SHESHRAO JANGLUJI BAGDE versus BHAIYYA S/O GOVINDRAO KARALE AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 18-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SHESHRAO JANGLUJI BAGDE 
v. 
BHAIYY A S/0 GO VIND RAO KARALE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 
[V. RAMASWAMI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Maharashtra Ground Water Service Class I 
(Recruitment) Rules, 1976: Rule 3( 1)-Senior Geologists-Promotion 
.qs Deputy Director-Stipulated experience-Posterior to acquiring 
necessary educational qua/ifii:ation-Validity of 
The appellant joined the Agricultural Department in 1963 with 
B.Sc. (Geology). Later, in 1979 he was promoted as Senior Geologist. In 
1982 he passed his M.Sc. (Geology) and stood first in the University. 
Sometime in 1982 he was also holding additional charge as Deputy 
Director. 
In 1983, the State Public Service Commission called for applica-
tions for direct recruitment of Deputy Director in the Ground Water 
Survey and Development Agency. The appellant applied in response to 
the said advertisement, but was not called for interview, on the ground 
that he did not possess the necessary qualification of I 0 years practical 
experience after acquiring the post-graduate degree. Aggrieved, the 
appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court contending that 
educational qualification and experience are two independent require-
ments and have to be read disjunctively and the experience required 
need not be after possessing basic educational qualification. However, 
the High Court did not agree with the contention and dismissed the 
Writ Petition. 
· 
Against the said dismissal, the appellant preferred an appeal by 
special leave which was granted, by this Court in 1984, with an observa-
tion that the petitioner should not be reverted. However, he was 
reverted to the post of Senior Geologist but subsequently promoted as 
Deputy Director in a new post created. The appellant's promotion was 
challenged by one of his colleagues by way of a Writ P-etition contending 
that even for promotion, 10 years experie_!lce posterior to acquisition. of 
post-graduate degree was essential. The High Court quashed the pro-
motion of the appellant. The appellant appealed against the said order 
after obtaining special leave of this Court in 1987. 
521 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] Supp. l S.C.R. 
A 
During the pendency of these two appeals the State Government 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
amended Rule 3(l)(a) whereby the requirement of JO years experience 
mentioned in sub-clause (iii) was deleted in respect of appointment by 
promotion. According to the State Government since the said require-
ment was redundant, it was deleted. 
Allowing the 1987 appeal, and dismissing the 1984 appeal, this 
Court, 
HELD: I.I. On the interpretation of Rule 3 of Maharashtra 
Ground Water Service, Class I (Recruitment) Rules, 1976 prior to its 
amendment, the view taken by the High Court on the Writ Petition filed 
by the appellant, does not call for any interference. Normally when one 
talks of experience, unless the context otherwise demands, it should be 
taken as experience after acquiring the minimum qualifications requi-
red and, therefore, necessarily will have to posterior to the acquisition 
of the qualification. However, in the case of promotion the same 
interpretation may not be just or warranted. It would depend on the 
relevant provisions as also the particular type of experience which is 
required. [336C-D] 
1.2. The requirement of experience has been omitted by an 
amendment made on 16th February, 1988 and published in the Gazette 
on 24.3.1988. Though the Rule does not say anything about its retros-
pective operation there could be no doubt that it is retroactive. This 
amendment shall he deemed to apply to the present case as well espe-
cially when the matter is pending in this Court and the appointment in 
question is by promotion. H is true that at the time when the appellant 
was promoted, the Rule had not been amended. However, the appellant 
is the senior most among the Senior Geologists and even if he is to be 
considered again under the amended rules he shall have to be appointed 
and nothing is stated in these proceedings which would disqualify him 
even now. 1336£-F J 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
2166/87 & 2146/84. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1987 & 16.11.1983 of 
the Bombay High Court in W.P. Nos. 2161/86 and 500 of 1983. 
V.A. Bobde, R.N. Keshwani, A.G. Ratnaparkhi and S.D. 
H 
Mudaliar for the Appellant. 
• 
SHESHRAO v. BHAIYYA [RAMASWAMI, J.} 
523 
S.B. Bhasme, Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande and A

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