LexA.N. SEHGAL AND ORS. versus RAJE RAM SHEORAN AND OR.S
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B A.N. SEHGAL AND ORS. v. RAJE RAM SHEORAN AND OR.S. APRIL 5, 199 l. [K.N. SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Civil Service-Haryana Public Service of Engineers Class l PW D (Roads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1966--Ru/es 2( 1), (7), (JO), ( 12), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12-Post of Asst. Executive Engineer, Executive engineer and Superintending Engineer-Direct recruits and promotees C -Inter se fixation of seniority-Year of aliotment-Alterability of. Constitution of India, I950-Articles 14 and I6--Direct recruit Assistant Executive Engineer to cadre post and ex cadre post-Treat- ment at par as members of service-Validity of-Rule 2(12)(a), D Haryana Public Service of Engineer Class I PWD (8oads and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1966--Whether discriminatory. Interpretation of Statutes-Proviso of particular provision of a statute-Construction of-Whether carves out ;,n exception to the main provision (Haryana Public Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Roads E and Buildings Branch) Rules, 1966--Rule 5(2)(a). F G Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Roads and Build- ings Branch) Rules, 1966--Ru/es 2( 1), (3), (7), (IO), ( 12)(a), 5(2)(a), 8, 9, (2), ll, 12, (3), (5), (6), (7)-Hatnionious collstruttion-Reasdns indicated. The appellants, 'the promotees' from Class II Service were pro- moted 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 others 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 H and was confirmed w.e.f. December 22, 1976. 198 • ~- .. "' ·I SEHGAL v. SHEORAN 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 promoted as Superintending Engineer on March 4, 1987. A The appellant no. I was further promoted as Chief Engineer The validity of the promotion of respondent no. 1 to the post of Chief B Engineer was challenged. The respondent no. I who was shown junior to the appellants, filed Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respon- dent, State Government, to constider his case for promotion as Superintending Engineer from the date on which the respondents were promoted assigning the seniority over the appellants and the consequen- tial reliefs. c 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 D proforma respondents were not memhi!rs 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 E stop-gap arrangement nor fortuitous, and being continued in service ~ without any break from the respective dates of their promotion, they wert members of the service in a substantive capacity as Executive Engineers from the respective dates of promotion; that since the respon- dent no. 1 was recruited as Asstt. Executive Engineer w.e.f. August 30, 1971 long after the promotion of the appellants, the appellants were F 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 Engineers since requisite number of qualified Asstt. Executive Engineers were not available for promotion; that in view of their contin- 'lt ous officiation as Executive Engineers in terms of Rule 2(12)(a) of the • rules, they most be deemed to be the members of the service from the G 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. I became a member of the ser- H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1991] 2 S.C.R. A vice from the date of his initial appoint
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.