R.L. BANSAL AND ORS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 08-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

R.L. BANSAL AND ORS. 
A 
+ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 8, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Central Public Works Department Assistant Engineers (Central En-
gineering Service and Central Electrical Engineering Service) Group 'B' (Con-
finnation and Seniority) Rules, 1979: Rules 4 and 5 (As amended by 1982 
Rules }-Constitutional-Validity of. 
c 
-
Central Engineering Service--C.P. W.D.-Assistant Engineers-Direct 
• 
recrnits and promotees-Confinnation-Detennination of seniority-Rule 4 in 
so far as it predicates detennination of seniority based on date of confinnation 
"' 
held violative of Articles 14 and 16( 1). 
D 
Central Engineering Service, Class II Recrnitment Rules, 1954-Part· 
II-Rules 3,4,5,. 
Central Engineering Service Class II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 
1976 and 1978. 
~ 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 309: 
Proviso-Rules framed under-Held legislative in character-Can be 
strnck down only on the grounds upon which a legislative measure can be 
strnck down. 
F 
~ 
The Central Engineering Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1954 
provided for four methods of appointment to the catagory of Assistant 
; 
Engineers in the Central Public Works Department, viz., (i) by competitive 
examinations to be conducted by Union Public Service Commission • Rule 
3(a); (ii) by direct appointment, i.e. selection from amongst temporary G 
engineers and temporary Section Officers employed on the civil engineer-
ing side of the C.P.W.D. after consultation with the Union Public Service 
A~ 
Com~ission ·Rule 3(b); (iii) by promotion, i.e. by selection on merit from 
am~ngst permanent Section Officers employed in the Civil Engineering 
side ofthe C.P.W.D. • Rule 3(c); (iv) by transfer· Rule 3(d). From time to 
time appointments to the category of Assistant Engineers were made from H 
133 
A 
13 
c 
D 
E 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 3 S.C.ll. 
different sources. Since a particular method of confirmation was followed, 
some of the temporary Assistant Engineers, who were directly appointed 
under Rule 3(b), filed a Writ Petition in Delhi High Court challenging the 
confirmation procedure stating that the other Assistant Engineers . 
recruited by competative examination under Rule 3(a) as well as those 
directly appointed under Rule 3(b) and appointed subsequent to them 
have been confirmed leaving the petitioners unconfirmed. The High Court 
allowed the petition by directing that the petitioners be considered for 
confirmation and their inter se seniority faxed accordingly. 
· Subsequent to the judgment of the lligh Court, ·the Central Govern-
ment prepared a seniority list of Assistant Engineers in 1972 which was 
based on the date of appointment/promotion and communicated to all 
concerned inviting objections thereto. However, before the said seniority 
list could be finalised, the decision of the Delhi High Court was challenged 
before this Court; it was upheld by this Court. After the judgment ·or this 
Court, the 1954 Rules were amended in 1977 and again in 1978. The 
Central Government than promulgated Central Public Works Department 
Assistant Engineers (Central Engineering Service and Central Electrical 
Service) Group '8' (Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1979 with 
retrospective effect from 1954. These rules, which prescribed the mode of 
determination of seniority of Assistant Engineers, were extensively 
amended in 1982. 
The effect of the amended Rules was that the Assistant Engineers 
who were appointed by direct recruitment froro amongst temporary en-
gineers and Section Officers after consultation with the Union Public 
F 
Service Commission were sought to be treated as promotees. Persons 
appointed under 3(a) were treated as appointed against permanent posts 
of Assistant Engineers and were given prior claim for confirmation. Ap-
pointments made prior to 22nd December, 1959 and those made after this 
date were to be treated differently for. the purpose of confirmation. The 
Assistant Engineers appointed before 22nd December, 1959 were to be 
G confirmed in the order of their seniority. But in the case of appointments 
made subsequent to 22nd December, 1959, the Assistant Engineers 
recruited against perman~nt posts· were first to be confirmed en bloc 
against pern'lanent vacancies in that year and thereafter Assistant En-
gineers recruited against temporary posts and those promoted from lower 
H posts were to be confirmed against permanent vacal!cies available in that 

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