GUJARAT STATE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 10-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA, R.M. SAHAI

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
J 
) 
--~· 
GUJARAT STATE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS' 
A 
ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Service Law-Executive Engineers (Civil) Gujarat Service of Engineers 
Class I Recruitment Rules, 1971)--Rule 3-Waiting list-Operation of-To be 
confined to vacancies notified for that examination-Future vacancies-Ap-
pointments from waiting list of earlier year-Validity of-Seniority and quota 
violation between promptees and direct recruit;-Date of appointment-Ap-
propriate directions issued. 
B 
c 
The Gujarat Public Service Commission decided to hold an ex-
D 
aminatio~ for selection Class I and Class II Engineers under Executive 
Engineers (Civil) Gujarat Service of Engineer Class I Recruitment Rules, 
1979. The examination consisted of 1100 marks, 900 for written and 200 
for viva voce. After the examinations were held the Commission for the 
first time fixed the minimum qualifying marks at 50% i.e. 100 marks out 
of 200 of viva voce for selection. The results were declared in December 
1981. One of the candidates who had appeared in the examination and 0'1 
aggregate had secured higher marks than those who had been selected, 
filed Writ Petition claiming that the fixing of qualifying marks W-dS ar-
bitrary. In November 1984, this claim was upheld, the fixation of qualify-
ing marks was struck down and the Commission was directed to consider 
the question of inclusion of the petitioner's name in the merit list on the 
basis of aggregate marks in the written as well as viva voce tests ignoring 
the concept of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce te•t. The High 
Court further directed that if the petitioners were entitled to the inclusion 
E 
F 
of their names on merits on the basis of aggregate marks, the merit lists 
should accordingly be revised and appropriate recommendation should G 
be made to the State Government; that if the petitioners were entitled lo 
appointments to the posts on the basis of inclusion of their names in the 
merit lists, such appointments shall be given to them with appropriate 
seniority in accordance with their ranking in the merit lists; that the 
petitions shall be placed above those who rank below them in the merit 
lists in the seniority list of the posts in question. This direction became H 
983 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
final as the SLP filed against this order was dismissed by this Court. 
Consequently, the order was given effect to and the list was redrawn. 
Those candidates who had tiled the writ petition were placed in the list of 
selecttd candidates and were appointed as such. It resi•lt in alternation 
of the waiting list. However, those who had been appointed were not 
disturbed as the High Court had directed that the entire selection was not 
being quashed. 
Some Candidates who had secured qualifying marks but could not 
secure sufficient marks to be placed in the select list but had been placed 
in the waiting list filed wdt petition claiming that the vacancies worked 
out for the examination held in 1°BO were not in accordance with quota 
rules and that since under !be ru!e in operation till 1982 the vacancies of 
direct recruit lapsed if nG examinations were held a direction be issued to 
the Government to work out the vacancies and appoint candidates from 
waiting list of 1980. Similar <dief was claimed by others after declaration 
of result in 1983. 
Before these petitions could be decided, the appellant, an associa-
tion of promotees, filed writ petitions in the High Court in 1936 that they 
were apprehensive that the Stde Government in the garb of implementing 
the order passed in November, 1984, might make fresh appointment of 
direct recruit from the waiting lists prepared in 1981 and 1983 which 
would be highly prejudicial to their interest; therefore, a direction be 
issued to the State Government not to appoint any more direct recruits 
from the waiting list as they were already in excess of their quota. 
The High Court directed the respondents to operate and implement 
the revised select list prepared by the Commission on the basis of the 
result of the examination held in December, 1980 and the petitioners who 
did not get appointments, would be considered for vacancies arising in 
the year 1982-83 and allocable to direct recruits. The Court held that for 
the purpose of applying the quota rule in the year 1982-83, as in the case 
of the year 1981-82, the va

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