Supreme Court of India
BHAGIRATHDANversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 206
- Decided
- 14 August 1992
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- T K THOMMEN
Holding
A better educational qualification does not obviate the prescribed five‑year practical experience for promotion to Deputy Drilling Engineer, and the petitioners failed to prove such experience, so the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, two Assistant Mechanical Engineers, sought promotion to Deputy Drilling Engineer on the ground that their higher educational qualifications (degrees) satisfied the requirements of Entry 6 of the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960, which prescribed a diploma and five years of drilling or maintenance experience. The State argued that the amendment to Entry 6, which deleted the reference to "Assistant Mechanical Engineer," was retrospective and that the petitioners lacked the requisite practical experience. The High Court initially allowed the petitions, but the Division Bench set aside that order, holding that the petitioners had not demonstrated the five‑year experience and that a degree could not replace the experience requirement. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench, emphasizing that qualification and practical experience are both essential and that a last‑minute affidavit could not be relied upon to establish the experience. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a higher educational qualification (degree) can substitute for the five‑year practical experience required for promotion under Entry 6 of the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules.
- Whether the amendment to Entry 6 deleting the term "Assistant Mechanical Engineer" operates retrospectively to bar promotion of incumbents appointed before the amendment.
- Whether an affidavit filed at the last stage of hearing can be used to prove the requisite practical experience.
- Whether the petitioners satisfied the practical experience requirement for promotion to Deputy Drilling Engineer.
Subjects
promotionqualificationpractical experienceservice rulesretrospective amendmentaffidavitcivil servicewrit petition
Judgment
A BHAGIRATHDAN
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
AUGUST 14, 1992
B [DR. T.K. THOMMEN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]
Civil·Service-Mines and Geology Department--Post·of Deputy Drilling ~
Engineer-Promotion-Requirements-Better educational qualification whether
obviates the prescribed practical experience-Non-mentioning of performance of
c what work from time to time in the pleadings before the Courts-Affidavit at last
moment of hearing in Supreme Court-Effect of.
Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 19~Schedule-Entry
6-Post of Deputy Drilling Engineer-Promotion-Requirements-Better educa- ~.
tional qualification whether obviates the prescribed practical Experienc~Ab-
D sence of what work perfonned in the pleadings before the Courts-Affidavit at
last moment of hearing in Supreme Court-Effect of.
The appellant in C.A. Nos. 2946-47 of 1992 was appointed as an
Assistant Engineer in the State Woolen Mill on 18.7.1972. On 12.12.1975,
E upon being declared surplus therein, he was appointed as an Assistant
Mechanical Engineer in the Mines and Geology Department of the State
Government (the first respondent).
On 25.9.1973, the appellant in C.A. No. 2948 of 1992 was appointed -~
as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Mines and Geology Depart-
F ment.
~-
On 30.9.1977, two posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer fell vacant. The
appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court praying that the State
Government be directed to consider their cases for promotion to the post
of Deputy Drilling Engineer and, if found suitable, to be so promoted with
G
effect from the date upon which the vacancies occurred. The appellant also
challenged the appointments of the third and fourth· respondents to take
charge of the vacant posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer on the.ground that ~
the respondents were much junior to them.
H The promotions to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer were regu-
882
BHAGIRATHDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 883
lated by Entry 6 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Mines and Geological A
Service Rules, 1960. It was amended on 20.S.1977 and again on
11.8.1982.
On 17.2.1984 the State Government issued an order banning promo-
tions to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer, for the period 20.S.1977 to B
31.3.1983.
· On7.3.1984, the writ petitions were allowed, inter alia, holding that
.._
.
the appellants were ~ligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Drilling
Engineer as they possessed the necessary qualification and experience.
The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the contention of the respon- c
dents that the amendment to the Entry 6 of the Schedule was retrospective
----- in operation and held that it did not debar the appellants from being
considered for promotion against vacancies existing before 6.11.1982.
