J.N. GOEL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 14-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

··~ 
.. 
-
J.N. GOEL AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 14, 1997 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Se111ice La~elltral E11gi11eeri11g Se111ice Group~· Recroitme~ Rules, 
1954: Rules 21(3)(a) a11d JJ. 
A 
B 
Promotion-CP"WD-Assista11t .E11gi11eers to Executive E11· C 
gi11eers--Eligibility-l'ro111otio11 restricted to graduate Assista11t E11gineers 
only-Held : such restrictio11 11ot violative of Arts. 14 & 16-Constitution of 
/11dia, 1950, Arts,. 14 and 16. 
Promotion-CPWD-Assistant Engineers to Executive En· 
gineers--Eligibility-Relaxation oHn case of employees with outstanding D 
ability and record-Prescribed by proviso to R. 21(3) of 1954 Rules-Held: 
neither vague nor arbitrary-Improper or i11c01rect implementation of laid 
down criterion would not render proviso arbitrary. 
' 
Word!' and Phrases: 
"Outstanding ability and record''-Meaning oHn the context of proviso 
to Rule 21(3) of the Central Engineering Se111ice Group ~· Recroitment 
Rules, 1954. 
E 
In the Central Public Works Department (C.P.W.D.) there existed a 
cadre of Assistant Engineers which consisted of graduates holding a F 
degree In Engineering as well as holders of diploma in Engineering. The 
promotion to the post of Executive Engineers was governed by Rule 21(3) 
of the Central Engineering Service Group 'A' Recruitment Rules, 1954. In 
view of Rule 21 (3) (a) of the 1954 Rules only graduate Assistant Engineers 
were eligible for promot,on to the post of Executive Engineers ~ause the G 
qual!fication prescribed was a degree in Engineering .under RUie 11 of the 
1954 Rules. 
The respondents inserted a proviso to Rule 21(3) of the 1954 Rules 
whereby Diploma holder Assistant Engineers of "outstanding ability and 
record" could be promoted to the post of Executive Engineers. The appel· H 
... 
237 < 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A }ants-graduate as well as Diploma holder Assistant Engineers challenged 
. the validity of the aforesaid proviso before the Central Administrative 
Tribnnal on the ground that Rule 21 (3) of the 1954 Rules contained an 
element of arbitrariness and discrimination and directed the respondents 
to further amend the 1954 Rules suitably and that until the 1954 Rules 
B were so amended no regular promotion of Diploma holder Assistant 
Engineers should be made. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf or the appellants it was contended that Rule 21 (3) of the 
1954 Rules, in so far as It restricted that promotion to the post of Executive 
Engineers to graduate Assistant Engineers only, was violative of Articles 
C 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In restricting promotion to the cadre of Executive 
Engineers in Central Public Works Department from amongst graduate 
D Assistant Engineers only, Rule 212(3) of the Central Engineering Service 
Group 'A'. Recruitment Rules, 1954 (prior to the amendment) ls not 
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [245-E, 246-A) 
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., [1974) 1 SCR 
E 771 and N. Abdul Basheer & Ors. v. KK Kanmakaran and Ors., [1989) 
Supp. 2 SCC 344, relied on. 
1.2. The proviso to Rule 21 (3) of the 1954 Rules permits relaxation 
in the matter of educational qualifications for promotion of Assistant 
1 .. 
Engineers to the cadre of Executive Engineers and an Assistant Engineer 
-y ·-
F 
though not a graduate could be promoted provided he had 'outstanding 
ability and record'. The said criterion of 'outstanding ability and record' 
prescribed by the proviso cannot be regarded as vague or arbitrary. In 
service jurisprudence 'outstanding mOit' is a well-recognised concept for 
promotion to a selection post on the basis of merit. Such assessment of 
1mtstanding. merit is made by the Departmental Promotion Committee 
G (DPC) on the basis of the record of performance or the employee. The only 
reason given by the Central Administrative Tribunal for striking down the 
said proviso as invalid is that in the matter of promotions which have been 
!-
made on the post of Executive Engineer, the DPCs have not correctly 
applied the said criterion and have made selections by applying selection 
.H norms· uniformly irrespective of their being diploma holder Assistant 
) 
' 
J.N.GOEL v. U.0.1.(AGARAWAL,J.] 
239 
Engineers. The failqre on the Part of the DPCs, in the past, to correctly apply A 
the norms laid down in the proviso and to make au assessment about the 
eligibility pf the diploma holde

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