UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus K.B. RAJORIA

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 28-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
K.B. RAJORIA 
MARCH 28, :fOOO 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND MRS. RUM PAL, JI.] 
Service Law : 
Public Works Department (Director General of Works) Recruitment Rules, 
1986: 
Schedule-Notes ( 1) and (2 )-DPT' s O.M. No. 22011105186 Estt., Dated 
10.4.1989-Notional promotion-Counting the period as 'Qualifying service' 
for further promotion-Promotion to the post of Director General (Works)-
Requirement of two years regular service as Additional Director General 
(Works)-Held, in the case of the officer granted notional promotion as 
Additional Director General (Works), his appointment being regular to the 
post, the said period would be counted 9s qualifying service .for further 
promotion to the post of Director General (Works)-ln such a case actual 
service for the prescribed period is not required. 
Locus Standi-Public Works Department-Promotion to the post of Di-
rector General (Works )-Requirement of two years service as Additional Direc-
tor General (Works)-Officer notionally promoted to the post of Additional 
Director General considered for promotion-Another officer.filing an applica-
tion before Central Administrative Tribunal claiming consideration on the 
ground that he also ought to have been granted notional promotion as Addi-
tional Director General, and, therefore he should have also been considered-
Held, the officer has no locus standi since he was not granted national promo-
tion as Additional Director General. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Service', 'regular service'-Meaning of. 
The Schedule to the Central Public Works Department (Director 
General of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1986 provided that the post of 
Director General (Works), a selection post, could be filled up by promotion 
amongst, inter alia, Additional Directors General (Works) with two years 
613 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
·C 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000) 2 S.C.R. 
regular service. Appellant No. 4, who had been granted on 10.6.1998 
notional promotion to the post of Additional Director General (Works) 
with effect from 22.2.1975, was considered for the post of Director General 
in January 1999. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal claiming that he was also eligible to be considered 
for the post of Director General, since the post of Additional Director had 
fallen vacant on 1.5.1995 and he should have been given notional promo-
tion as Additional Director General w.e.f. 1.5.1995. The Tribunal dismissed 
the application. The.respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, 
which held that on the cut-off date, i.e.1.7.1997 neither the respondent nor 
appellant No. 4 was eligible for promotion since 'regular service' in the 
·Rules meant 'actual service' and that the fiction of notional sernce could 
' ·not amount to two years experience necessary under the Rules. The High 
Court held that notional seniority granted to appellant. No. 4 was no 
substitute for requirement of two years' regular service as Additional 
Director General (Works). Aggrieved, the Union of India and others filed 
D 
the present appeal. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court erred in construing the words 'regular 
service in the grade' as actual physical service. The word "regular'' does 
not mean "actual". The question the High Court should have considered 
was whether the appointment of appellant No. 4 as Additional Director 
General (Works) was regular and in accordance with the Rules or was it 
irregUiar in the sense that it was contrary to any principle of law. It is 
nobody's case that the notional promotion granted to appellant No. 4 was 
'irregular'. By giving him notional promotion as Additional Director Gen· 
eral w.e.f. 22.2.1995, he was in fact regularly appointed to the post on that 
date. [617-C; F-G; 618-A-B] 
K. Madhavan v. Union of India, [1987) 4 SCC 566, relied on. 
1.2. The High Court erred in equating the works 'regular service' 
G 
with 'actual experience'. Appellant No. 4 was admittedly superseded by his 
junior on 22.2.1995, and, therefore, later he was granted notional promo-
tion as AdditionaJ Director General (Works) w.e.f. 22.2.1995. In terms of 
the provisions of para 18.4.3 of the Office Memorandum No. 220W05tS6 
Estt. D dated 10.4.1989, he was entitled to count the period from 22.2.1995 
H 
as the period of qualifying service for the purpose of further promotion to 
' ' 
•
U.0.1. v. K.B. RAJORIA [RUMA PAL, J.] 
615 
the post of Di

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