K. NARAYANAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 02-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

K. NARA YANAN AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1993 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
SelVice Law-Karnataka Public Works, Engineering Department Service 
(Recruitment) Rules, 19B~Appointment-Seniori~Whether retrospective 
appointment and seniority can be given prior to date of eligibility-Held, 
retrospective operation is exceptional-Nexus with objective necessary-Rules 
discriminatory and affect vested rights-Violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution. 
Constitution of India, 195(}-Articles 14 and 16-Kamataka P. W.D. 
A 
c 
Se1vice (Recruitment) Rules, 198~Whether violative of 
D 
When Karnataka Public Service Engineering Department Service 
(Recruitment) Rules, were framed in 1968, two principal sources of recruit· 
ment were, Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, the minimum 
qualification for the two, being degree and diploma respectively in 
Civil/Mechanical engineering. There was further sub division in the Cadre E 
of Junior Engineers. Some were appointed as Junior Engineers and others 
as Supervisors and draftsmen. In 1969, the Rules were amended and 50% 
of Junior Engineers were to be graduates. Pay scales of the two cadres were 
not the same. The State Government maintained distinction between the 
two classes of Junior Engineers. They were not given the same scale of pay F 
and the non-graduate Junior Engineers were encadred separately. Promo-
tional avenue for degree holders being better, diploma holder ased to 
acquire degree, while continuing in service. In 1975, Diploma holders 
working as Junior Engineers Grade II, made representation for increase 
of their pay s~ales to the scale of pay of Junior Engineers Grade I and for 
maintaining a separate cadre, for promotion to the post of Assistant G 
Engineers, by deducting 4 years service as junior Engineers. It was founded 
on the premise that nature of work performed by the two was the same. In 
1977 the Secretary to the Government recommended that 10% vacancies 
of Junior Engineers Division I may be reserved for Junior Engineers 
Division II, who acquired B.E. degree. There after the Diploma Holders H 
105 
A 
B 
c 
D 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
staked their claim for promotion as Assistant Engineer. The State Govern-
ment did not accept the recommendation of the Board of Chief Engineers 
in this regard, as cadre of Assistant Engineers (later designated as Assis-
tant Executive Engineers) and Junior Engineers (later designated as As-
sistant Engineers), were different, with different scales of pay. The 
Diploma Holders made a demand for sanctioning 4 advance increments 
and for absorbing Junior Engineers Division II as Junior Engineer 
Division I from the last date of examination. In 1984, better promotional 
avenues were provided and one-sixth of the cadre strength was reserved 
for Junior Engineers to be promoted as Assistant Engineer Division II. 
Meanwhile, Engineer Subordinate Service Rules in Andhra Pradesh were 
amended and the Supervisors and Draftsman who acquired engineering 
degree became eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer by transfer 
subject to satisfying certain conditions. This Court upheld (Devi Prasad & 
Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1980) Supp. SCC 206 the 
rule. 
The Diploma Holders submitted alternative proposal, for counting 
1/3 of their previous service and to absorb in the cadre of Assistant 
Engineers from the date of passing the examination. It was based on 
assumption that nature of work performed by Junior Engineers and the 
Assistant Engineers was same. Similar claim was made before the pay 
E 
Commission. It was not accepted. In 1985, the Cabinet decided that the 
assumption of law department that the work of Junior Engineers and 
Assistant Engineers was substantially similar, was correct. On that basis, 
the Rules were amended (in 1985). The amendments were deemed to have 
come into force on Junuary 1, 1976. The amended Rules inter alia provided 
F 
direct recruitment by to posts of Assistant Engineers, by transfer of Junior 
Engineers, who held degree in Civil Engineering or mechanical engineer-
ing. According to note 2 of the Rules, the transfer would be effective from 
the date of graduation, subject to availability of vacancies. Note 3 of the 
Rules, entitled the Junior Engineers appointed by transfer as Assistant 
G Engineers on or after 1.1.1976, to count one-third of service rendered as 
Junior Engineer prior to appointment as 

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