SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA.AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA.AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MAY 14, 1999 
B 
[G.T. NAN AVA Tl AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Service Law-Punjab Service of Engineers, class II (Irrigation Branch) 
Rules, 1941-Rules 3,5-Qualification of a degree in engineering is a must 
for appointment as Assistant Engineer-A temporary Junior Engineer not 
C possessing a degree qualification held, not eligible for promotion to the post. 
Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer is governed by the 
Punjab Service of Engineers Class II (Irrigation Branch) Rules 1941. By a 
notification dated 23-4-1992 certain percentage was fixed for promotion. 
D Junior Engineers who were graduated in engineering challenged this 
notification on the ground that no promotion can be made of those junior 
Engineers who do not have the requisite educational qualifications prescribed 
by Rule 3 and, therefore, no quota could have been fixed for their promotion. 
The High Court quashing the notification held that the Junior Engineers 
who do not possess university degree or other qualification prescribed in 
E Appendix A to the Rules are not eligible for promotion under Rule 5 except 
in case where relaxation in that behalf is made by the Government in exercise 
of its power under the last proviso to Rule 5 read with Note 2 to Rule 3 of 
the Rules. 
F 
The Appellants, working as Junior Engineers/overseers in the Punjab 
Overseers Service, since about 1962, holding diploma in engineering, 
submitted that the second proviso to Rule 5 is an independent provision made 
in respect of promotion of temporary Engineers and that the third or last 
proviso is again an independent provision in respect of Junior Engineers 
possessing independent merit and that it could not have been intended by the 
G rule making authority that temporary junior engineers apart from the 
qualification of a degree in engineering should satisfy the other conditions 
also mentioned in the second proviso to Rule 5. 
The respondents submitted that on a correct interpretation of Rule 5 
it should be held that the qualification of a degree in engineering is a must 
H for appointment as Assistant Engineer and unless that condition is relaxed 
740 
' l 
/ 
•· I 
S.C. SHARMA v. STATE 
741 
either by exercising the power available under the third or the last proviso A 
to Rule 5 or the general power of relaxation under Rule 19, Junior Engineer, 
who is a diploma holder, cannot be promoted to the post of an Assistant 
Engineer. 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. Rule 5 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II 
(Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941, leaves no doubt that the rule making 
authority intended by enacting the second proviso that a temporary engineer/ 
oversear referred to therein should also satisfy other conditions before he 
can be promoted to class II service. If the intention of the rule making C 
authority was to do away with the requirement of degree qualification then 
it was not at all necessary to incorporate the last proviso in Rule 5. The 
second pro~iso also deals with a member of the Overseers Engineering 
Service or Draftsmen Service and the last proviso also deals with promotion 
of a member of the Overseer Engineering Service of Irrigation Branch, 
Punjab or Irrigation Branch (Provincial Draftsmen and Tracers) Service. If D 
a member of such a service without being a graduate was to be treated as 
eligible for promotion as an Assistant Engineer then it is difficult to appreciate 
how it became necessary to provide for relaxation of educational qualification 
in his favour again by enacting a separate proviso. Therefore, if second 
proviso to Rule 5 is interpreted as suggested that would render the last E 
proviso to Rule 5 oti9se. The last proviso could not have been intended to 
enable the Government to relax the other conditions mentioned in the second 
proviso in case of class of persons referred to in the last proviso. Outstanding 
merit of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service or Draftsmen and 
tracers service could not have been ascertained unless he had completed at 
least his two years continuous service. Similarly a person having outstanding F 
merit could have been easily declared by the Commission on the report of 
the Chief Engineer to be fit for service and, therefore, there was hardly any 
point in making a special proviso for relaxation of such conditions. It is also 
not possible to believe that the said proviso was enacted f

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