LexRAMENDRA SINGH versus JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ' . c D • F G ll · .. '. • 598 • . RAMENDRA SINGH v .. JAGDISH PRASAD. AND ORS. · Febf'uary 17, 1984 • . [ E.S. VENKATARAMIAH .AND R.B. MISRA, JJ. :J • .. Cit-ii Se;·dcc: ~·ersons.1161 qua!ijiefi'appoilit¢d to higher p;stS to n1eet e1nei'gC111 siturition--1! could be given senio~ity over person~.' apjJoli1ted under . ru!~s subsequently. . . . . . .. .. . . In· ~ont~cc;tion ·.\Yith tl~e cxccu"tion of _·a \Vo~·lli Banl(,· 1~ro~cct. on _an ~!11.e;·gcil.cy . basis, which was required .to be completed within a short tin1e, the Public Works . Department of the State needed a nu1nber of mechanical ov'erseerS. Since at that time there ~as accute shortag~-.or qu<ilified overs~e~s the Dcpartn1ent had al?poin- tcd; as.oversee.rs on provisional basis against th© sanctioned· posts, certain persons who \Vere· worki1;g in the depart1nent as sub-overs~~s even though. theY had orily appeared. in the dipfrn110·· ~Xamination in engineering but hc.d not yet passed· it. ln the 1n1::a1~time, the respontje~ts ·(petitioner~ befo~e; the High Court) W'.ere· sel~te"d . by a S;:tection Con1nlittce constituted in·accordancc with·die procedure laid down in. Bih<i.r ·Public. Works Depa!'h11ent Co.de. After they passed .the d-iplotna Cxami- nJ.tio:~, ~h..: Cili_..:r E_:-._g:ine;._r had in ·~964 a·p~oi_nted the ··appel.lants (cont~st.ing ·respon- d~ats o~for~· tr1~ 1-llgh .-...out·l) as ten1por~ry overseers against the sanctioned posts frOm the date of publica ticin of results of.the diplo1na examin~tion. In 1973; a grad~ .tion list \Va's. prepared and so1ne Of the appellants w~re subsequently pronlotcd to high.er' posts. . · Th~ respondc;.:ntS in a ·writ petition fitCct in the High Court had· inlpugned the order of th.e C_!,k:f Engincci appointing the _appellants retrospectively as oversee.rs on the. ground that while they were apr)oirite<l after folloWinti the procodure pres" .cribed under the· rules, ti-le a"pp~llants ~t the time of their appointment as overs$eCrs--. were nejth~r qualified .to be appointed ~s overseers·nor were they selected· by a Selec tio~ 'Con1mit~ consfitutCd under the rules .and that in any ·event the apP.cllarii-s .could ·not Qc aPvoiuted with ~etrospective efre'ct. secondly. thoµgh .the ·.appellants shown aS seniors to the respondents by th~ ·chief Engineer.'s·oi:ders·of 1964, _the aP1J~1lants were in rac'c junior ·to them anct that· their tater" pron1otion was· imp.roper.·· ' . . ·-. ·-j: .. \ The Higll Court held that· tbc Publi~ W-0rks :Ocpart~ent Code ~n accoljj61_1ce with \Vhich-thy respondents wete recruited·. directly contained. mer~ly devartmental irlstri.tctions and .. hvd. not ac(tuired -statutory force .and that, ·thei·efon::, tbe appciint~ inent o.f thC appellants. Could nOt be held to be invii.lid on the ground thnt the depart- ment had no poWer to illake· retrospective appointments.· It ho,vever held that the·~ .fevised ,gra4l.tio(l ~isi, showing .the appel~ri.nts above . the resp,endents, on. the _bas.is . Qf -the 1964orders was bad.·in law .. Consequently, the. Iiigh Court qua.shed that part of the tw·o ofders which.had fixed the date of pi,iblic;atiori Of the resU1t of diploma· cx:afui~ation as,the cp1nmenCe1~ei-it of length of se1~vi~ of tenip6rary oversee~s. '• ·~ ~k:c /': RAMENDRA SINGH v. JAGDISH PRASAD ... 599 In appeal..fo this Co~rt is was cOnte~ded on behalf Or" the appCllJ.nts that since the Cxccutivc power .. of the State is co-extensive with its lbgiSlativC · pow¢f, ~n the· :absericc of a statutorY .rule.framed :under. Article 309 of the. CoiistitUtion, it was opetf ··to the executive." in eXercise of its ex~cuiive power :Uni;Ie"r-Art. . .162 of.the Collstitu•: tion, !O njake "appoiritment~$to meet' the" exigC1~cics of a sitll~tioll. . .. ~ · .. DiSn1issing the appeal, HELD ~ The impugned order oi 1964 which p~rported to appoi~tthc s~ ov'crseers as temporary overseers from the date Of ·publication ·of their·. rc~1:1lt of diplonl'a examination ·are clear_l.Y vlolatlve Or Articles 14 _and 16 of. the c;:'onstitution ·-inasmuch· as the respondents hi:td- already b"een appointe_d as ovei:eers by. a Seie.:- tion ·committee. conStitutC<l under the rules contained· in.the public Works :i;:>ep_art- · .. merit COde.· The 1964-order making. the tempo~a:rY. appointments conferred . natiOnal seniority on the appellarits ·for the period ~heY aie. actua1ly· working ·as · sub·Overseers fri· the lower· scales. Ciutside th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.