M.P. JUNIOR ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION AND SANGARSH SAMITY & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 16-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
M.P. JUNIOR ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION AND 
SANGARSH SAMITY & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 16, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department (Non Gazetted) Service 
Recruitment Rules, 1969: Rule 7(4)-State Government competent to 
promote members of Non-Gazetted Service to Gazetted Service-Cadre 
of J.E. 's abolished-Promotional chances not to be affected. 
In August 1982 the Government of Madhya Pradesh decided to 
abolish the Madhya Pradesh Lift Irrigation Corporation. It was also 
decided to merge the surplus staff of the Corporation in the equivalent 
posts of the Irrigation Department of the State Government. Accord-
D 
ingly, with effect from 8.10.1982 the appellants, who were serving as 
Senior Technical Assistants (S.T.As.) in the Corporation, became 
Junior Engineers in the Irrigation Department but their seniority 
therein was fixed below the erstwhile Junior Engineers of the State 
Department. For this purpose, an equivalent number of posts were 
deemed to have been created in the dying cadre of Junior Engineers. 
E 
Similarly, the Junior Technical Assistants in the Corporation were 
absorbed in the lower cadre of Sub-Engineers. 
The Junior Engineers of the State Department on completion of 
two years' service as Junior Engineers, were entitled to be considered 
for promotion to the gazetted post of Assistant Engineers. Sometime in 
F 
1984, the appellants who were at the bottom of the seniority list of 
Junior Engineers became eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers. 
Their legitimate claims in this regard were being stalled by the State, 
and so the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh in 1986. 
G 
Later, the whole scheme of merger, as envisaged in the order 
dated 8. 10.1982, was sought to be upset to the detriment of the appel-
lants, and towards that end the order issued on 8.10.1982 was amended 
on J.3.1986. The effect of this amendment was that the Senior Techni-
cal Assistants were to be absorbed in the lower posts of Sub-Engineers 
retrospectively with effect from 8.10.82. The amendment however, pro-
H vided that they shall be eligible for promotion to the posts of Assistant 
424 
• 
ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P. 
425 
Engineers from the quota of Graduate Sub-Engineers. This amendment 
vitally affected the interests of the appellants in so far as their status 
and chances of promotion were concerned. 
Having failed before the High Court, the appellants have come to 
this Court by way of special leave. 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that 
they having been given the right at the time of absorption in 1982. that 
they will be eligible for promotion in the same way as !)le erstwhile 
Junior Engineers of the State Department, this right could not be done 
away by invoking an earlier amendment of the rules. 
On behalf of the respondent State it was inter alia contended that 
( 1) the decision of the State Govermnent to absorb the appellants as 
Junior Engineers had overlooked the fact that on 8.10.1982 there was 
no cadre of Junior Engineers because that cadre had been abolished in 
July 1979, and therefore this mistake was rectified on l.3.1986 by 
absorbing the appellants in the lower cadre of Sub-Engineers;•(2) the 
appellants when they opted to join as Junior Engineers were aware that 
according to the rules prevailing on that date there was "Do-avenue of 
promotion for them as Assistant Engineers; (3) after 27. 7 .SJ the rele-
vant recruitment rules had been amended which made it clear that after . 
that date there could be no promotion to the posts of Assistant 
Engineers from amongst Junior Engineers; and ( 4) the Junior 
Engineers belonging to the State Service had a right of promotion 
earlier and this was continued even after the amendment whereas the 
appellants became Junior Engineers at a time when there was no 
further promotion available to them and this made all the difference. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court,_ 
HELD: (1) The assumptioh of the respondents that the cadre of 
Junior Engineers had ceased to exist long before the absorption of the 
appellants into the Department is incorrect. Though the decision to 
abolish the cadre was taken in 1979 and the existing posts were con-
verted into those of Assistant ,Engineer5/sub Engineers on 27.5.1980, 
the cadre did not die, for the Junior Engineers of the Department who 
were then functioning continued t

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