SHARAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 58 
A 
SHARAD 
v 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
Civil Appeal No.937 Of 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA-AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Seniority - Failure to clear departmental 
examination - Consequence of - Appellant, District Trans-
't-" 
c 
port Officer, failed tq pass departmental examination within 
prescribed time limit and chances -Respondent-employer 
enforced the Rules against the appellant and placed him be-
low those who passed the examination prior to him...:. Justifica-
tion of - Held: Justified - The Rules were statutory in nature 
D 
and required to be followed by all concerned - Rule relating 
to appearance at the examination and failure to pass the same 
entailed the consequences laid down in the rule - There was 
no act of arbitrariness or otherwise on the part of respondent-
employer - District Transport Officers (Motor Vehicle Depart-
E 
ment) Department Examination Rules, 1984 - rr. 3, 4, 5 and 6. 
Appellant was appointed as a District Transport Of-
ficer in 1984. He failed to pass the departmental examina-
tion in terms of the District Transport Officers (Motor Ve-
hicle Department) Department Examination Rules, 1984 
"! 
F within the time limit and chances, as prescribed. Employ-
ees who were junior to appellant were purportedly pro-
moted to the post of the Deputy Regional Transport Of-
ficer, on which appellant filed an application before the 
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the ap-
G plication in view of r.5(3) holding that as the appellant had 
not passed the departmental examination within the stipu-
.... 
lated time limit and chances, he was bound to lose se-
niority for purpose of promotion. The writ petition filed by 
H 
58 
SHARAD V. 
59 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
A 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The relevant rules must be construed hav-
ing regard to the purport and object they seek to achieve. 
B 
Rule 3 of the District Transport Officers (Motor Vehicle 
Department) Department Examination Rules, 1984 in no 
uncertain terms provided for the necessity of passing the 
-1 
examination. As the appellant was appointed on proba-
tion and he could not pass the departmental examination c 
within the stipulated period of two years upon availing 
three chances, his services could have been terminated. 
In fact, at the intervention of the State as also in view of 
an interim order passed by the Tribunal, he was allowed 
to continue. [Paras 15, 16] [ 68-8, C, D, E] 
D 
~ 
2. The submission that the appellant had been 
granted exemption from appearance may not be correct. 
Appellant in fact had appeared in January 1987 examina-
tion. Therefore, there is no reason as to why he could have 
E 
been granted any exemption from appearance. Also there 
is no provision for grant of exemption in respect of 'at-
tempt' which is purported to have been done in respect 
-r 
of the examination held in July 1987. It, furthermore, does 
not appear from the order passed by the Tribunal as also 
F 
by the High Court that even such a contention had ever 
been raised before the said forums. Furthermore, the 
power to grant exemption is contained in Rule 6 of the 
Rules. It is not a well settled principle of law that in the 
event the power of exemption are hedged with conditions, 
G 
those conditions must be satisfied before an order of ex-
~· 
emption is passed. Conditions for grant of exemption so 
far as the appellant is concerned also do not appear to 
have been fulfilled. It is not a case where for unavoidable 
reasons, the employee could not appear in the examina-
H 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A tion and it was permissible for the authorities concerned 
to grant an exemption in those contingencies. [Paras 18, 
19, 22] [ 69-D, E, F, G] 
3. It is also not a case where the rules framed were in 
B violation of a Parliamentary Act. The Rules are statutory 
in nature. They were required to be followed by all con-
cerned. The rule relating to appearance at the examina-
tion and the consequent failure to pass the same would 
entail the consequences which have been laid down in 
c the .rule. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by 
the respondents in placing the appellant below those who 
had passed the examination prior to him. Appearance at 
the examination being mandatory in nature, there was no 
act of arbitrariness or otherwise on the part of the respon

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