D.N. AGRAWAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 23-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
D.N. AGRAWAL AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 1,990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh P. W.D. (Gazetted) recruitment Rules, 1969: 
Rule 19( ])-Assistant Engineers-Appointment on ad hoc basis for 
purely administrative exigencies right to claim seniority from date of 
initial appointment-Whether promissible. 
The two appellants had joined as overseers in the P.W .D. of the 
respondent Madhya Pradesh State. Thereafter they were appointed as 
Junior Engineers. The grievance of the appellants is with regard to 
their seniority in the next promotional post viz, that of Assistant 
Engineer. 
Recruitment Rules which govern the promotional post lay down 
that the Departmental promotion Committee is required to consider the 
names of all eligible candidates on merits and judge their suitability in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
all respects on merit-cum-seniority basis. The D.P.C. is also required to• 
arrange the names of all the selected candidates in the order of their 
merit. In the case of exceptionally meritorious junior he is given a 
E 
higher number in the selection list. This list is sent to Public Service 
Commission for its approval. After approval the list becomes the select 
list and the promotions are made from this list serial wise. Under the 
Rules to be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of 
Assistant Engineer a Junior Engineer has to have an experience of two 
years as Junior Engineer. 
F 
As the State Govt. wanted a certain number of Assistant 
Engineers but enough number with requisite qualifying service were 
not available so taking resort to the Rule of Administrative Exigency 
contained in the proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Rules the Govt. promoted 
some Junior Engineers including both the appellants is Assistant 
G 
Engineers on July 22, 1971 on purely ad hoc basis. On August 7, 1972 
respondents 40 to 63 were appointed as Assistant Engineers by direct 
recruitment and on November 22, 1972 respondents 2 to 39 and the 
appellants were selected as Assistant Engineers by the D.P.C. On the 
same date the State Govt. issued an order of appointment of the appel-
lants and respondents 2 to 39 in which appellant No. 1 was shown at 
H 
131 
A 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
serial No. 14 and appellant No. 2 at serial No. 28. The State Govt. 
thereafter prepared a seniority list of Assistant Engineers as per the 
order of November 22, 1972. The appellants challenged the seniority list 
before the High Court by a-Writ Petition. The High Court dismissed the 
Writ Petition. 
B 
Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: Under the Rules to be eligible to be considered for promo-
tion to the post of Assistant Engineer, a Junior Engineer has to have an 
experience of two years as Junior Engineer. l 133G] 
In the instant case, unless the D.P.C. makes the selection, none 
can be appointed as Assistant Engineer regnlarly. The appellants were 
ineligible to be appointed as Assistant Engineers initially. Their appoint-
ments were made specifically under the power given to the Government 
to make ad hoc appointments for administrative exigency. The appoint-
ment orders made it clear that the appointments were in the said 
Special Circnmstances and that they will not be deemed to determine 
seniority for any purpose whatsoever. [138C-D] 
Once it is held that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis, 
what comes into play is the proviso to Rule 19(1) which permitted the 
Government to make such ad hoc appointments for purely administra-
tive exigencies, [ 139l>] 
Baleshwar Dass & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors etc., [1981] I 
. S.C.R. 449 and G.P. Doval & Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of 
U.P. & Ors., [1984] 4S.C.C. 329, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 931 
of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1985 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 1510 of 1981. 
G 
P.N. Lekhi, M.K. Garg, Aman Lekhi and Lokesh Kumar for the 
appellants. 
R.B. Datar, Sakesh Kumar, Uma Nath Singh, Satish K. 
Agnihotri .and Ashok Singh for the respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
:.·· 
/ . 
> 
___...-:(__ -
' 
D.N. AGRAWAL v. STATE OF M.P. (SAWANT, J.) 
133 
SAW ANT, J. The two appellants in this case had joined the 
service in the Public Works Department of the respondent-Madhya 
Pradesh State, as Overseers. They were thereafter appointed as Junior 
· Engineers·by direct

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