SHRI GOVIND PRASAD versus SH. R.G. PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 02-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI GOVIND PRASAD 
v. 
SH. R.G. PRASAD AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Service law : United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and 
Roads Branch) Class-II Rules, 1936: 
A 
B 
Executive instructions issued by way of Memorandum dated 7.1.1980 C 
amending the eligibility criteria-Promotion of Junior Engineers as Assistant 
Engineers-Minimum eligibility service reduced from JO years to 7 yean--Ap-
plicability of the Memorandum to Jr. Engineers/Assistant Engineers in Electri-
cal and Mechanical branche~Service conditions for all the three Branches 
of Public Works Department, viz. Buildings and Roads, Mechanical and D 
Electrical-Laying down of-i.n ~lear and certain tenn.~Suggestion made to 
State Government. Executive 'Order ofgovemment cannot be made operative 
with retrospective effect. 
In the U.P. State Public Works Department there were no statutory E 
,. service rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of 
persons appointed to the Electrical and Mechanical Branches. However, 
the Building and Roads Branch was governed by the rules called the 
United Provinces Service of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) 
Class II, Rules, 1936 framed under the Government of India Act, 1935. 
The 1936 rules, though not applicable in terms to Electrical and F 
Mechanical branches, had always been applied Mutatis mutandis to these 
branches as well. The 1936 rules laid down three eligibility conditions 
for a Junior Engineer to be considered for promotion to the post of 
Assistant Engineer, viz., confirmation as Junior Engin,eer, A.M.l.E./B.E. 
qualification or passing the qualifying examination prescribed by the G 
Government and 10 years experience as Junior Engineer. 
The Government Order dated December 3, 1964 further prescribed 
rules for the qualifying examination in respect of Electrical/Mechanical 
subordinates for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the H 
555 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
EIJ~trical and Mechanical branches o( the Public Works Department. 
The State Government issued office memorandum dated January 7, · 
1980, amending the formula laid down, making Junior Engineers with 7 
years experience, eligible for being considered for promotion as Assistant 
B Engineer. 
In 1981 the State Government intimated to the Public Service com· 
mission that the. vacancies for the years 1968-69 to 1979-80, in the cadre 
of Assistant Engineers pertaining to the Mechanical and Electrical wings 
of the Public Works Department, were to be filled by promotion. Only those 
C Junior Engineers who had put in a minimum of 10 years service as Junior 
Engineer were to be considered. While the interviews were being conducted 
by the Selection Committee, some of the Junior Engineers, who had not 
been included In the eligibillty list, as they had not completed 10 yean as 
Jr. Engineers, challenged the process of selection before the High Court 
D on the ground that they were wrongly excluded from the eligibillty list. The 
High Court by an interim order permitted more than 100 candidates, who 
were not in the eligiblllty list, to be interviewed by the Selection Committee 
subject to the ftnal result of the writ petitions. The list of selected can· 
.didates was notifted by the Government on November 7, 1983. Therearter 
E large number of Junior Engineers who were omciating as Assistant En· 
• gineers on ad-hoc basis were ordered to be reverted to accommodate the 
Junior Engineers who were selected. The reversion orders were challenged 
before the High Court by way of several writ petitions. The High Court 
stayed the reversion and further stayed appointments from the select list. 
F Thereafter, the High Court permitted ad-hoc promotions to. be made on 
the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. 
Before the High Court the Writ Petitioners contended that there 
being no statutory service rules applicable to the Electrical and Mechani• 
cal branches of the Public Works Department the memorandum which laid 
G down seven years services as an eligibility condition for promotion to the 
post of Assistant Engineer, was to be followed and as such. the wrlt 
petitioners were entitled to be included in the' eligibility list. 
The High Court set aside the selection solely on the ground that 
H the Junior Engineers with seven years service to their credit, having not 
G. PRASAD v. R.G. PRASAD 
557 
~en Included in the eligibility list the sel

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