UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SHRI G.R.RAMA KRISHNA & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 23-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 261 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
SHRI G.R.RAMA KRISHNA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7032 of 2013) 
AUGUST 23, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Service Law - Recruitment - Promotion - Andaman 
Lakshdeep Harbour Works (ALHW) - Post of Executive 
Engineer - Three alternate modes of recruitment to the Post, 
namely, (1) by promotion, failing which (2) by transfer on 
deputation (including short term contract) and failing both (3) 
by direct recruitment - Held: If some departmental candidate 
is available and eligible to be considered, promotion method 
is to be resorted to in the first instance - However, on facts, 
no departmental candidate was available - Respondent had 
not completed 8 years regular service as Assistant Engineer, 
as required for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer -
In such circumstances only out of sympathy, the High Court 
could not have given the impugned direction for appointment 
of respondent as Executive Engineer - This judicial sympathy 
resulting into a right in favour of respondent to appoint him 
contrary to the recruitment rules framed under proviso to 
Article 309 of the Constitution which are statutory in nature was 
clearly misplaced and needs to be denounced - Such a 
direction is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly set aside 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309. 
The respondent was working as Assistant Engineer 
(Mechanical) in Andaman Lakshdeep Harbour Works 
(ALHW). The U.P .S.C. advertised the post of Executive 
Engineer (Mechanical) for filling up on direct recruitment 
basis. This move for filling up of the post of Executive 
Engineer (Mechanical) adopting the mode of direct 
261 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A recruitment was taken on the premise that no 
departmental candidate was available inasmuch as 8 
years regular service as Assistant Engineer was needed 
for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, and no 
departmental employee fulfilled this condition. 
B 
The respondent filed O.A. before the Cer.itral 
Administrative Tribunal challenging the proposal of the 
UPSC to fill the post on direct recruitment basis 
contending that he was eligible to be considered for such 
a promotion as after counting the ad-hoc period he had 
C completed the requisite number of years as Assistant 
Engineer. The O.A. was dismissed. The respondent then 
filed Writ Petition. The High Court allowed the Writ 
Petition and modified the order of the Tribunal by 
directing that the respondent be appointed as Executive 
D Engineer after observing all other formalities, and 
therefore the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The approach of the High Court cannot be 
appreciated. As per the extant rules for promotion to the 
post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) 8 years regular 
service as Assistant Engineer is imperative. The Rules do 
not provide for any relaxation in this behalf. This is clear 
F from the reading of the said rules which provide for 
appointment to the post of Executive Engineer 
(Mechanical). As per the Recruitment Rules, post of 
Executive Engineer (Mechanical) is a selection post. The 
mode of recruitment stated in the Rules is as under: 
"By promotion failing which by transfer on deputation 
G (including short-term contract) and failing both by direct 
recruitment." The Recruitment Rules also stipulate 
eligibility condition in all the three circumstances, namely, 
promotion, transfer on deputation as well as direct 
recruitment. [Para 8] [266-F-H; 267-A] 
H 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GR.RAMA KRISHNA 
263 
2. It is apparent that there are three alternate modes 
A 
of recruitment to the Post, namely, (1) by promotion, 
failing which (2) by transfer on deputation (including 
short term contract) and failing both (3) by direct 
recruitment. No doubt, if some departmental candidate is 
available and eligible to be considered, the promotion 
8 
method is to be resorted to in the first instance. However, 
no departmental candidate was available. Concededly, 
the respondent had not completed 8 years regular service 
as Assistant Engineer. In such circumstances only out of 
sympathy the High Court could not have given the 
C 
impugned direction. This judicial sympathy resulting into 
a right in favour of respondent to appoint him contrary 
to the recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 
309 of the Constitution of India which are statutory in 
nature is clearly m

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