~' Appeals were filed by the respondents. Pending the disposal of the D.
appeals, on 17.12.1986, the third and fourth respondents were promoted
to the posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer upon a temporary basis and they
were confirmed on 19.12.1987. On the same day, the appellants were
promoted to the post of Mechanical Engineer.
,E
The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the contention of the
appellants that the experience of five years prescribed thereby was only
for diploma-holders and there was no requirement of any experience of
drilling or of maintenance of drilling machines for degree~holders and set
aside the judgment of the Single Judge.
F
The present appeals were filed by special leave challenging the
~ judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appt'ilants contended that it W&s clear from the Entry 6 of the '
Schedule that tilere was no necessity of five years' experience of drilling G
or of maintenance of drilling machines in the case of degree-holders such
as the appellants; that the experience of five years that was prescribed
-, was only in respect of diploma-holders; and that the appellants possessed
the' necessary experience of five years in the maintenance of drilling ,
madames. H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.
A Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1.01. The qualification that an Assistant Drilling Engineer
or an Assistant Mechanical Engineer had to possess for being
promoted to the post of Deputy Drilling Enginner was (a) a diploma in
Mechanical Engineering and (b) five years' experience of drilling or of
B maintenance of drilling machines. The qualification prescribed was two·
fold : educational and practical experience. A better educational qualifica-
tion does not obviate the need for the prescribed practical experience. ,+
[887F]
c 1.02. The Entry 6 of the Schedule speaks of the practical experience
that each Assistant Mechanical Engineer must possess to qualify him for
promotion to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer; it does not say that
every Assistant Mechanical Engineer of five years standing would qualify
-
for such promotion. [888F]
D
1.03. The acquisition of a qualification cannot be equated with
practical experience. The fact that the appellant (in C.A. No. 2948 of 1992)
had acquired the additional qualification does not ipso facto lead to the
conclusion that he had or must have had the requisite practical experience
E prescribed in the Entry 6 of the Schedule. [889D]
1.04. Neither before the Division Bench nor in the Special Leave
Petitions have the appellants stated what work they did from time to time
since their appointment as Assistant Mechanical Engineers. Such an
averment would have shown with precision whether or not: they had five
F
years' experience of maintenance of drilling machines. That they did not
so ever even after the Division Bench dismissed their writ petitions on the
very ground must be considered significant. [887G-888A]
·*'
1.05. At the very last moment of the hearing the appellant (in C.A.
G Nos. 2946-47 of 1992) filed an affidavit which stated that he had been
posted at the Central Workshop ever since he was absorbed in the Mines
and Geology Department and his job had included the repair and main·
tenance, inter alia, of drilling rigs. This last minute attempt to cure the
defect cannot be countenanced as the averment cannot at this stage be
H confirmed or denied. [889A-B]
BHAGIRATHDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [BHARUCHA, J.] 885
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2946-47 A
of ·1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.1988 of the Rajasthan
High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeals No. 199 and 203 of 1984.
B
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 2948 of 1992.
T.S.K. Iyer, Manu Mridul, R.S. Suri (NP) and S.K. Jain for the ,
Appellant. • C
--- Arun Jaitley, Aruneshwar Gupta, Indra Makwana and Rajendra Mal
Tatia for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
BHARUCHA, J. Leave to appeal granted.
These two appeals arise upon a common judgment delivered by a
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and they can be decided
together. By that judgment the Division Bench set aside the judgment and E
order of the learned Single Judge upon the writ petitions filed by the
appellants in these two appeals and dismissed the same.
The appellant Bhagirathdan (in S.L. Ps. (C) Nos. 10451-52 of 1988)
was appointed an Assistant Engineer in the State Woolen Mill at Bikaner
F
on 18th July 1972. Upon being declared surplus therein he was appointed
an Assistant mechanical Engineer in the Mines and Geology Department
of the State of Rajasthan (the first respondent) on 12th December 1975.
