LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus A.C. SHAH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF GUJARAT v. A.C. SHAH AND OTHERS MARCH 16, 1993 [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136--Appeal-Relevant facts and circumstances not placed before the High Court-Remanding the matter back to High Court for reconsideration. Civil Service : Gujarat State Public Works Department-Electrical En- gineering Branch-Trifurcation of Cadres-Promotion to the posts of Deputy Engineers--High Court's direction to provide criterion for promotion-Quota mle at ihe ratio of 2: 1--Legality of-Facts and circumstances not placed before the High Court-£jf.ct of The appellant-State by resolution dated 10.7.1972, trifurcated the services.in the Electrical Engineering Branch of the Public Works Depart- ment into three cadres, namely, (1) Junior Engineers, (2) Supervisors and (3) Over-seers, w.e.f. 1.5.1972. At the relevant time there Wlis only one I A B c D Overseer and he stood retired. Therefore, in substance it was a bifurcation E - between Junior Engineers and Supervisors the former being graduates and the latter being diploma holders. In a writ petition before the High Court exercise of the State was challenged. The Hig~ Court directed the State to provide for a criterion for ,.... promotion from the three independent cadres, for working ont the trirur- cation. ' F In compliance of the order of the High Court, the appellant adopted G a Resolution dated 26.9.1975 introducing a quota rule effective from May 1, 1972 at the ratio of2:1 for Junior Engineers and Supervisors respecthe· ly for promotion to the posts of Deputy Engineers. Tiie respondents challenged the trifurcation and also the quota rule in a writ petition before the High Court. H 383 • 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R. A 1be High Court struck down the ratio of 2:1 holding it to be unjus· -.t. ~ tified as also tbe disparity in qualifying service from both the channels. Hence th!s appeal by special leave by the State, being aggrieved against a mandamus-issued by the High Court not to impose the ratio of B 2:1 while working o'ut the quota rule. ~ As the appellant was unsuccessful in obtaining a stay of operation of the High Court's judgment, it had to obey the mandate of the High Court and the ratio of 2:1 could not be e11forced. c This Court on 18.12.1980 ordered the Government to fra!lle a fresh · quota rule consistent with the High Court judgment for the purpose of making promotions during the pendency of the appeal and under Article 309 of the Constitution, a Rule was framed. Earlier the appellant had ~ framed the Deputy Engineer (Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 1978 under Article 309 of the Constitution, which were not brought to the notice of the D High Court nor the Rules, 1978 were challenged. Allowing this .appeal, this Court, HELD: 1.01. The matter in the High Court proceeded on ·the as· E sumption that an executive action of the State was under challenge. 1be necessary assumptions and presumptions, W!Oll known to law and the --), placement of onuses went on-noticed. In this background and facing the .. situation so arising the State Government issued a Notification on April 12, 1982 by causing a substitution in the earlier Rules of 1978 by fixing the promotional ratio from both sources at 1:1, but subjected them to the - F result of the instant litigation emerging from this Court. [387D-E] 1.02. The High Court judgment is silent as to the basis on which it ~ was persuaded to strike down the ratio of 2:1 for Junior Engineers and Snpervisors respectively. The tenor of the judgment of the High Court G does however suggest that the executive flexibility, with which the Govern· ment works could not justify the fixation of the ratio of 2:1. The High Court could not and did not substitute whai was the right ratio in the drcumstances and left it to the Government to devise another ratio. Had -""\ die factum of the legislation on the subject i.e. the Rules dated 4.7.1978, been brought to its notice, perhaps the High Court's angle of vision would " H have 1- difftmlt. [387F·G] STATE OF GUJARAT v. AC. SHAH 385 ~ 1.03. The State bas no doubt compulsively carried out the mandate but has done so with reservation so as to meet the eventuality. No such A measure can ever be permanent that would hold good for all times, to meet ·not only the present needs but also future exigencies as well. Hands of the State -cannot be so tied dow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.