Holding

The phrase 'with' means 'accompanied by', so eligibility requires both the engineering qualification and six years of regular service, regardless of the order, and the High Court's decision is affirmed.

Summary

The case concerned the eligibility criteria for promotion of Executive Engineers to Superintending Engineer under the Manipur P.W.D. Recruitment Rules, 1977, which required a degree (or equivalent) "with" six years of regular service. Respondent No.1, who held an AMIE diploma recognized as equivalent to a B.E., claimed eligibility despite having only about two years of service after obtaining the diploma, arguing that prior service should also count. The appellants contended that the six‑year service must be subsequent to the qualification, and the High Court had allowed the writ petition in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court examined the ordinary meaning of the word "with" and held that it signifies "accompanied by", meaning the qualification and the six years of service are both required, irrespective of the order in which they are acquired. Consequently, the Court found no error in the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment reaffirmed that plain language governs unless a specific rule indicates otherwise.

Issues considered

The interpretation of the word 'with' in the recruitment rule: whether it mandates that six years of service must be after obtaining the required engineering qualification.
Whether prior service in the grade, obtained before the qualification, can be counted towards the six‑year service requirement.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that the eligibility condition is satisfied irrespective of the sequence of qualification and service.

Subjects

promotioneligibilityrecruitment rulesinterpretation of statutory languageservice tenureengineering qualificationspublic service law

Judgment

A.K. RAGHUMANI SINGH AND ORS. A
V.
GOPAL CHANDRA NATH AND ORS.

APRIL 4, 2000

[M. JAGANNADHARAO AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] B

Service lAw :

Manipur P. W.D/lrrigation and Flood Control/Public Health Engineering
[Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Superintending Surveyor of Works JRecruit-
ment Rules, 1977.
c
Promotion-From Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer-Eli-
gibility-Recruitment Rules provided that Executive Engineer should possess
degree in Engineering or its equivalent with 6 years' regular service in the
grade-Held : Even a person who had put in the requisite length of service in D
the grade prior to obtaining the prescribed educational qualifications is also
eligible to be considered for promotion.

Wo!W and Phrases:

"With "-Meaning of-In the context of Manipur P. W.D.llrrigation and E
Flood Control/Public Health Engineering [Superintending Engineer (CivifY
Superintending Su111eyor of Works j Recruitment Rules, 1977.

The appellants and respondent No. 1 were Executive Engineers in
the Public Health Engineering Department. Respondent No. 1 obtained
the qualification of AMIE diploma, which was recognised as equivalent to F
B.E. degree for recruitment to superior posts in the Central Government.
The Manipur P.W.D.llrrigation and Flood ControJ/Public Health Engi-
neering [Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Superintending Surveyor of
Works] Recruitment Rules, 1977 provided that the post of Superintending
Engineer shall be filled up by promotion from Executive Engineer pos-
sessing Degree in Engineering or its equivalent with 6 years' regular
G
service in the cadre.

Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking
directions to the State Government to consider him for promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer. The appellants contended before the H
943
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A High Court that respondent No. 1 had not put in 6 years, regular service
in the cadre after obtaining the AMIE diploma and, therefore, he was not
eligible for being considered for promotion to the, said post. The High
Court allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
B
HELD : 1.1. The word 'with' in the Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and
Flood Control/Public Health Engineering [Superintending Engineer (Civil)/
Superintending Surveyor of Works] Recruitment Rules, 1977 has been
defined diversely, the meaning depending on the context in which it is
used. But when it is used to connect two nouns it means "accompanied by;
c having as an addition or accompaniment. Frequently used to connect two
nouns, in the sense 'and' - 'as well'." (946-D-E]

New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993), referred to.

1.2. Applying the definition to the eligibility criteria it is clear that it
D requires the prescribed educational qualification and 6 years experience
as well. Given the plain meaning of the phrase, the Court would not be
justified in reading a qualification into the conjunctive word and imply
the word 'subsequent' after the word 'with'. [946-E-F]

E 2.1. Even on a point of principle it would be unreasonable to distin-
guish between the nature of the regular service required, as if the service
in the grade subsequent to the obtaining of the necessary educational
qualification were qualitatively different from the service in the grade
prior thereto. [946-F-G]

F 2.2. Given the meaning of the words, the principle involved and the
weight of precedents, the view of the High Court must be upheld. (948-B)

M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey, [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 419; D.
Stephen Joseph v. Union of India, (1997] 4 SCC 753 and Anil Kumar Gupta
v. Municipal Corporation of Delh4 [2000) 1 SCC 128, relied on.
G
N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India, [1992) Supp. 1 SCC 584, held
inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 920of1994.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.93 of the Assam High Court
A.K. RAGHUMANI SINGH v. G.C. NATH [RUMA PAL, J.] 945
in W.A. No. 5 of 1993. A
Arun Jaitley, A. Raghuvir, Ms. Madhoo Moolchandani, Kb. Nobin
Singh, M. Veerappa, S. Janani, J.P. Pathak, Vijay Kwnar, A.C. Mahimkar,
Pankaj Kalra, Vishwajit Singh and B.K. Sharma, for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
RUMA PAL, J. The appellants and the respondent No. 1 are all
Executive Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department of the
Government of Manipur. All the appellants had Degrees in Engineering
before they joined service. The respondent No. 1 obtained a Diploma in 1989
having duly qualified in both sections of the Associate Membership Exami- C
nation of the Institution of Engineers (AMIE). It is not in dispute that the
AMIE Diploma is recognised by the Central Government as being on par with
a Bachelor's Degree of Engineering for the purpose of recruitment to superior
posts under the Central Government. The question is whether the respondent
No. 1 was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintend- D
ing Engineer in ·1991.

