LexA. S. PARMAR & OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. ..B
c
D
E
F
G
II
. A. S. PARMAR & OTHERS
·.-sTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
·''January 24, 1984
[E. s. V~NKATARt\MfAH AND R. B. MlsM.'JJ.]
·J
Constitution of .lndfa,
Artie/~ 3 I l a11d )09 proviso thcrtl<>-Prumation of
(mpolyeufrom Class 11 service to i:~ass·t surkt In the P.W.D.(Irrlgotiun hranth~
Pun}ab-Poss .. sion of a •lt•cree Is noJ a pre-.requlslte fur pvrmotion fiom doss lito
class I itnlct!t-P/If!]ab sen•lce of Englnetr Cluss I, P. W.O. (lrr/gillian Branth)
Ralu, 1964 Rule 6(a), lnterpretalion of
.
Promot/Qn of Assistant Enxlnnrs In claM II •crvkt, nut pusscssiltlf Ut!lfT« to
til# cadu of Eucutive Elrg/Jrccrs Cla.u I, but S<Jtlsf)'lng the requiremtll/s ufclause(b)
·· •f Rule 6 of class I Rule.t-Wlr<th;r In onid or whrther Rule 6 (u) will be llpp/icubk-
Compor/om betwwt P"n]ab Stnic11 of Enginursc/uss /{ P.W.D. (Bui/JilflJ an<!)
Roods Brandt) Rules 1965, Rule.r 6 & 7 wtrll Punjab Sen•fre of Elf[llneeTJ dos./.P.
W.D. (Bui/Jin¥s' and Roods OrOII<h) Rules 6 J.a) and 6 (6)..
·
Eil;bt Officers including the appcllanlS cntt:rcd th.e class II scrvkc in &<.'CUr•
danc:e·witb the Punjab Service of Engiac.:rs class U, P.W.D. (Building$ and !Wad!
Branch) Rules, 196$. They ora all holden of diplomas in Enainccriog. TheY fitn
' promott:d •longwith nino others from 'the cla:.s I( scr~i.e to the class l seoi•-e by
an ordor da!ed May 7, 1981, passed by tho Hary~na State Government on at~
pornry basis aubject IP approval of the Haryana Public Service Comnthsioo. ln
tho case of these officers, the GoverllJllent of llaryuna pusSc:d an onlcr rda!in& !be
'condition of dcan:c q.ulifw:atlon in public interest. The above orders of protoolioo
in so far as lhc>e persons were c.onocmed were qucstloncd by eleven oflktrs in ~.
class ll service, who were below th= in the gradation list uf lho class 1,1 ~
bavina eott:red that service In 1972 In tho writ petition out of which lhcsc appe:l~
arise. Tho officers who lilo<l th.o uid p~lltion wom all huh.k'rs of degr~ in E11$1·
noerin~. Their principal c.ontt:ntioo w;u tl>at an ofliccr in tho? cfilM II se.rvicc co~J
1101 be promottJ tu the cla.n J ""rvice unl011s bo po=sed 11 degrco In Enainct:n,;J
as prc~ri)led by Rule 6(a.l o r tho Punjab ScrviC<~ of I!nghers, cW.. J, P.W.D. (ll"""'
illl' and Roads Hrancbl ftula, 1960 whil:h • ovcrncd the rcc:cuitn..:nt to tbecld
•
.
•
n~· to
r service In the State or llaryana and the n:luxu,jOII of that requirement a
\llO
bavo been ordered by the Statt:· Governtrk!nt In exercl$0 of the p<.>l''tl undtt ch 1
the proviso to R ulc 6 (b) in the c..<;<: of tho ufiiccrs whose pro otl ans had beeP
~~
lcnatd 'IW\ lllc&nland .void. The l'unjab & Hnryana Hi~:h Court acceP_red the ~al
~ntention and di.mi,..-J tbe pctitiun. Hence the appeals after obtaulfDI IPI"' .
f:c*vc of the Court,
Allowl~a tho a:>peals the .Court,
H!!LD : 1.1. A ·4:sroe is not a p~o-rcquisitc for beloa promoted from the
dut II aervk:o t.o the eta.. 1 scrvico:. [493 01
~ --
....
) .
. ~. ·
'!
W"',
\
•
..
.·
A. s. PARMAR. v. HARYANA
477 .
· 1.2. A comparison between the 1956. Rules and tho. ·1964 Rules makes ·it'
clear that there was no insistance upon the qualification of a degree in the said 1956.
Rules in th.e case of the promoteedrom the class II service . . When the 1964 Rules
of the Irrigation Branch; class i were promulgated, ·the ·pattern of the Rides
A ..
·.was changed. While doing so, in the new Rule 6, the word ''directly" which was
in the old Rule 7 was no doubt omitted but the new Rule 6 referred to both .
kinds of appointment namely direct .. recruitment and. · promotio~froni the cla.ss II.
serviee. It was not a case of just repwducing the old Rule 7 and omitting one word
the~efrom, : but the introd~~tion of a new Rule 6 with a different st;ucture. [ 493A-Bl
'
.
'
O.P: Bhatia & Anr. v. siate of Haryalla & Ors .• .ILR£1980]1 Punjab & Haryana
470. overruled.
1.3. · In these cases, the State Government having first consumed Rule 6 of
the class I Rufes reqUired that a promotee should also have a degree, tried to relax
that condition by making orders relaxing as it found that' its construction had led
to injust results: In view of the.fact that the question of interpretation of New Rule ·
(>·of the clasS I Rules was raised, @hd serv:ice Rule 6. (a) of the class I Rules is ;not
applicable to the class II officers who are to be promote.d to ·the class I service, the .
question whet~e·r the ·order of relaxation maExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.