On 25th September 1973 the appellant Himmat Singh (in S.L.P (C)
No.11711 of 1988) was appointed an Assistant Mecham~al Engineer ll1 the
Mines and Geology Department. G
Between 20th May 1977 and 11th August 1982 promotions to the post
of Deputy Drilling Engineer were regulated by Entry 6 of the Schedule to
the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service.Rules, 1960, as amended on
20th May 1977. The said Entry read thus: H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.
Name cf the Method of recruitment Minimum qualification Post of posts from Minimum qualification Remarks
A SI.
No. Post. -.;th percentage. & experience for direct which appointment &~required
reauitment by promotion is to for promotion.
be made.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Deputy 100% by promotion .............. 1. Asstt. Drilling Diploma in Mechanical
Driling Engineer. Engineering with S
Engineer 2. Asstt. Mechanical years' experience of
Engineer. drilling or of
B imintenance <i: drillllg
machines on the past
mentioned in ool. S aid
7 years' eiqierienoe of
drilling in case of
On 30th September 1977 two posts of Deputy Drilling Engineer fell
Matriculates.
-+
vacant. The appellants filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court
c praying that the State Government be directed to consider their cases for
promotion to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer and, if found suitable,
to be so promoted with effect from the date upon which the vacancies
occurred. The appellants also challenged the appointment of the third and
fourth respondents to these appeals to take charge of the vacant posts of
D Deputy Drilling Engineer on the ground that these respondents were much
junior to them.
On 11th August 1982, the State Governmen( issued a notification
amending the said Entry 6 of the Schedule and thereby, in column 5, the
words "Assistant Mechanical Engineer" were deleted. On 17th February
E 1984 the State Government issued an order banning promotions to the post
of Deputy Drilling Engineer in the Mines and Geology Department for the
period 20th May 1977 to 31st March 1983.
On 7th March 1984 the writ petitions' were allowed. The learned
F Single Judge held, inter a/ia, that the appellants were eligible for promotion
to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer as they possessed the necessary
qualification and experience. The learned Judge rejected the contention on _..
_
behalf of the respondents that the amendment to the said Entry 6 of the
Schedule was retrospective in operation and held, therefore, that it did not
G debar the appellants from being considered for promotion against vacan-
cies existing before 6th November 1982. The order of the learned Judge
directed the State Government to fill the vacancies in the post of Deputy
Drilling Engineer by making a selection from amongst persons who were
eligible :for consideration at the time when the vacancies occurred.
H Appeals were filed by the respondents. Pending the disposal of the
(
-4..
BHAGIRATHDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN· [BHARUCHA, J.] 887
appeals, on 17th December 1986, the third and fourth respondents were ,A
~ promoted to the post of the Deputy Drilling Engineer upon a temporary '
basis (which appointments, we are told at the Bar, were confirmed on 19th
December 1987). On the same day, the appellants were promoted to the
post of Mechanical Engineer.
By the Judgment and order under appeal the Division Bench con-
,B
sidered the qualifications· of the appellants for appointment to the p9st of '
Deputy Drilling Engineer having regard to what the said Entry 6 of the
Schedule prescribed during the period between 20th May 1977 and 11th '
August 1982. The Division Bench rejected the contention on behalf of the
appellants that the experience of five years prescribed thereby was only for ,'c
- diploma-holders and there was no requirement of any experience of drill-
ing or of maintenance of drilling machines for degree-holders. The Division,
. Bench found that the appellants had not averred in their writ petitions that.
they had five years' experience of drilling or of maintenance of drilling,
~. machin~s on 30th September 1977, when the two posts of Deputy Drilling
D
Engineer fell vacant, or before the amendment of the said Entry 6 of th~
Schedule by deletfug the words "Assistant Mechanical Engineer" there;
from. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the
learned Single Judge and dismissed the appellants' writ petitions.
