T.R. KAPOOR & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 1079 · Decided: 31-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
I 
• 
l 
T.R. KAPOOR & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 1989 
[S. NATARAJAN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Punjab EngineerinK Service-Class II Officers-Promoted· as 
class I Officers pursuant to this Court's Judgment and Order dated 
17.12.86---Whether Courts order complied with in its full spirit-
Directions sought re: date of promotions. 
This is an application filed by the Petitioners seeking directions of 
the Court for implementation of this Court's order dated 17 .12.86 in its 
true spirit, in particular, praying that the promotion orders dated 
30.12.87 be given effect from the back dates (deemed dates) or the dates 
when their juniors were promoted. The circumstances that led to the 
A 
B 
c 
filing of this application may be stated thus. 
D 
The Petitioners were members of the regularly constituted class II 
Engg. service of the State with effect from 25.12.1970 and were working 
as Sub-Divisional Officers. Further avenues of promotion to them were 
barred because the State Government construed the service Rules to 
me.an that without a degree in Engineering, a class II officer could not 
be promoted to class I service. The said interpretation of the State 
Government was disapproved by this Court in the case of A.S. Parmar 
v. State of Haryana, [1984] 2 SCR 476 as a consequence whereof a 
degree in Engineering did not remain an essential pre-requisite for a 
member of Class II service for being promoted to Class I service. After 
the Judgment in Parmar's case, the Petitioners flied a Writ f'.~!ition in this 
Court seeking a direction to the St(lte Government to consider the case 
of the Petitioners and others similarly situated for promotion to the post 
·of Executive Engineers in Class I service. , 
E 
F 
On 24.2.84 au undertaking was given to the Court by the State, 
that the State would consider the claims of all the eligible persons inc-
G 
luding the petitioners for regular appointment to Class I service within 
four months •. Instead of granting promotions, the State· Government 
amended the Rules with retrospective effect from 10.7.64 so as to make 
a degree in Engineering as an indispensable qualification for an officer 
in Class II service for being promoted as Class I officer. The Petitioners 
thereupon amended their Writ Petition and challenged the validity of H 
1079 
1080 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the amendment and the Court by its Judgment dated 17 .12.86 struck 
down the amendment to the Rules as ultra vires the State Government. 
In another case involving the same point viz., Ashok Gulati v; 
B.S. Jain, [1987] 1 SCR 600 this Court directed the State Government 
to consider the case!; of all eligible members of Class II service for 
B 
promotion as Executive Engineers, within six months time. The State 
having failed to comply with the Court's order aforesaid, a contempt 
petition was filed, which was disposed of by the Court's order dated 
30.12.87 by which time the State had reported to the Court that the 
j>rolno!ionS to all concerned eligible officers had since beeit granted. 
c 
The Petitioners have now filed this application contending that 
since their placement in Class II service had been made effective with 
effect from 25.12. 70 though the order therefor was issued on 27 .10.85, 
they were entitled to be considered for promotion to Class I service as 
and when they attained eligibility after 25.12. 70 especially in view of the 
Court's Judgment in Parmar's case whereby the degree in Engineering 
D was no longer a necessary qualification. The Petitioners therefore urge 
that they be placed In their rightful position by giving promotion from 
back dates or deemed dates; or, in any case, the date when persons 
junior to them were given promotions. According to them promotions ,,>... 
granted to them belatedly on 30.12.87 did not render true justice to 
them and that the said order did not fully conij>ly with the Court's 
E 
order. Further a grievance is also made that no benefit has been given 
to those officers who retired from service during this period. On the 
other hand the State contended that it has duly complied with the 
Court's order by giving promotions w.e.f. 30.12.87. The State 
supported its contention by saying that in approval of its action the 
F 
Court on 17.12.86 dropped further proceedings in contempt petition ·r 
which meanf that there has been due compliance with the Court's 
order. 
Disposing of the application with directions this Court

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