LexD. K. JAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
D. K. JAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
V.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 25, 1994
[R. M. SARAI AND N. P. SINGH, JJ.]
SERVICE LAW
Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965-
Rule 3 (iii)-Appointment to posts of Assistant Engineers in Haryana State
Engineers Service, Class II-Relaxation of minimum qualification in favour
of persons in military service during proclamation of emergency-Counting
period of their military service for purpose of seniority-Whether valid-
Held, Yes.
Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Public Health Branch),
1961-~ules 6 and 9 as amended by Haryana· First Amendment Rules,
1986--:-Promotionjrom posts of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer
under old r.ules~Relaxation in respect of degree-Claim. of promotion to
posts of Superintending Engineer-Whether bar prescribed by proviso to
Rule 9 introduced by Amending Rule of 1986 shall be applicable-Held.
Yes.
A decision had been taken by the State of Haryana to relax the
minimum qualification in favour of ex-military personnel, who had
served the nation, during the emergency while appointing them to the
posts of Assistant Engineer in Haryana State Engineer Service, Class
II, of Public Works Department. The respondents, being in military
service during the proclamation of emergency, were appointed as
Assistant Engineers in the year 1969, although being diploma holders
they were also given seniority, taking into account the period while they
were in military service in accordance with the provisions of the
Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965.
Writ Petition was· filed on behalf of the appellants, questioning the
validity of the Order of the State Government, counting the period,
while the respondents were in military service for the purpose of their
seniority. It was dismissed. In the Writ Petition filed on behalf of the
respondents it was claimed that although they were diploma holders,
still the Amended Rules 6 and 9 shall not be bar for their being
104
D.K. JAIN v. ST A TE OF HAR Y ANA
105
considered for the posts of Superintending Engiceer. The High Court A
allowed the petition holding that inspite of the Amendments introduced
in rules 6 and 9, the respondents who were petitioners in Writ Petition
shall not be debarred from being considered for promotion to the posts
of Superintending Engineer. The High Court had taken the view that it
was not open to amend the Rules retrospectively w.e.f. 2.6.1961.
These appeals were filed for setting aside the judgments of the
High Court, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by appellants. The
appellants also challenged the judgment of the High Court questioning
the validity of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Public
Health Branch) Haryana First Amendment Rules, 1986. Rules 6 and 9
B
of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Public Health C
Branch), 1961 were amended retrospectively w.e.f. 2.6.1961 by the
Amending Rules.
The respondents submitted that once the minimum qualification
prescribed for the posts of Assistant Engineer i.e. degree was relaxed in
exercise of the power under Rule 3{iii) of the National Emergency D
Rules at the stage of their appointment as Assistant Engineers, it shall
be deemed that their diploma was treated to be equivalent to degree.
By a statutory fiction they will be deemed to be the holders of degree
although in fact they were holders of diploma only and this benefit
which was extended to them for having served the nation during the
emergency shall be available to them till their date of superannuation. E
It was further submitted that once the respondents were appointed as
Assistant Engineers and promoted to the post of Executive Engineers
although they were diploma holders, they could not be deprived of their
right to be considered for promotion for the posts of Superintending
Engineer. It was pointed out that the degree holders and diploma F
holders both were holding the posts of Executive Engineer; they formed
one class and thereafter they had to be treated as a class and for
purpose of promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer they
cannot be put under two classes of Executive Engineers. According to
respondents the proviso to Amended Rule 9 purported to create a class
within class by imposing a bar on the promotion of such Executive G
Engineers, who were holders of diploma Gnly, which was violative of
Articles 14 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.