It was contended befm·e us by learned counsel for the appellants that E
it was clear from the said Entry 6 of the Schedule that there was no
necessity of five years' experience of drilling or of maintenance of drilling
machines in the case of degree-holders such as the appellants. The ex-
perience of five years that was prescribed was only in respect of diploma-
holders. As we read the said Entry 6 of the Schedule, the qualification that F
an Assistant Drilling Engineer or an Assistant Mechanical Engineer had
to possess for being promoted to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer was
(a) a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and (b) five years' experience of
drilling or of maintenance of drilling machines. The qualification
prescribed was thus, two-fold: educational and practical experience. A
better educational qualification does not obviate the need for the G
prescribed practical experience.
~""" It was contended in the alternative that the appellants possessed tJie
nec:essary experience of five years in the maintenance of drilling machines.
Neither before the Division Bench judgment nor in the Special Leave H
..
>-
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.
A Petitions have the appellants stated what work they did from time to time
since their appointment as Assistant Mechanical Engineers. Such an aver-
ment would have shown with precision whether or not they had five years'
experienre of maintenance of drilling machines. That they did not so aver
even after the Division Bench dismissed their writ petitions on the very
ground must be considered significant.
B
Relliance was placed upon a pamphlet issued by the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission in respect of the recruitment of an Assistant Mechani-
cal Engineer. It stated that the candidatef:' qualification should be a degree ~
in Mechanical Engineering and three. years' experience in "maintenance
c and repair of compressor, tractors, material handling equipments and other
drilled mining machineries". The nature of duties that an Assistant
Mechanical Engineer would have to perform was also stated in the
pamphlet, thus: he would have "responsibility for all the machines and
other mining equipments of the department at various working sites and in
various stores under his charge and maintenance and repairs of all the
D equipments and machineries of mining and prospecting under his charge".
Reliance was also placed upon a Manual published by the Department of
Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, regarding the functions and duties of its
organisation. That Manual states that t~e duties of Assistant Mechanical
Engineers include assistance to "the Mechanical Engineer in all matters
E pertaining to maintenance and repair of mcchinery in the Department". It
was submitted that the appellants had performed these duties and it was '!-
clear, therefore, that they had prescribed practical experience.
The said Entry 6 of the Schedule speaks of the practical experience ~
F _that each Assistant Mechanical Engineer must possess to qualify him for
promotion to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer; it does not say that
every Assistant Mechanical Engineer of five years standing would qualify ~
for such promotion. The appellants should, therefore, have averred what
they had in fact done as Assistant Mechanical Engineers and not relied
only upon what Assistant Mechanical Engineers might expect to be called
G upon to do, as set out in the aforementioned pamphlet and manual.
In the case of the appellant Bhagirathdan, our attention was drawn
~
to the averment made by him in reply to the respondents' submission that
he was not eligible to the post of Deputy Drilling Engineer in July 1977.
H Reli,ance was placed by him upon the specification of an Assistant
-
BHAGIRATIIDAN v. STATE OF RAJASTIIAN [BHARUCH~, J.J 889
M~chanical
"
Engineer's duties in general terms in the aforementioned A
pamphlet but no attempt was made to give the lie to the respondents'
submission by making a detailed and precise specification of his experience
in the maintenance of drilling machines. At the very last moment of the
hearing before us Bhagirathdan filed an affidavit which stated that he had
been posted at the Central Workshop ever since he was absorbed in the
Mines and Geology Department and his job had included the repair and
B
maintenance, inter a/ia, of drilling rigs. This last minute attempt to cure the
defect cannot be countenanced as the averment cannot at this stage be
confirmed or denied.
In regard to the appellant Himmat Singh, our attention was drawn C
to the fact that it was averred by him, and not denied, that he had acquired,
the qualification of Drilling Engineer from the Institution of Engineers,
Calcutta, in the year 1976 and had been permitted by the Assistant'
Secretary, Mines, to take that examination. The acquisition of a qualifica-
tion cannot be equated with practical experience. The fact that Himmat
Singh had acquired this additional qualification does not ipso facto lead to D
the conclusion that he had or must have had the requisite practical ex-
perience prescribed in the said Entry 6 of the Schedule. '
In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
E
V.P.R. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "promotion"Sign in to search