SALES TAX COMMISSIONER ETC. ETC. versus B.G. PATEL ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 03-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SALES TAX COMMISSIONER ETC. ETC. 
v. 
B.G. PATEL ETC. ETC. 
..., 
JANUARY 3, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Service Law : Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment 
(General) Rules, 1985-Rule 11-A and Proviso-Number of pos~s reserved 
for Scheduled Tribes remaining unfilled due to lack of persons possessed of 
+ 
c minimum experience as prescribed in the rule-Respondents, belonging to 
Scheduled Tribes, having completed the period of service specified in the 
proviso-Held, proviso enables appointing authority to relax the rule-Respon-
dents to be considered for promotion. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes: Hannonious construction-Rule prescribing 
minimum qualifying service for promotion-Proviso providing for relaxation 
of rule to two-thirds of qualifying period where a person having prescribed 
·"'-
minimum experience not available-Held, proviso does not have the effect of 
rendering the main part of rule redundant-Proviso and rule should be 
hannoniously read. 
E 
A number of posts reserved for STs remained unfilled due to lack of 
persons possessing the experience prescribed for promotions under Rule 
11-A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment 
(General) Rules, 1985. The Proviso to Rule 11-A provides that where no 
F 
persons are available possessing the requisite experience, the appointing 
authority may consider for promotion persons who have experience of no 
> 
less than two-thirds of the period specified in the rule. The respondent-
senior clerks who belonged to the Scheduled Tribes represented to the 
Government to accord them the benefit of the Proviso. The Government's 
G 
denial was challenged in the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal which 
directed the Government to consider the. cases for promotion of the 
respondents, giving them the benefit of the Proviso. The order was con-
firmed by the High Court. 
. .. _ 
On appeal, it was contended for the petitioner that the interpretation 
H adopted by the Tribunal and the High Court would render the main part 
22 
• 
SALES TAX COMMNR. v. B.G. PATEL 
23 
of Rule 11-A redundant, and the Proviso would become operative in each A 
case. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Rule 11-A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and 
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1985 is the normal rule. The proviso only B 
enables the appointing authority to relax the rule where no candidate is 
available fulfilling the minimum experience prescribed in the rule. It is not 
disputed that a number of posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes remained 
unfilled due to lack of persons possessed of the minimum experience 
specified in the rule. Instead of dereserving the post for non-availability, C 
the proviso would enable the appointing authority to relax the period of 
experience prescribed in the rule, and consider the claims of the respon-
dents, who have completed the period specified in the proviso, for appoint-
ment by promotion. [25-D-H, 26-B] 
2. The p~titioner has taken a technical view of the matter and D 
committed an illegality by failing to exercise the power under the proviso 
to Rule 11-A. [26-B] 
3. If the contention of the State is accepted, the proviso would be 
rendered otiose and ineffective. The proviso and the main part of the rule 
are to be harmoniously read together and interpreted to give effect to the E 
object of the provision. (25-F, D] 
4. The Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that the 
cases of the respondents require to be considered for promotion. (26-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) F 
Nos. 1383-92 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.93 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 12748-57 of 1993. 
Anip Sachfhey for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
G 
This petition for special leave arises from the order of the High Court H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos. 12748 to 12757 of 1993. 
B 
c 
The respondents-senior clerks who belonged to Scheduled Tribes 
represented to the Government to accord them the benefit of the proviso 
to Rule. llA of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment 
(General) Rules, 1985 (for short, 'the Rules'). On denial thereof, they 
approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal which by its order dated 
5.2.1993 directed the petitioner to consider their cases for promotion giving 
them the benefit of the

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