PRABHAKAR YESHWANT JOSHI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 29-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
'.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
615 
PRABHAKAR YESHWANT JOSID & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
September 29, 1969 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., S. M. SnrnI, G. K. M!TTEF., A. N. RAY, 
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.J 
Seniority-Fixation of~Maharashtra Service of Engineers-Seni"o: ity 
inter se of promotees and direct recru/111-Jf violative of Articles 14 and 16 
of the Constitution. 
The petitioners were direct recruits to the post of Deputy Engineers in 
Bombay Service of Engineers Class II. In petitions under Art. 32 of the 
Constitution they challenged the promotion, by the first respondent. of 
responJents 2 to 5 and others similarly situated to the posts of officiating 
Executive Engineers contrary to the principles of natural justice arid in 
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was contended 
that under the rules in force the respondents were. on1y officiating Deputy 
Engineers and they had to put in after confirmation as Deputy Engineers 
seven years of actual service before being eligible for promotio1;1 as offi-
ciating Executive Engineer:;; further, particularly in the case of employees 
from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad the first respondent bad contrary 
to the ruJes relating to promotion, by a resolution in 1967 directed those 
employees to be. treated as having been appointed in the reorgan•sed Bom~ 
bay State as temporary Deputy Engineers only for the purpose of fixation 
of their ·seniority in the grade of Deputy Engineers and for promotion to 
higher posts and therefore those employees did not satisfy the 7 year 
requirement. 
Dismissing the 11etitions, 
HELD: (i) There is nothing in rules 
6 7 'and 8 of the 1960 Reso-
lution to militate against the interpretation that the service specified there 
can be the total service of any description whether 11rovisional, temporary 
or 11erm.anent. If promotion from Class II as officiating Executive Engineer 
can only be made after 7 years of permanent service then there would be 
no meaning in including the temporary service in Class II for the purpose 
of absorption as Executive Engineers. If temporary service can be taken 
into account for confirmation as an Executive Engineer so can officiating 
service and if officiating service can be taken into consideration there is no 
impediment to a Deputy Engineer with 7 years' service whether officiating, 
temporary or permanent to be entitled for promotion as an E.i:ecutive 
En!!ineer The Resolution of 1963 makes it abundantly clear th&t 
the 
seniority of promotees should be considered as from the d_ate of promotion 
to officiate continuously irrespective of whether the appointments were 
made in temporary or permanent vac:u.cies. [626 G-627 E] 
(ii) Those respondents who were from Hyderabad State were iu fact 
selected by the Hyderabad Public SerVice Commission as Assistant Engh 
neers ·and would have been appointed. as such but for the States Reorganisa-
tion Act which came into force from J 956. Had they be>n appointed ear-
lier they would have had to be equated with the posts in Bombay. 
The 
allocation of persons after• the reorganisation from one State to another 
was subject to ihe Reorganisation Act which dealt with matters pertaining 
to allocation, transfer. fixation of service conditions, seniority etc. 
The 
claims of the respondents who were allotted from the Hyderabad State 
arose earlier than the. aj)pointrnents of the petitioners and the Govern-
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
meat of Bombay and 
subsequently the .Maharashtra Government 
wu entitled to consi.der these claims and to give redress. There is no 
statutory bar or rule which prohibits the Government of Maharashtra from 
deeming their appointment as from 31-3-1967 for the limited purpose 
of seniority and promotion. [628 E--629 CJ 
(iii) Further, wheii promotions are made on the basis of seniority-cum· 
merit all that can be required is that persons entitled to promotion should 
be considered and if having been considered they have been left out they 
would have no claim to promotion as: a matter of right. 
The petitioners 
did not possess the required length of service in Class II for them to be 
entitled to promotion when the respondents were included in the List and 
promoted; as such they cannot cha1lenge the appointments made as beini 
in Yiolation of Arts. 14 or 16. 629 D-E] 
State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood, f1968] 3 S.C.R. 363. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 112 to 114 of 
1968. 

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