Once in November, 1980 and another in
January, 1981, programme of holding qualifying examination, where 1973 recruits
could have appeared, was announced but subsequently cancelled and on May 7,
1981, 1966 Rules were superseded by 1981 Rules.
1981 Rules envisaged a
qualifying-cum-competitive examination. Eligibility criterion for taking
competitive examination was successful clearance of qualifying examination.
Therefore, unless a qualifying examination is held one would have no chance to
take competitive examination. For 1973 recruits no qualifying examination is
held. In 1981 Rules by a note appended to clause (4) of Appendix 1, it was
provided that the next two examinations under 1981 Rules would only be
competitive examination. The sum total of these developments would certainly
come in the way of appeallants who are of 1973 batch from taking competitive
examination and unless they qualify at that examination they would not be
eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.
In 1982 a competitive examination was held.
Junior Engineers who were recruited prior to 1973 and who had qualified at the
qualifying examination held in August 1980 could appear at this competitive
examination. As Junior Engineers of 1973 and sub" sequent batches were not
admitted to qualifying examination held in 1982 and as no qualifying
examination was held in November 1980 and January 1981 and as two examinations under
the 1981 Rules were only to be competitive examination, certainly they have
been denied an opportunity to take the examination. Appellants who similarly
situated persons tried extra-constitutional methods to pressurise the powers
that be, from holding the qualifying examination and subsequently from
declaring its results. This Court had to interpose to put down such pressure
tactics by a mandatory direction given at an interim stage that the results of
the examination already held must be declared. We are informed that the results
have been declared.
887 Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, learned counsel
represented one such successful candidate. Even though the results are
declared, the follow-up action of promotion and appointment has not been taken.
We propose to give appropriate directions in this matter.
In the backdrop of these facts, can it be
said that the appelIants have been victimised or subjected to discriminatory
treatment or have been denied equality of opportunity in the matter of pro
motion. Appellants do not question the legality of rules which prescribe a
qualifying- cum-competitive examination for becoming eligible for promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineer. Their grievance is that note 4 appended to
clause I introduces discrimination In that Junior Engineers of 1972 and prior
batches will alone be able, if they had cleared the qualifying examination, to
take the competitive examination which would be held under 1981 Rules and as
only the competitive examination was to be held, Junior Engineers of 1973 and
subsequent batches, even if they have put in five years of qualifying service,
would be denied an opportunity to i take the examination. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court held the note to be ultra-vires. We find it difficult
to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge in this behalf. However the
Division Bench has clearly opined that the note is not ultra-vires.
Mr. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the
appellants contended that the note inheres the pernicious tendency of denying
equality of opportunity in the matter of taking examination because it permits
the department to provide a bottleneck coming in the way of Junior Engineers of
the 1973 batch from taking the competitive examination by not holding the
qualifying examination. We see nothing wrong in the policy disclosed by the
note. lt was pointed out that by 1982 nearly 7, 000 Junior Engineers had become
eligible for taking competitive examination. There was some dispute about the
figure but we are prepared to accept the figure as given by Mr. Ramamurthy,
learned counsel that 4, 000 Junior Engineers of pre- ` 1973 batch were
qualified for taking competitive examination. Mr. Ramamurthy contended that if
the eligibility criterion is five years of service DO artificial road-block
could be created so as to come in the way of such qualified Junior Engineers
from taking the examination. As an additional string to the bow, it was
submitted that if the purpose of holding a competitive examination is to select
best all eligible persons must be permitted to take the examination and ll 888
no artificial barrier need to be created. It was submitted that not holding of
the qualifying examination creates such an impermissible road-block in the way
of Junior Engineers of 1973 and subsequent batches from taking competitive
examination.
If by 1982, more than 4, 000 Junior Engineers
of pre- 1973 batch had become eligible to take the examination and if the
accumulated number of vacancies was around 300, it is difficult to accept the
submission of Mr. Ramamurthy that everyone who has just put in five years of
service must be permitted to take the examination. It is a known-principle of
service jurisprudence that even though mini mum eligibility criterion is fixed
enabling one to take the examination yet the examination can be confined on a
rational basis to recruits upto a certain number of years.
That constitutes recognition of long
experience and not permitting some irate junior to score a march. If by 1982,
nearly 4, 000 Junior Engineers of pre-1973 batches had become eligible for
taking competitive examination, the department would be perfectly justified in
keeping the examination open only to persons who have put in such long service
and leaving others to wait for the next examination.
If for taking examination this aspect
introduces classification, it is based on rational and intelligible differentia
which has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. By the note, for a
period of two years only pre- 1973 Junior Engineers who had cleared qualifying
examination were given a chance to take competitive examination. If this
introduces a classification, it is valid. It caters to a well-known situation
in service jurisprudence that there must be some ratio of candidates to
vacancies. And it is based on long experience as a rational basis for
classification. Viewed from this angle, we find nothing in the policy
underlying the note to rule (4) as being either discriminatory or arbitrary or
denying equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. It had the desired
effect of not having a glutt of Junior Engineers taking examination compared to
fewer number of vacancies. Length and experience were given recognition by the
note The promotion can be thus by stages exposing the promotional avenue gradually
to persons having longer experience. This seems to be the policy underlying the
note and we see nothing improper or unconstitutional in it.
However the situation has materially changed.
More than 4 years elapsed sine the note has appeared- One examination is 889 a
ready taken. Even Junior Engineers of 1973 batch have by now put in more than
12 years of service. Therefore while upholding the note and consequently
rejection the appeal we propose to give the following directions to remove the
irritants:
(i) Successful candidates of 1982 competitive
examination, results of which have been declared pursuant to the directions of
this Court, must be given promotion as Assistant Engineer within a period of
two months from today.
(ii) The next qualifying examination
permitting all those who are eligible under the rules to appear at it must be
held latest by July 31, 1985 and the results be declared by September 30, 1985.
(iii) The next competitive examination must
be held by December 31, 1985 and the results by declared by February 28, 1986.
(iv) Consequent promotions keeping in view
the vacancies available must be given within a period of three months after the
result is declared.
This appeal is disposed of in these terms
with no order as to costs M. L. A. Appeal dismissed.
Back
