KATYANI DAYAL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 26-03-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
139 
KATYANI DAYAL AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
March 26, 1981) 
(R. S. SARKARIA, R. S. PATHAK AND 0. CHIN1'/.APPA REDDY, JJ.] 
' 
Temporary Assistanl Engineers, gazetted -service recruited by Railway Board 
-Neither cla.ssi/ied as Class I or Class 11 but given the junior scale of pry of 
Jndian Service of Engineers Class I, and eligible to be considered for absorption 
in permanent vacancies as per quota fixed per year-Whether belong to the 
cadre of Indian Service of Engineers-Whether treating them purely temporary: 
offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-Constitution of 'India Arlidu 
53, 73(1) (a) and 109-lndian Railway Establishment Ru/ea 102(3) (13), UIS, 
106-109, 112, 116, 118(i), 125, 129, 130-133, 140 and RJJ/e 20Q3(3), (22), (211), 
(30), (31). 
Several assignments such as the construction of major bridges, new Jines, 
doubling of and electrification of existing lines etc. were taken up the Engineer .. 
ing Department of the Indian Rail\\ays and to carry out these works, a number _ 
of temporary posts of Class I (Indian Railway Service of Engineers) and Clas! 
II engineers v.·ere created. It was not thought possible to meet additional per-
sonnel requirements from eXisting sources, i.e. direct recruitment to Class I by 
competitive examination and promotion to class II from class Ill Instead, under 
a special scheme' the various writ petitioners were appointed at various times bet~ 
ween 1955 and 1964 as temporary Assistant Engineers by the Railway Board. 
Everyone of them was told that the appointment, would be on a ten1porary basis, 
that the ~ost to which they were appointed would be neither in Class I nor in 
Class II service though they were eligible, on completion of three year's service, 
to be considered along with other temporary Assistant Engineers for absorption 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1n Class I (Junior Seal~) _against vaaa11cies ear-marked from time to time for 
G 
such absorption in the Indian Railway Service of Engineers cadre upto a maxi-
mum of six pe~ year, and that in the event of their being selected in Class I 
Service their seniority would count from the date of the permanent appointment 
to Class I service. They were required to execute service agreements "as appli-
cable to temporary officers". The petitioners accepted the terms offered to 
them and joined duty in the post to which they were appointed. The petitioners 
,aJso executed agreements in a standard form known as "Agreement for Tempo-
l'lll'Y Assistant Officers of the Indian Railways~. 
H 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Though in their orders of lapointment as temporary Assistant Engineers tho 
· petitioners and others were told that six of them would be absorbed into tho. 
Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class I every year, the quota was increaa~ 
~"""" 
ed to eight per year in 1957 and fifteen per year in 1961. In 1960, the quota. 
was fixed at 60 per cent of the actual intake of probationers from ·the CES- etc.. 
,. 
examinations. Again in 1975 the quota was increased to 25 per year. The 
B 
net result was that all but a 107 temporary Assistant Engineers were left UO· 
absorbed by the time of the filing of the writ petitions and they too ·werc-
fullllly absorbed in 1979 by a blanket order. 
On September 17, 1965, 
the 
Railway Board decided that the temporary officers so absorbed ioto the Railway 
Service of Engineers should be given wcightage in seniority "on the basis of 
c 
half the total number of Years of continuous se~ice in working posts on Ilail-
ways prior to their permanent absorption into Class I, subject to maxirnum 
weightage of five years." 
One of the writ petitioners, Katyani Dayal field a writ petition in the l~lla­
habad High Court claiming promotion to the Senfor scale post of District 
D 
Officer. 
He found his claim on Rule 133(3)(c) of the Railway Establishment 
Code on the basis that he was an Assistant Officer within the meaning of that 
expression as then defined by Rule 102(3). The High Court allowed the writ 
petition and gave a direction to the Railway Administration to consider 
the 
claim of the petitioner for appointment in officiating vacancies to the post of 
District Officer as soon as vacancies arose, ignoring the circulars which gave 
E 
preference to Class I junior scale officers of four years standing or .more. as. 
agaiost temporary Assistan.t Engineers. 
An appeal filed by the Railway Admi· 
nistration under the Letters Patent was dismissed by a Di

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