DDA GRADUATE ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 09-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DDA GRADUATE ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
v. 
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 
B 
[P.B. SAWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Promotiolt-Engineers-Delhi Development Authority Resolution 
C No.105 dated 16.6.1971--lnterpretation of-Diploma holder Assistant En-
ginee,-.ffeld eligible to be promoted as Executive Engineer. 
Central Engineer's Service Group 'A' Recruitment Rules 1954: Ss. 3, 4, 
13, 21, 23. 
D 
CPWD Manual Vol. I ( 1970 Edn. ): S. 7. Paragrah 13. Executive instruc-
E 
F 
tions-Amendment of rules by- Whether pennissible. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Rules of promotion'--lnterpretation of 
The appellants-Graduate Assistant Engineers in the Delhi Develop-
ment Authority and their Association-filed a writ petition before the High 
Court challenging the promotion of the respondents, diplomaholder As-
sistant Engineers, to the post of Executive Engineer. The writ petition was 
dismissed. The appellants filed the appeal by special leave. 
The claims of both, the appellants as well as the respondents, were 
based on Resolution No. 105 dated 16.6.1971 passed by the Delhi Develop-
ment Authority to the effect that "the same rules of promotion should be 
G made applicable in the D.D.A. as are in vogue in the Central P.W.D.". 
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that according to the 
Resolution No. 105 of 1971, the DDA made applicable the practice 
prevalent in CPWD based on paragraph 13 of s. 7 of CPWD Manual Vol.I 
whereunder a diploma holder Assistant Engineer of 10 years service was 
H eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. 
474 
D.D.A ENG. ASSCN. v. LT. GOVERNOR 
475 
The appellants contended that by the Resolution the DDA applied A 
only the Rules and not the instructions contained in the CPWD Manual 
and in view of ss.3, 4, 13 and 23 of the Central Engineering Service Group 
'A' Recruitment Rules 1954 no diploma-holder Assistant Engineer was 
eligible to be promoted as Executive Engineer; and that paragraph 13 of 
the Manual cannot override the 1954 Rules. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
B 
HELD: 1.1. By Resolution No. 105 dated 16.6.1971 the Delhi 
Development Authority wanted to enforce the same "conditions" of 
eligibility as were applicable in the CPWD. While, however, pasing the C 
resolution, instead of the word 
11conditions" the word "rules" of promotion 
was used. The procedure given in paragraph 13 of the CPWD Manual was 
applicable for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Hence what 
the DDA had in mind was not only the statutory rules but also the 
procedure for pormotion given in the CPWD Manual. Accordingly, from 
the date of the Resolution onwards both the diploma holder Assistant D 
Engineers with 10 years' service experience and graduate Asstt. Engineers 
with 8 years' service experience have been promoted to the post of Execu-
tive Engineer; and except the instant litigation, the graduate Asstt. En· 
gineers never questioned the eligibility of promotion of diploma holder 
Assistant Engineers based on the Resolution. [p. 481 D-G] 
E 
1.2. Whatever may be the validity of the instructions contained in the 
CPWD Manual as against the Central Engineering Service Group 'A' 
Recruitment Rules, 1954, which may or may not be open for questioning 
by the CPWD Engineers, as far as the Engineers in DDA are concerned, it 
is not open for them to challenge the same for the simple reason that what F 
was accepted as the procedure for promotion by the DDA by its 1971 
Resolution was the procedure for promotion as contained in CPWD 
Manual which was admittedly applicable to the promotion to the post of 
Executive Engineers, in CPWD. [p. 482 D-F] 
1.3. If the rules were not made under Article 309 of the Constitution, 
there was nothing wrong in amending the same by executive instructions, 
since the main rules themselves could be no better than executive instruc-
tions. [p. 482 G-H] 
G 
(1) Roop Chand Adlakhu & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & H 
476 
Slll'Rl'ME COURT REPORTSjl992J SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Ors .. [1989] Supp. I sec 116, distinguished. 
(2) J.N. Goel & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 704 of 1988 
on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New 
Delhi, decided on 30.4.1990, referred to. 
8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3757 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.91 of the Delhi High Court 
in Civil Writ Petition No. 1669 of 1990. 
C 
M.K. Ramamurthy, Shakeel Ahmed and R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.