V.J. THOMAS AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 23-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
ssi 
V. J. THOMAS AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
April 23, 1985 
I [D. A. DEsAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.) 
Civil Service-Telegraphic· Engineering Service (Group B Posts) Recruitment 
R11/es, 1981, Note to sub-clause (4) of Appendix /-Constitutional validity of. 
Clause (l) in Appendix I to the Telegraphic Engineering Service (Class II) 
Recruitment Rules, 1966 (1966 Rules, for short), provided that promotion of a 
.A 
ll 
c 
Junior En'gineer to the post of Assistant Engineer shall be ~ntirely by promotion 
D 
on the basis of selection of Junior Eagiaeers through a qua1i(yia1 departmental 
examination. Sub-clause (4) PfOvided that the departmental qualifyio·g examina-
tion shall be open to Junior Engineers who were recruited and absorbed in that 
gr'ade against the vacancies of a year, ordinarily not less than five years prior to 
the :Year of announcement of the said exaniination. Sub-clause (4) of Appcndi;ii; I 
to the Telegraphic Engineering Service (Group B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1981 
(1981 Rules, for short) which superseded the 1966 Rules envisaged a qualifying-
I~ 
cum-competitive examination for promotion to the post of Assistant J!naineers, 
and the Note appended to sub-cl. (4) provides 
that for a period of2 years 
after the commencement of the 1981 Rules, the first two examinations shall only 
be competitive for which the eligibility shall be restricted to only those· offi~rs 
who have already qualified in the Departmental Qualirying Examination held 
before the commencement of these Rules."' 
. The appellants/Jui:iior Engineers, who were recruited in the year 1973, 
challenged in the High CoiJ.r.t the constitutionality of the Note appended to 
clause (4) of Appendix I to 1981 Rules on the' ground that note 4 appended to 
clause I introduces discrimination in that Junior Engineers or 1972 and prior 
batches wilt alone be·able, if they had cleared the qualifying examination, to 
take the competitive eii:amination which would be held undc:r 1981 Rules and. as 
only the competitive examination was to be held. Junior Engineers of 1973 and 
subsequent batches, even if they have put in five years of qualifying service, 
would be denied an opportunity to take the examination, and that this is an 
invidious ma_nner of denying them tbe opportunity to take the examination and 
thereby deny t_hem equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion. The 
learned Single Judge held that the Note to clause (4) of Appendix I to the 1981 
Rules was ultra vires. On appoal by the respondent Union of India, the Divi· 
sion Bench of the High Court held that tbe Note was not ultra vires. 
F 
G 
H 
,c 
' 
,E 
F 
SUPRllMB COURT REPORTS 
tt98SJ 3 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal by the appellants, the Court, 
HELD : (1) By sheer passage of time, this appeal and even the main 
petition have become infructuous. Even in service jurisprudence the clock of 
history, sometimes, cannot be put back and even if it is found that the respon~ 
dents have committed an error in implementing the statutory rules no relief can 
be granted. This is one such case. [885F-G] 
(2) If by 1982, nearly 4,000 Junior Engineers of pre-19'/3 batches had 
become eli2ible for taking competitive· examination, the department would be 
prefectly ju~tified in keeping the examination open only to persons who have put 
in such long service and leaving others to wait for the next examination. If for 
taking examination this aspect introduces classification, it is based on ratio·naJ 
and intelligible differentia which has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 
By the note, for a period Of two years only pre-1973 Junior Engineers who had 
cleared qualifying examination were given a chance to take competitive exami-
•nation. If this introduces a classification, it is valid. It caters to a well-known 
situation in service jurisprudence that there must be some ratio of candidates to 
vacancies. And it is based on Jong experience as a rational basis for classifica-
tion. 
Viewed-from this· angle, there is nothing in the policy underlying the note 
to rlile (4) as being either discriminatory or arbitrary or denying equality of 
opportunity in the matter of promotion. It had the desired eflect of not having 
a gtutt of Junior Engineers taking examination compared to fewer number of 
vacancies. Length and experience were given recognition by the note. The pro-
motion can be thus by stages exposing the promotion;•J avenue gradually to 
persons having longer expe

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