P.S. MAHAL & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 23-05-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
-I 
• 
• 
847 
P.S. MAHAL & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
23rd May, 1°984 
[P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Executive Engineets, CentrG/ Engineering and Central Electrical Engineering· 
Service (Group A) '(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1976, brought into force with 
retrospective eff~ct from 10th Dec.ember, 1974-Rules 2(ii) and 2.(iv)-Con~ 
stitutional validiiy of-Whether the· rules viol<;ite the provisions of Arlie/es 14 and 
16.(i) of the Constitution. 
lnter-se Senioriti of Executive Engineers promoted regularly within their 
respective quota from and afier 22nd December 1959 but before_ Jlth- December, 
1974 .from the posts of Assistaht Executive Eagineers governed by the Central 
Engineering Service (Class-I) Recruitment Rules, 1954 and· Assistant Engineers 
governed by Central Engineering Service (Class-II) Recruitment Rulq 1954, as 
re.fixed by the seniority List dated August 14, .. 1975-Whether irreiular and con-
trary to Jhe guidelineS indicated in the decisions reported as A.K. Subraman v. 
Union of India [1975] 2 S.C.R. 979"=Qnota rule in Rule 4 of the Centra/. 
Engineering Service (Class-I) Rules,.1954 when applicable. 
. 
In the Central Public Works Department of the Ministry of Works 
and· Housing, ·Government· of India, the promotions to the posts of 
Executive Engineers are made from amongst.Assistant Executive Engineers 
.(Class-I ) who have rendered. more than ·fiv~ years of 
their service 
in their grade on the basis of Seniorit~-cum fitness and alio from Assistant 
Engineers (Class-II) who haVe rendered more than eight years Of service in 
their grade on the basis' Or 
ni~rit, the selection "being made through a 
dep_artmental pro:notion comffiittee pres.ided over by a member of the Union 
Public· Service Commission, since for the latter the· P.P&t of ~ecutive · 
Engineer is a selection post. For promotion to .the 'giade of Exective 
Engine::rs~ for the first time, on,4Sth August, 194·9, a quota in the ratio 
o.f 75% to 25% was prescribed by the Central Government. this was con .. 
tinuCJi right upto the Recruitment Rules 1954 were·~nacted for these two 
categories .. From Septenlber 7, 1955~ this quota was altered wjth reti'oseec .. 
tive effect to 66-2/3% and 331/3% and it was again altered 'with effect 
from April I, 1.972 to SO: 5~ for a period of seven years. 
However, at the time of promoti.ons not onJy the quota was not 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G. 
adhered to with the result that Assistant .Baginoers came to be promoted 
"H 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1984] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
with Executive .Engineers far in excess of th.eir quota, while there was .a 
shortfall in the promotions of As~istant 'Elt.ecutive Engineers, sO ra·r as their 
quota was concerned, but all of them were treated as officiating E;xecutive 
Engineers . 
• 
There was no statutofy ·rules _govcro'ine; inter.se seniority of Executive 
Engineers pro1J1oted fro~ these two grades. They wer~ th'.!refore, gov0raed 
by th,e Memorandum issued by the Home ·Mini-;try .on June 22nd, 1949 
which laid down the general principles of seniority applicable to all depart-
ments of the· government. The Memorandum provided that "in respect Of 
-persons employed in any part"iCu\ar 
grad~, seniority should, as a general 
rule, be determined on thC basis of length of service in th<lt grad~ as well as 
service in .ao ·equivaleilt gra4e irrespective whetb:;r the latter was under 
Central or Provincial Governnient in Iildia or Pakistan.'·' The. length of con-
tin'uous officiatiO!J in the- grade was thus take'1 as the yardstick for_ the 
purpose of deterniining seniority in all depatt!Il-ents pf the government and 
a· fortioraYi, in the grade of ExcctiVe Engineers. 
On the basis of this 
yardstick, Assistarit Engineers .promoted as officiating 
Exe~utiv¢ Ei1.giaeers 
within their quota ·would clearlY. ~e senior to Assistant· ExecutiV-e Engineers 
promoted Ia_ter as officiating. Executive Engineers. 
RespondentS 1 t_o 3 issued a seniority list on Ist July, 1971 in which· 
Executiv~ Engineers promoted. from the grade of Assist<tnt Eng-ineers ia. 
r.Cgular manner on the basis of selection made by Departmental Promotion 
Committ~e and within their quota were shoW~ as junior to Several Executive 
Engineers promoted much later from the 
~frade of Assistant Executive 
Engineers .. Respondents 1 to 3, in making this seniority list 
proceed~d , on 
the basis that the quota rule spedfied ia the last par~ of sub-rule ( i) of Rule 
4 of the

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