STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus R. DAYAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 17-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
R. DAYAL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 17, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) Rules 
c 1954: 
Rules 9, 23, 23-A and 24-A-Selectio1r-Selection for future vacancies 
made under existing rules-Appointment made after amendment of 
Rules-Appointment not in accordance with amended rules-Ehect of-Held, 
vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required 
D to be filled in in accordance witli the law existing as on the date when the 
vacancies arose-Under Rule 24-A(ll-B) the panel can be revised in accord-
ance with the 1Ules and appointment can be made in accordance there-
witlt-Even a carried forward vacancy is required to be considered in 
accordance with the law existing unless suitable relaxation is made by the 
E Govemment-Govemment required to constitute the DPC which would con-
sider the claims of eligible candidates as per Rules-It would be fresh selec-
tion and appointments in accordance with law-Appointments of those 
respondents made after the amendment of the rules must be treated to be only 
temporary appointments pending consideration of claims of all. eligible can-
didates. 
F 
Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, [1983) 3 SCC 284, cited . 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1564 of 
1997. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.96 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 3759 of 1996. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. 
Jayant Das, Manoj Kr. Das, and J.K. Das for the Respondent No. 
H 13. 
108 
y 
STATEv. R.DAYAL 
109 
P.P. Rao and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division B 
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, made on August 30, 
1996 in Writ Petition No. 3759/95. 
The admitted position is that for nine vacancies existing and an-
ticipated as on April 1, 1995, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for 
short, the "DPC") was convened on April 13, 1995 and it selected nine C 
candidates including respondent Nos. 12 and 13, viz., B.S. Bhatnagar and 
H.L. Meena (ST) respectively. The other respondents filed the writ petition 
in the High Court impugning their appointments based on Rule 24-A of 
the Rajasthan Service oJ Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 
1954 (as amended) (for short, the 'Rules'). The only question is: whether 
the appointment of the said respondents, viz., B.S. Bhatnagar and H.L. D 
Meena, is made in accordance with the Rules. 
Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned com:1sel appearing for the State, 
contends that under Rule 9 of the Rules, subject to the provisions therein, 
the appointing authority shall determine as on the first day of the financial 
year, i.e., commencing from 1st April of ensuing year and ending with 31st E 
March of successive year, the number of vacancies, actual or anticipated, 
occurring during the financial year. They are required to be considered by 
the DPC constituted in that behalf as per the criteria prescribed in Rule 
23 of the Rules. In accordance therewith, for the nine existing and an-
ticipated vacancies, the DPC considered the claims of all the eligible 
candidates as per the Rules then existing and selected them. A list of F 
selected candidates is contained in the minutes of the DPC held on April 
13, 1995. As per the criteria then existing, B.S. Bhatnagar (General) and 
H.L. Meena (Reserved), were sekcteJ on merit. As a consequencc, they 
were appointed by promotion in accordance with the Rules, though Rule 
2
1
3-
1
A
2
a
4
nd
19
R
95
u!Seh2~-
1
A camDe to b
1
e introdduc~d by statu
1
tory am~ndfment w.e.f. G . 
u y 
, 
. 
n ayant 
as, earne semor counse appearmg or respon-
dent No. 13, promotee- respondent, contends that under Rule 23 of the 
~ules, .the criteria prescribed as on the date of the selection by the DPC 
is req?tred to be applied. Since the existing criteria had been applied, their 
sel~ct10n was cor.rect in law. Consequently, the vacancies which arise 
dunng that financial year were required to be filled u f 
h 
P rom amongst t e H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A respondents. 
Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting 
respondents, who had filed the writ petition, contends that in view of the 
immediate effect, the amended Rules having come into force from July 24, 
fact that amendment of Rules has bee

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