K.K. KHOSLA & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 20-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.K. KHOSLA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
*' 
FEBRUARY 20, 1990 
B 
[K.N. SINGH, T.K. THOMMEN AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public Health 
~~ 
Branch) Rules, 1961: Rules 5, 9, 11, 15 & 22-Promotion to the post of 
Executive Engineer Class I-Relaxation of Rules in favour of an 
Assistant Executive Engineer-Validity of. 
c 
Rule 5 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public 
~
Health Branch) Rules 1961 requires 50 per cent of the posts of Execu· 
tive Engineers to be filled by promotion from members of Class II 
Service. Rule .9(3) renders a member of service ineligible for promotion 
to the rank of Executive Engineer unless he render.s five years' service 
~· 
D 
as an Assistant Executive Engineer, and has passed the departmental 
examination. The first proviso thereto grants preference to an Assistant 
Executive Engineer over an eligible Class II Officer in the matter of 
promotion. The second proviso empowers the Government to reduce 
the period of five years' service as an Assistant Executive Engineer. 
Rule ll prescribes two years' probation In case of direct recruits to the 
~ 
E 
Service. Rule 15 requires officers appointed to the Service to pass de· 
partmental examination within such period as may be prescribed unless 
they have already done so. Rule 22 empowers Government to relai< the 
requirement of Rules In cases of undue hardship. 
c 
·. Respondent No. 3, a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Execu· 
~-
F 
live Engineer in the Public Health Branch, was promoted to the post of 
Executive Engineer, Class I Service, defeating the cl11lm of the appel· 
-~ 
lants, members of Class II Service of Enlllneers In the said Department. 
I'hey assailed his appointment by means of a writ petition under Article 
~l.6 · of the Constitution on the ground that the respondent was not 
eligible for promotion as he had not rendered five years' service as an 
a 
Assistant Executive Engineer and further he had not passed.the depart· 
mental examination which was the minimum requisite qualification for 
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Before the High Court the 
State Government's plea was that It had relaxed the requirement of Rule 
~ 
9(3)(a) not only to respondent No. 3 but to other omcers also. The High 
Court_ dismissed the writ petition o.n the view that there was no 
H infirmity In the Government's order 11ranting exemption to respondent 
No. 3. 
464 
' 
K.K. KHOSLA v. STATE OF HARYANA 
465 
In appeal, in addition to the pleas raised before the High Court, it 
was further submitted that respondent No. 3 was not eligible for promo-
tion as he had not completed two years' probationary period as 
Assistant Executive Engineer on the date of his promotion. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: l. There was. no legal infirmity in the promotion of 
respondent No. 3. The State Government had granted relaxation to 
him by reducing the period of service under clause (a) to Rule 9(3) 
in exerdse of its power under the second proviso to the said Rule. This 
relaxation was granted as he was the only officer in the department who 
was a direct recruit to Class I Service. In addition to. that, Rule ll 
further confers power on the State Government to grant relaxation with 
regard to the operation of the Rules. The Government's order granting 
relaxation in favour of respondent No. 3 was sustainable under Rule 22 
also. [468B-D] 
A 
J.C. Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1990] 1SCR470, 
Q 
referred to. 
2. The respondent's promotion to the post of Executive Enginee< 
was not rendered illegal merely because he had not undergone depart-
mental examination in the Public Health Branch. He had been working 
as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Publie Works Department (Buildings 
E 
and Roads Branch) for a period of 6-1/2 years prior to his recruitment 
to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Health Branch 
and during that period he had passed departmental examinati-On. The 
syllabus prescribed for the departmental examination in the Buildings 
and Roads Branch as well as in the Public Health Branch was almost the 
same. The Government was satisfied that there was no necessity for him. 
f 
to pass the examination again. [469B; 468E-G; 469A] 
3. Non-completion of probationary period of two years on the 
post of Assistant Executive Engineer by respondent No. 3 did not affect 
the validity of his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.