Nageshwar Prasad And Others v. Union Of India And Others

Order

1. In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution the President made Rules to amend the Central Water Engineering (Group B) Service Rules, 1964; the amended Rules providing for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on 50 : 50 basis from amongst those holding a degree in Engineering with three years' experience and those possessing a diploma with 7 years' experience of service in the lower grade. The promotion was to be effected by selection on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority from amongst persons employed in the Central Water Commission in the grades of (a) Design Assistant (Engineering) (b) Supervisor and (c) Head Draftsman. The amended Rule provides that 50 per cent of the posts shall be filled by promotion of officers mentioned in sub-rule (1) possessing a degree in Engineering from a recognised University/Institution or equivalent and having rendered not less than three years' regular service in the respective grade in the capacity of a graduate engineer; the remaining 50 per cent posts, the rule provides, shall be filled by promotion of officers mentioned at (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) i.e Supervisors and Head Draftsmen possessing a diploma in Engineering from a recognised institution or equivalent qualification and having not less than 7 years' regular service in the grade of Supervisor/Head Draftsman after acquisition of the diploma in Engineering. The rules further provide that if the regular number of suitable eligible officers are not available from a particular category, i.e degree-holders or diploma-holders, for filling in the vacancies allocated to be filled by promotion from the said category the appointing authority may fill in all or any of the vacancies by promotion of suitable eligible officers from the other category, subject to the condition that the overall promotion of vacancies to be filled from among the officers of either category shall be maintained in accordance with the quota prescribed in the preceding sub-rule. The history of this service shows that earlier under the Central Water Engineering (Class II) Service Rules, 1964 the quota prescribed was 66 2/3 for degree-holders and 33 1/3 for diploma-holders, vide Rule 13. By the subsequent amendment introduced with effect from 11-7-1978 this quota was totally abolished but as stated earlier by the amendment rules of 8-1-1981 it was re-introduced in the ratio of 50 : 50. The diploma-holders are recruited in big numbers in the group C category below Assistant Engineers and since the sanctioned posts in the immediately next higher category of Assistant Engineers are limited in number, a large number of them stagnate and do not get even a single promotion. Their chances of promotion are further reduced because of the quota rule limiting their upward movement to 50 per cent only. That was the grievance against the quota rule with which they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by way of an application, Original Application No. 262 of 1986. The challenge was both to the prescription of different periods of experience for degree-holders and diploma-holders as well as to the prescription of the quota of 50 per cent for degree-holders and 50 per cent for diploma-holders. Dealing with this challenge the Tribunal proceeded to answer the same as under:

“Except that the quota is differently prescribed, the rules which were questioned in that case are exactly similar. After considering the various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Principal Bench held as follows:

‘In sum the Assistant Engineers (Akashvani and Doordarshan Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 1982 insofar as they prescribe a longer period of service for the non-graduate Engineers and a shorter period of service for the graduate Senior Engineering Assistants in the matter of promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers and also require the non-graduate Senior Engineering Assistants to qualify at the Departmental qualifying examination before they could be considered for promotion, are not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But insofar as they prescribe a quota for graduate Senior Engineering Assistants and non-graduate Senior Engineering Assistants in the matter of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer they are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.'

Applying the aforesaid decision, it would follow that the prescription of quota as 50% prescribed in Rule 3(2) contained in the notification dated 8-1-1981 of the Central Water Engineering (Group B) Service Rule has to be held invalid and the prescription of different cadre of service for graduates held valid.”

It is thus obvious that while the difference in the experience criteria was upheld by the Tribunal it struck down the quota rule which limited promotion to 50 per cent for diploma-holders. The appellants who are degree-holders state that they were not parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal and have approached this Court by way of the present appeals. This Court has granted special leave and that is how these appeals are before us.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that the question is squarely covered by three decisions of this Court reported in (1) Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116, (1989) 9 ATC 639, (2) Govt. of A.P v. P. Dilip Kumar (1993) 2 SCC 310, (1993) 24 ATC 123 and (3) P. Murugesan v. State of T.N (1993) 2 SCC 340, (1993) 24 ATC 149. However, the learned counsel for the diploma-holders placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India (1975) 3 SCC 76, (1975) 1 SCR 449. He particularly relied on the observations made in that case (SCR at pp. 479 and 480 :. We have examined these decisions and we may also state that the decision in Shujat Ali case (1975) 3 SCC 76, (1975) 1 SCR 449 was considered in all the three cases with particular reference to the observations on which the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance in the first and the last cases. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decisions on which the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance cannot be distinguished on the observations made in Shujat Ali case (1975) 3 SCC 76, (1975) 1 SCR 449 to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the diploma-holders as those very observations were explained in para 24 of Roop Chand case 1989 Supp (1) SCC 116, (1989) 9 ATC 639 and para 16 of Murugesan case (1993) 2 SCC 340, (1993) 24 ATC 149. We are also not impressed by the submission that 50 per cent quota rule is violative of Articles 14/16 of the Constitution. The prescription of the quota rule is obviously to ensure that in the immediate promotion cadre there is a fair mix of both degree-holders and diploma-holders because the vertical movement from that stage and upwards in the hierarchy is restricted to degree-holders and if they are not available in sufficient number in the feeding channel the said channel would be virtually dry and sufficient number of degree-holders would not be available for promotion to the next higher cadre. The efficacy of diploma-holders has been recognised up to a particular stage in the hierarchy and thereafter it is realised that for manning higher posts a degree in Engineering is a must. We, therefore, do not see how prescription of the 50 per cent quota is in any manner arbitrary.

3. We, therefore, agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned decision of the Tribunal striking down the 50 per cent quota rule is clearly inconsistent with the ratio of the three decisions of this Court on which counsel for the appellants placed reliance. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the order of the Tribunal striking down the quota rule. We may also state that at the time of admission of these appeals we had indicated that pending disposal there will be stay of reversion and all promotions will abide by the result of these appeals. It would be for the authorities to give effect to the said interim order of this Court consistent with this decision.

4. Before we part we must, however, observe that if the contention of the learned counsel for the diploma-holders that there is large-scale stagnation and the majority of the diploma-holders have to retire without securing a single promotion in their entire service career is correct, the authorities concerned should look into the matter and redress their grievance in this behalf.

5. The appeals are accordingly allowed and shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs.