BACHAN SINGH & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 17-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

898 
BACHAN SINGH & ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
March 17, 1972 
[S, M. S1KJU, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR 
B 
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
Alilitary Engineer Service 
Class I (Recruitment, 
Promotion, 
and 
Seniority Rules) 1951, Rule 3-Recruitment by i'nterview 
whether re~ 
cruitmen~ by competition within meaning of ruie--Quoras for promotion 
and confirmtltion of direct recruits and promotees-Direct \T'tcruits ire-
cruit~d whether coui•d_ be confirnted in permanent. posts earlier than pro- . C 
motees who had been promoted to Class 1 before their recruitment. 
The two appellants were promoted in the years 1958 and 1959 res-
pectively to the Military Engineer 
Service Class I. Some of the res-
pondents were appointed to the said.class I Service.after they had appeared 
at the competitive examination while the rest were appointed by direct 
recruitm~nt after having been interviewed by the Union Public Service 
Commission. 
All the r.!spondents were appointed to the service in the . D 
years 1962, 1963 and 1964. · The respondents were confirmed in th~ir pools 
before the appellants. The appellants filed writ petitions in the 
High 
·Court which were dismissed. 
Jn appeal before-this Court the appellants 
contended (i) that .the respondents who we.re directly appointed to class 
I 
scrvic~ by interview \Vere- not v.·ithin the purview of r:cruitment to 
Class I service by competitive examination under the Military 
Engineer 
9-!rvice Cla<.:s I (R~cruitm.ent Promotion and Seniority) Rules; (ii) that the 
respondents were recruited to Class I Service by interview and competitive ,.E 
examination aft·er the appellant had been promoted to Class I Eervice and 
were therefore not to be confirmed in permanent posts before the appe} ... 
Janis. 
HELD·, (i) The appointments to Class I &rvice by interview were 
made by the. Government in consultation with the Union Public Service 
Commi~sion. 
The selection was 
made by the Union 
Public Service 
Commission. 
The appointment by competitive eXamination. proved fruit· 
F 
less. 
The country was in a state of emergency. 
The appointment ·and 
selection by interview was the only course possible. It could not be said 
that all .appointments should1 have been m'lde by promotion; that would 
not be in the interest of the service. 
The Service Rules were administra .. 
tive in character. The Government relaxed the rules. 
The ameridments 
of the rules in 1967 recognised the !reality of the situation of apPoint.. 
ment by interview. 
That is why the 1967 amendment recognised that 
50% of "the direct recruit:: by competitive ad hoc appointments were to 
G 
be reserved for graduate engineers who were commissioned in the Armed 
Forces on a t~mporary basis" Ultimately, when the rules were amended 
in 1969 and the rules became statutory in character, not only the recruit-
ment by interview but also the relaxation of rules was regularised. The 
result is that the rt:spondent-: who were appointed by interview fell with-
in the Class I direct recruits. [901 F-902 Al 
(ii) The 'lppellants could have no grievance with regard to confirma· 
H 
tion. Departmental promotees bad heen confirmed against permanent 
posts '''ithin their quota in order rf s~11iority. The <leoartmental promotecs 
who had been confirmed up to th•! year 1970 had been promoted to 
' 
B 
BACHAN SINGH v. UNION (Ray,/.) 
899 
,Jass I Servrc.::: b;.;.'."v.:e t;:.;;! a.ppel!ants. 
On the Other hand direct recruits 
con~.isting of those !recruited by competitive examination -'3.S well as by 
interview had been confirmed against permanent vacancies within their 
quota. 
As a matter oi fact between the years 1959 and 1963 inclusive 
the quota fixed for departmer.tal promotees was increased from 10 to 50% 
and 
t~ercby corJi.:-rnati.o:i cf d~p<1.rtmcntal promotees and direct recruits 
was equally balanced. [905 D-FJ 
Accordingly, the appeal must fail; 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1499 of 
1971. 
. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 23, 1971 
C 
of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 517 of 1971. 
M. C. Chag/a and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants. 
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General cf India, 
G. L. Sanghi, 
B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
A. K. Sen and H.K. Puri, for respondents Nos. 15, 39 to 4g, 
D 
51, 103 and 123. 
J. D. Jain, for respondent No. 55. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ray, J. 
This in an ,appeal by certificate f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.