O.P. LATHER AND ORS. versus SATISH KUMAR KAKKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 02-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

O.P. LATHER AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SATISH KUMAR KAKKAR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2001 
[S. RAJENDERA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Haryana Electrical Inspectorate (Group-A) Service Rules, 1997: Rules 
17, 18 and Appendix B. Promotion-From Assistant Engineer to Executive C 
Engineer-Requisite qualification-Degree or Diploma in Electrical 
_..,,,.-
Engineering from a recognised university-High Court in an earlier decision 
held that Diploma in Electrical Engineering awarded by State Board of 
Technical Education was not equivalent to the one from a recognised 
un:versity-Subsequently, the State Government issued an order that such 
Diploma was equivalent to a Diploma from a recognised university- D 
Promotions to Executive Engineers were accordingly made-Validity of-
Held: The order is c/arificatory in nature and does not amount to an 
amendment-Without the clarification Assistant Engineers not entitled to be 
promoted as they are not holders of Diploma in Electrical Engineering from 
a recognised university-Hence, promotions validly· made. 
E 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming 
that he alone was entitled to be promoted as Executive Engineer since the 
appellants did not possess the qualification of Diploma in Electrical 
Engineering from a recognised university as laid down in Appendix B to the 
Haryana Electrical Inspectorate (Group-A) Service Rules, 1997 framed under F 
Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the writ 
petition on the ground that the appellants held-Diploma in Electrical 
Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education, which was 
not a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognised university. 
- ;t..: 
Subsequently, the State Government issued a clarificatory order 
whereby it was held that the Diploma in Electrical Engineering awarded by 
the State Board of Technical Education be treated as equivalent to the Diploma 
in Electrical Engineering from a recognised university. Consequently, the 
appellants were promoted as Executive Engineers. 
827 
G 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001) 1 S.C.R. 
· A 
The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid promotion 
of the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that by 
virtue of the amendment of Rules, no retrospective effect could be given to 
the clarificatory order and as the vacancies had occurred prior to the coming 
into force of the amended rules, the appellants were not entitled to be promoted 
B to the posts of Executive Engineers. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under the Haryana Electrical Inspectorate (Group-A) 
Service Rules, I 997 it is specifically stated that a Degree or Diploma in 
C Electrical Engineering from a recognised university or its equivalent would 
be the requisite qualification for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers. 
In the Rules, some of the recognised universities are also mentioned and 
admittedly, these institutions are not awarding any Diploma. There is nothing 
wrong in the appointing authority issuing a clarification as to what would be 
the equivalent qualification for the purpose of appointment. [832-D-F[ 
D 
1.2. The clarificatory order issued by the State Government was only 
supplemental to the rules already framed under the Proviso to article 309 of 
the Constitution. It does not have the effect of altering the Rules nor is it 
inconsistent therewith. The relevant rule in fact provides that Diploma holders 
are entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineers. If this rule, 
E without. the present clarification, were allowed to operate, no officers in the 
cadre of Assistant Engineers would be entitled to get promotion, as they are 
not holders of Diploma from a recognized university. (833-C-D[ 
State of Haryana v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur, [1972) 2 SCC 188; T.R. 
Kapur v. State of Haryana, [1986[ Supp. SCC 584 and University of Mysore 
F v. C.D. Govinda Rao, [1964[ 4 SCR 575, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1012-1013 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.99 and 1.2.2000 of the Punjab 
G and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No:9655/99 and C.W.P. No. 15317of1999. 
With 
C.A. No. 1014 of2001. 
H 
P.P. Rao, P.K. Palli, Raj Kumar Gupta, Mritunjay Kumar Singh, A.N. 
r ' 
O.P. LATHER v. S.K. KAKKAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 
829 
Bardiyar, Neeraj Jain, Mahabi"r Singh, Anant V. Palli, Atul Sharma and Rekha A 
"y
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.