LexJAGMAL SINGH YADA V versus M. RAMAYYA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
/ _) JAGMAL SINGH YADA V 1'. M. RAMA YY A AND ORS. January 6, 1977 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 573 Service maJter-Central Engineering Service, Class II (Recruitment Rules) 1954--Rule 4(c)-Scope of. No determination of quota between direct recruits and promotees 1nade by Government-Direct recruits confirmed earlier than promotees who were seniors-Confirmation if valid-Departmental Promotion Committee presided over by Member of U.P.S.C.-lf amounts to consultation with UPSC. Rule 3 of the Central Engineering Service Class II (Recruitment Rules) 1954 provides for the recruitment to the service by four methods; (a) by com- petitive examination; (b) by direct appointment, otherwise than by competitive examination; ( c) by" promotio.n~ and ( d) by transfer. Rule 4 ( c) provides that the method or methods of recruitment and the number of candidates to be recruited by each meth0d shall be determined by the Governmellt. Rule 24 states that recruitment by promotion shall be made by selection on the basis of merit from among permanent Section Officers employed in the Civil Engineering side of the Central Public Works Department. The writ petitioners before the High Court, who were initially appointed as Section Officers in the Subordinate Engineering Service Class III (Non- Gazetted), ·were subsequently appointed as Assistant Engineers in the Central Engineering Class II (Gazetted) between 1958 and 1963 by way of selection as provided under the rules. Between the years 1961 and 1967, the Govern- ment appointed Assistant Engineers some on the basis of a competitive exanri- nation held by the Union Public Service Commission and others without the competitive examination On various dates some of the direct recruits were confirmed by the Government before the promotees were confirmed. In a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the writ petitioners claimed that though they were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers much earlier than the direct recruits, the latter were confirmed earlier than themselves. The High Court partly allowed their writ petition holding that there was no determination of any quota by the Government, since the direct recruits A c D E obtained preference over the writ petitioners in the matter of confirmation and F sniority it directed the Government to adjust the inter-8'1 seniority of such of the petitioners as might be _confirmed after a consideration of their cases in accordance with law. ln 1!ppeal to this Court, the appellant, who was one of the direct recruits, contended that the recruitment of the writ petitioners was outside the rules particularly because the recruitment was not made "after consultation with the U.P.S.C." as required by r. 23(1). Dismissing the appeal, HELD : ( 1) The writ petitioners are entitled to be considered for con- firmation in the service in Class II. Since there was no quota rule on the basis of which confirmation had been made and seniority had been fixed, the High Court was right in holding that the Government should consider the case of the petitioners for confirmation and seniority in accordance with law. [577 A-B] (2) The appointment of the writ petitioners was in accordance with r. 23 read with r. 3 (b) of the Rules. Although rule 23 ( 1) provides recruitment by selection after comultation with the U.P.S.C. the particular Departmental Pro- motio.ri Committee was presided over by a member from the U.P.S.C. The G H -~--~ A B c 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1~712 s.q:R. relevant instructions of the ~ome Ministry stated that recommendations madct by the Departmental Promotion Committees on which the Commission was represe_n~Q!, Bhould be treated as . recomme~dations having the approval of the Co~s~n and that the convention regarding acceptance of the advice of the Comnuss1on would apply. (580 B-C, D-E) (3) There is nothing to show that there had been determination of the quo~ by the Government of India under r. 4(c). The Rules did not prescribe therem any quota for recrmtment through the four methods specified in r. 3. Unde! r. 4(b) ~o method other than the one specified in r. 3 is permissible for recrmtment. W1~h regard to the sharing of recruitment through the dift'erent method_s, I?ower 1s reserved to the Government under r. 4 ( c) to make certain. determmations. The determination under r. 4 ( c) must be by the Ministry of Ho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.