K. JAGADEESAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 19-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. JAGADEESAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
FEBRUARY 19, 1990 
B 
[M.H. KANIA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) 
Civil services: Geological Survey of India (Group 'A' and 'B' 
posts) Recruitment Rules, 1967: Promotion-Promotion to the post of 
Director (M.E.)-Requirement of Degree qualification-Notification 
by Government amending Rules-Whether given retrospective effect-
C 
Validity of notification. 
The appellant, a diploma holder, was, in 1964, appointed as 
Transport Officer (Class-I Technical Grade, Group A), which post was 
later redesignated and merged with the post of Mechanical Engineer 
D 
(Junior) in 1968. The Geological Survey of india (Group' A' and Group 
'B' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1967, framed under Article 309 of the 
Constitution were brought into force in 1969. The appellant was pro-
moted as a Mechanical Engineer (Senior) in 1973 and his conditions of 
service were governed by the said Rules, which had been amended from 
time to time. One such amendment made in 1984 prescribed that for 
) 
B 
promotion to the post of Director (M.E. ), a degree in Engineering was a 
requisite qualification. The appellant challenged before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, the validity of the said notification on the 
ground that it affected his chances of promotion or alternatively his 
right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.). It 
was contended that applying the amended Rule, in so far as the appel-
F 
lant was concerned, would amount to giving retrospective effect to the 
0 
operation of the rule, and no retrospective rule could be framed under 
·\-
Article 309 of the Constitution. The Tribunal rejected the contention 
and held that it was for the Government to prescribe such qualifications 
as it considered fit, and the Tribunal could not interfere unless it was 
shown to be perverse. 
Aggrieved against the Tribunal's order, the appellant has prefer-
red this appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Mere chance of promotion is not condition of service 
444 
K. JAGADEESAN v. U.0.1. 
445 
and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did 
not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be 
considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of 
promotion are not. [448D] 
State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni 
and Others, [1981] 4 SCC 130, relied on. 
T.R. Kapur and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, [!986] 
(Suppl.) SCC 584, referred to. 
2. In the instant case, no retrospective effect has been given to the 
said amended role. It is not the case that the appellant has been 
reverted from the post which he occupies on the ground of lack of any 
qualification. The only effect is that his chances of promotion to the 
higher post is adversely affected. Alteration of rules of eligibility cannot 
be Invalidated on the ground that an employee's claim to be eligible for 
promotion is adversely affected. This cannot be regarded as retrospec-
tive effect being given to the amendment of the rules carried out by the 
Notification and the challenge to the said notification on that ground 
must fail. [448F-G] 
3. The fact that' for the higher post of Deputy Director General 
(Engineering Service), it is not necessary to hold a graduate degree is no 
reason why a degree requirement for the post of Director (Mechanical) 
should be regarded as unreasonable or bad in law. It is for the Govern-
ment to decide what qualification was required for promotion to the 
post of Director (M.E.) and, unless that requirement was totally irrele-
vant or unreasonable, it could not be said to be bad in law. [449B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3607 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.88 of Central 
Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in T.A. No. 1185186. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
R. Venkataramani, V.G. Pragasam and S.M. Garg for the 
G 
Appellant. 
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, B. Datta, Mrs. Indra 
Sawhney, Ms. Sushma Suri, B. Rajeshwar Rao, Vimal Dave and C.V. 
Subba Rao for the Respondents. 
H 
A 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KANIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against a decision 
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Transfer Appli-
cation No. 1185 of 1986 (W.P. NO. 8226 of 1985). 
B 
All the relevant facts have been set out by the Tribunal in its 
c 
D 
judgment. As we are in agreement with 

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