STATE OF GUJARAT versus C. G. DESAI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 13-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
" 
B 
~ 
\ 
c 
D 
E 
(~ 
' 
.F 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
C. G. DESAI AND OTHERS 
No\'ember 13, 1973 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R. S, SARKARIA, JJ.] 
255 
Engineering Service....:_Bon1bay Engineering Service .Rutes, 1960-Rule 1(ii)-
Direct rf'cruits de1na11ded their pre-selection service counted for the purpose of 
promoriori-1/ perniissible-Whether Art. 16 of the Constitution violated. 
Respondent No. 1 was officiating as Deputy Engineer from ~·fay 16, 1955 to 
December 3, 1959 in the P.W.D. of the then State of Bombay. Thereafter, he 
was selected by competitive examination and appointed to a post in .B.S.F. 
ClasS-11 Service. 
Under the Engineering Service Rules, 1960, a direct recruit is 
required to undergo training for one year and thereafter to work on probation for 
another year as in-chariz:e of a sub-division. Since respondtnt N0. 1 had already 
worked as officiating Deputy Engineer, the initial period of one year's training 
was dispensed with and he was directly plac..ed in-charge of a sub-diVision.. After 
completion of 2 years, he was confirmed as Deputy Engineer in Class-II ftom 
December 3, 196 I. 
· 
ln 1une 1961, the Committee aPpointed to prepare a seleci-list of Deputy 
Engineers for promotion as officiating Executive Engineers, did . not consider 
responde_nt_No. l for_promotic;~ because he had .. not put in 7 years (r~duced to , 
6· years 1n 1961) service requls1te under rule 7(11) for such promouon. The. 
Government's stand was that-the service rendered by the direct recruits prior to 
their appointment t0 Class-II could. not be. taken into account in computing their 
eligibility service of 7 years. The case of respondent no. 1 was that µ~der the 
Rules, his pre-selection service (from 16-5-1955 to 2-12-1959), must' be' t['lcked 
on to his post-selection service for cakulating· the requisite period of his eligibi~ 
lity service. 
' · 
ln the case or' r.eSPonde"rits Nos. 2 and: 3 also'. the Governrne11t 1.lid ncit count 
the period of their pre·selection service for the purpose of their eligibility· services 
and hence the dispute. 
. 
_'_,_,,;. ·'.·. -:·: · 1 :-~ 
.·:·, 
• 
,.-
The High Court :.found that the differentiation·· made Qy the 1 dovernm~nt in 
the application of the rules,· had no reasonable nexus \Vith the object" of promo-
tion and the action of the Government was discriminat0ry and so violative :if 
Art. 16 of the· ConStitution. 
On appeal, the question for 
consideration 
was 
whether the ·action of the State Government in treating 'differently' the promo-
tees and direct recruits in Class-II for the purpose of computing the' penod of 
their eligibility service requisite for promotion as officiating Executive Engineers, 
violates the conStitutional guarantee of .equal treatment enshrined in Art. 16 of 
the Constitution. 
· 
' '' 
Allowing the appeal, . 
JlELD (i) It is manifest that direct recruits and prOmolees in C13ss-II "coils· 
titute two distinct groups or classes. This classification has a historical back· 
· ground and a rational basis. 'The promotees from the lower ranks have only 
one chance of getting into Class-II service, as against three 
available to the 
direct recruits. 
Further •. for a considerable time, recruitment 
by 
promotion 
from the ranks of temporary officiating Deputy Engineers etc., to Class-II service 
remained frozen with consequent stagnation and loss of incentive in the service. 
At the time of ·their entry into Class-II service, the 
promotees are, broadly. 
speaking, far older than the direct. recruits, and many of the promotees may have 
less than 7 years to go before attaining 'the age of superannuation. If in the 
case of both these ¥.roups of promotees and direct recruits with different back .. 
grounds. and dissimilar circumstances, the period of 7 years eligibility service 
were to start" from the date of their absorption in Class·II, then for most of the 
promotees, there would be a rare chance of ever getth1g promotion as officiating 
Executive Engineers. The classification is thus based on intelligible. differentia. 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974] 2 s.c.a. 
(Ii) If a penon, like any of the reo~ondento, to avoid the Iona tortuou1 wait 
leave his position in the "ne\oer endtna' queue of temporary o!liciatlna Deputy 
Engineers etc., lookina tor promotion and takes f short-cut through the direct 
channel to Class JI service he alves up once for all, the advanta1e1 and dis-
advantages that so with the channel of promotion and accepto all

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