S.L. CHOPRA AND ORS. ETC. ETC versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 05-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

S.L. CHOPRA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
~·· 
APRIL 5, 199 l 
[K.N. SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, P. W.D. (Public Health 
Branch) Rules, 1961: Rules 2(12), 3(2), 512), 8(11), 11(4) and 1213), 
(5), (6) and (7)-Direct Recruits and promotees-When become 
"' 
members of service-Inter se seniority-Fixation of-Year of allot-
-I 
ment-Whether alterable. 
c 
-
The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1643 of 1991, who were pro-
moted as Executive Engineers on officiating basis in 1971-72 in the 
Haryana Service of Engineers Class I, P. W .D. (Public Health Branch) 
challenged before the High Court the promotion, by grant of relaxation 
of probation, and confirmation, as Executive Engineer, and subsequent D 
promotion as Superintending Engineer, of the respondent, who was 
.... 
appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer, in the Class I Junior Scale 
.f 
in 1977. by direct recruitment. The High Court held that the appellants 
were not members of the service till they were appointed substantively 
to the cadre posts and, therefore, they had no locus standi to challenge 
the promotions. Hence the appeal. 
E 
One of the appellants had also filed a Writ Petition before this 
Court challenging the respondent's promotions, and the State Govern-
ment's power to grant relaxation and fixation of seniority. 
In the connected appeal the respondent, who was appointed by 
F 
direct recruitment as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Class I Junior 
Scale in 1965 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the 
confirmation of the appellants, who were promoted on officiating basis 
as Executive Engineers in the Senior Scale in 1962-64 and were con-
firmed in 1977-79. Quashing the confirmations of the appellants, the 
~ 
High Coutt held that promotions and confirmations of the appellants G 
were in excess of their 50% quota and directed the State Government to 
refix their seniority afresh. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the moment the 
appellants were promoted, though officiating in regular vacancies as 
Executive Engineers they should be deemed to be members of the H 
221 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1991] 2 S.C.R. 
A service from the date of their initial officiating promotion, and their 
seniority determined retrospectively with effect from their due dates, 
counting their continuous length of service towards the seniority. 
.r 
B 
c 
D 
Disposing of Civil Appeal No. 1643 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 
6.ll l of 1982 and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 2316 of 1986, this Court, 
HELD: I. Under Rule 2(12)(a) only a direct recruit appointed to 
the cadre post, though on probation, is a member of the service from 
the date of appointment by operation of the main part of Rule 2(12)(a) 
read with Rule 2( IJ to a cadre post within the meaning of Rule 2(3). The 
inclusive definition in Rule 2( l2)(a) is applicable only to a 'direct 
appointee' i.e., Asstt. Executive Engineer, under Rule 2(7) and put on 
probation, officiating in an ex-cadre post as contemplated in para II of 
Appendix 'A' but having successfully completed his probation and 
awaits appointment to a cadre post. The promotee Class II officers are 
not direct recruits as per Rule 2(7) but are officiating as Executive 
Engineers. Hence they would not become members of the service, as 
declared by Rule 2(7), but become members of the service only after 
they are appointed substantively to a cadre post. [227H, 228A-B] 
1.1 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 prescribed a quota for promotees at 
50% and 50% to the direct recruits and by appointment by promotion to 
the cadre posts of Executive Engineers and above. The proviso is a 
E 
built-in relaxation which empowers the State Government to promote 
Class II officers as Executive Engineers in excess of their 50% quota. 
The promotion of Class II officers in excess of 50% quota would be 
illegal or irregular in the teeth of the mandatory language of Rule 5(2). 
However, with a view to have smooth functioning of the administra-
tion. this power of relaxation was given as a breathing facility. The 
F 
moment a direct recruit is available, the promotee shall give place to 
hinL [228C-D] 
2.2 Appointment by promotion made an ex-cadre post or to any 
cadre post in an officiating capacity from the list prepared in accor-
dance with procedure prescribed under Rule 8 would remain tempor-
G 
ary till the promotee officer is confirmed in a

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