The Rules regulating the recruitment to the post of Superintending
Engineers of the State of Manipur were notified on 18th October 1977. The
Rules called 'The Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health
Engineering (Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Superintending Surveyor of E
Works) Recruitment Rules, 1977' provide that the post of Superintending
Engineer shall be filled up by promotion from "Executive Engineer (Civil)/
(Mech) and Surveyor of Works possessing Degree in Civil/Mechanical Engi-
neering or its equivalent from a recognised institution with 6 years' regular
service in the grade".
F
The vacancy in the post of Superintending Engineer arose in 1991. In
the same year the respondent N~. 1 filed a writ application seeking directions
on the State Government to consider his name for promotion to the post as
he had put in 12 years' service in the grade and possessed the necessary
educational qualifications. (]

The writ application was opposed by the State Respondents. They
contended that the eligibility criteria required six years regular service after
the educational qualification was obtained. In the writ petitioner's case, his
period of service after he obtained the AMIE diploma was far short of the
requirement and as such, according to the respondents, he could not be H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The writ
application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 17th March. 1993. It
was held that the requirement of six years' service was independent of the
requirement of educational qualifications and the eligibility criteria was
fulfilled even if the requisite experience had been obtained before obtaining
the educational qualifications.
B
The appellants herein moved an application for review of the order
before the Learned Single Judge. This was rejected. The appellants then filed
an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The appeal
was dismissed and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld.
c
There is no dispute that as on 1991 the respondent no. I/writ petitioner
had put in more than 6 years regular service in the grade. Of that period only
a little over 2 years was after he was granted the AMIE Diploma. The
controversy hinges on the interpretation of the word 'with' used in the
eligibility criteria.
D
The word 'with' has been defined in the New Shorter Oxford Diction-
ary (1993), diversely the meaning depending on the context in which it is
used. But when it is used to connect two nouns it means "Accompanied by;
having as an addition or accompaniment. Frequently used to connect two
E nouns, in the sense 'and' - 'as well'."

Applying the definition to the eligibility criteria it is clear that it
requires the prescribed educational qualification and 6 years experience as
well. Given the plain meaning of the phrase, the Court would not be justified
-
F
in reading a qualification into the conjunctive word and imply the word
'subsequent' after the word 'with'.

Even on a point of principle it would be unreasonable to distinguish
between the nature of the regular service required, as if the service in the
-
grade subsequent to the obtaining of the necessary educational qualification
were qualitatively different from the service in the grade prior thereto. In fact
G
no such case has been made out .

The appellants' contention appears to have been based on the decision
of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Another v. Union of India and Others,
[1992] Supp l SCC 584. In that case, the qualification for promotion
-
H prescribed was as under:
A.K. RAGHUMANI SINGH v. G.C. NATH [RUMA PAL, J.] 947

1. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineer- A
ing or equivalent with three years' service in the grade failing which
Section Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineer with six years'
service in the grade - 50 per cent.

2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma in Civil Engi-
neering with six years' service in the grade - 50 per cent. B

The Court held that the Rules would have to be read in keeping with
the practice followed in the Department for a long time and that the period
of service in the grade for eligibility for promotion commenced from the date
of obtaining the degree and the earlier period of service prior to obtaining the c
degree was not counted. Since this practice had been consistently followed
and was understood as such by all concerned, the Court held that it would not
be justified in talcing the contrary view and unsettling the settled practice in
the Department.

The decision in Suresh Nathan's case has been explained in M.B. Joshi D
and Others v. Satish Kumar Pandey and Others, (1993) Supp 2 SCC 419;,D.
Stephen Joseph v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 753 and finally
in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, [2000]
1 sec 128 as being limited to the facts of that case.
E
In M.B. Joshi's case "the decision in Suresh Nathan case was distin-
guished in the facts of that case and it was indicated that when the language
of the rule is quite specific that if a particular length of service in the feeder
post together with educational qualification enables a candidate to be consid-
ered for promotion, it will not be proper to count the experience only from
the date of acquisition of superior educational qualification because such F

- interpretation will violate the very purpose to give incentive to the employee
to acquire higher education." See D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India at page
755.

The Court in D. Stephen Joseph's case was also of the view that the
G
decision in Suresh Nathan .was an exception to the accepted principle of
interpretation of the rule on the plain language.

In the last mentioned case, namely, Anil Kumar Gupta's case, the
essential qualifications for appointment were (a) Degree in Civil Engineering
and (b) two years' professional experience. The Court interpreted the Ian- H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A guage to mean 'that the two years' professional experience need not entirely
be experience gained after obtaining the Degree'.

Given the meaning of the words, the principle involved and the weight
of precedents, the view of the High Court must be upheld.

B The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

V.S.S. Appeal dismissed.
-

-