H. S. VERMA & ORS. versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING & TRANSPORT AND ORS. ETC., ETC.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 07-08-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
, ' 
• 
209 
H. S. VERMA & ORS. 
v. 
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING & TRANSPORT AND 
ORS. ETC., ETC. 
August 7, 1979 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND 
E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Con5titution of India 1950, Art. 14-Central Engineering Service 
Rules 
1959-Two different modes of appointment of engineers-By exa1nination and , 
by interview-High Court holding 'interview' appointees, not part of the ser-
vice but to ex-cadre posts-Engineers placed in two categories-Central Engi-
neering Service (Roads), Group A for 'examina·tion' appointees. and Central 
Engineering Pool, Group A for 'interl'iew' method appointees-Validity of. 
s· 
The C~ntral Engineering Service (Roads) of the Ministry of Transport and 
Communications, Department of Transport (Roads Wing)\ Class-I Recruitment 
Rules 1959 provided that recruitment to the service shall ·be made by competi~ 
tive examination, by promotion and by transfer as provided for in Parts Ill, IV, 
D· 
- V of the Rules. 
The Rules provided that no appointment shall be made to the 
service or to any post borne oil the cadre of the service by any method,· not 
specified in Rule 3. The Rules empowered the Government to determine the 
methods of recruitment for filling any part_icular vacancy in the service. 
An amendment introduced on August 2, 1966 to Rule 3 of the 1959 Rules 
provided an additional method of recruitment viz. direct recruitment through 
E' 
the UPSC in accordance with Part VI of the RUies. 
This Part provided that 
in special circumstances recruitment by selection of candidates to the 
posts 
mentioned in Appendix IV shall be made by the- Commission by open adver~ 
tisement, notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules. 
Right from the inception selection of officers for Class-I posts ·was made by 
an examination conducted -by the UPSC. After the introduction of r. 3(d) 
F'· 
in the 1959 Rules in August 1966, 951 persons were recrui_ted by the UPSC by 
\Vay of intcrvie\VS without~written examination. 
· 
. Some of the respondents who were officers selected by written examination 
impugned the appointment of the 51 officers including the petitioners who were 
working as Assistant Executive Engineers or Executive Engineers in the same 
wing on the ground that the appointment of these 51 officers was contrary to 
C: 
the Recruitment Rules in that they were appointed in contravention of the 
1959 Rules or in the alternative they contended that they should be treated to 
have been appointed to ex-cadre posts and for this reason they were tiot eligible 
for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers, until the respondents were-
first appointed to those posts. Lastly the respondents contended that they were 
entitled to be confirmed in preference to the petitioners. A similar writ peti-
tion \Vas filed by three Executive Engineers (among the present respondents) 
H 
alleging that their recruitment by the method of examination was in accor-
dance with the Recruitment Rules but that the petitioners were appointed by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] ! S.C.R. 
mere interviews, at method not permissible under the Rules and therefore those 
who were appointed by interview method could neither be confirn1cd nor pro· 
moted unless they were brought into the cadre and appointed to the 
regular 
cadre posts. 
The l-ligh Court held that the Rules of 1966 had no retrospective operation 
and that therefore an appointment made in contravention of' the rules 
could 
not be regularised by n1aking a rule under the proviso to Art. 309. 
It also 
held that the petitioners \Ve_re appointed to temporary posts without any right 
to become permanent, but since the temporary appointments were outside the 
service and ngainst ex-cadre posts, Rule 3 of he 1959 Rules had no application 
and for that reason their appointments could not be said to be illegaJ. 
While the writ petitions were being argued orders were issued on August 
28, 1973 by which persons who were appointed as Assistant Executive Engi-
neers by way of interview were deemed to have been inducted into the Engi-
neering Service as Assistant Executive 'Engineers with retrospective effect from 
August 2, 1966 i.e. the date of induction of r. 3 (d) 
into the 
1959 
Rules. 
Provisional seniority list was separately made for the different categories of 
officers. This -order of August 28, 1973 was not however questioned before the 
High Court. 
In view of the decision of the High Court t

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