Supreme Court of India
DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 305
- Decided
- 3 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
Rule 5(ii) of the 2004 Service Rules is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14; the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appeal concerned the validity of Rule 5(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Group‑B Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004, which allowed promotion of Junior Engineers—both degree and diploma holders—to Assistant Engineer after seven years of service without any additional qualification or qualifying examination. The petitioners, who were degree‑holding Junior Engineers, argued that the rule violated Article 14 of the Constitution by treating diploma‑holders and degree‑holders as equals despite differing qualifications. The Supreme Court held that the rule was a permissible policy decision of the administrative authority, that Article 14 should not be stretched to the point of hampering administrative efficiency, and that there was no constitutional or statutory violation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court emphasized judicial restraint in reviewing administrative classifications unless a clear breach of constitutional provisions is shown.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 5(ii) of the U.P. Public Works Department Group‑B Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating diploma‑holder Junior Engineers and degree‑holder Junior Engineers equally for promotion.
- Whether the rule is illegal or unconstitutional under Article 309 or other statutory provisions.
- Whether courts may interfere with administrative policy decisions regarding qualifications for promotion.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 309
Subjects
Article 14EqualityPromotionService RulesAdministrative LawPolicy DecisionPublic Works DepartmentQualificationConstitutional Validity
Judgment
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 955
DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANOTHER A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2007)
MARCH 3, 2009
B
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]
UP. Public works Department Group-B Civil Engineering
Service Rules, 2004:
c
r. S(ii) - Recruitment to post of Assistant Engineer - Rule
providing fifty percent by promotion through the Commission
from amongst substantively appointed Junior Engineers with
seven years service - HELD: There is no unconstitutionality/
.. illegality in the provision - Decision to treat all Junior D
Engineers, whether degree holders or diploma holders as
equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision not
to be ordinarily interfered by court- Administrative authorities
are in the best position to decide requisite qualification for
promotion and it is not for court to sit over their decision like
E
a court of appeal - Administrative Law - Policy decision -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.
In the instant appeal the dispute related to validity of
Rule 5(ii) of the U.P. Public works Department Group-B
Civil Engineering Service Rules 2004. It was contended F
- for the appellants-degree holders that under the U.P.
Service of Engineers (Building and Road Branch) (Class
II) Rules, 1936, as amended in the year 1966, a diploma
holder Junior Engineer could be promoted as Assistant
Engineer provided he either acquired the requisite G
qualification or passed the qualifying examination, but
r.5(ii) of the 2004 Rules having done away with the
requisite technical qualification or passing a qualifying
examination, and providing for promotion of a diploma
955 H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A holder Junior Engineer who completed seven years
$ervice as such, was violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution because it makes unequal, as equals.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B HELD: 1.1. There is no unconstitutionality or illegality
In r.S(ii) of the U.P. Public works Department Group-B Civil
Engineering Service Rules 2004. It is entirely for the
authorities to decide whether the degree holders and
diploma-holders should be treated at par or not for the
C purpose of promotion from the post of Junior Engineer
to the post of Assistant Engineer. Merely because in the
past degree holder Junior Engineers and diploma holder
Junior Engineers have been treated differently does not
mean that they cannot be treated identically
o subsequently. [Para 15 and 16) [962-A-E]
Mohammad Shujat Ali & others vs. Union of India &
others AIR 1974 SC 1631 and P. Murugesan and others vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and others (1993) 2 sec 340, relied on.
E Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi Development
Authority & others, AIR 1989 SC 307 and State of Jammu &
Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & others AIR 1974 SC 1,
referred to.
•
1.2. Article 14 of the Constitution of India should not
F be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning
t>f the administration impossible. The administrative
authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite
-
qualifications for promotion. The decision to treat all
Junior Engineers, whether degree holders or diploma
G holders, as equals for the purpose of promotion is a
policy decision, and that this Court would not ordinarily
Interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear violation
of some constitutional provision or the statute. There is
no such violation in the instant case. [Para 17 and 19)
H (962-E, F, H; 963-A]
DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND 957
ORS.
Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others 2008 (9) SCC A
242; Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others 2008 (10)
SCC 1; J. Ranga Swamy vs. Govenrment of Andhra Pradesh
and others, AIR 1990 SC 535; State of Rajasthan and others
vs. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642 and Tata Cellular vs. Union
of India AIR 1996 SC 11, relied on. B
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1974 SC 1 referred to para 10
1974 SC 1631 relied on para 11
c
AIR 1989 SC 307 referred to para 12
(1993) 2 sec 340 relied on para 13
1990 SC 535 relied on para 14
.. D
2002 SC 2642 relied on para 14
2008 (9) sec 242 relied on para 17
2008 (10) sec 1 relied on para 17
AIR 1996 SC 11 relied on para 19 E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5122 of 2007 .
• From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2006 of the
F
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. in W.P. No.
~·
78513 of 2005.
B.A. Bobde, D.K. Singh, Pradeep Shukla and Abhijit
Sengupta for the Appellant.
G
Ramesh P. Bhatt, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ajay
Kumar Rai, Vijay Hansaria, Mahendra Anand, Kuldeep S.
~
Parihar and H.S. Parihar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 3 S.C.R.
A MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.1. This appeal by special leave
has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2006 "'
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 78513 of 2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad.
Ill 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The dispute in this appeal is regarding the validity of
Rule 5(ii) of the U.P. Public works Department Group-B Civil
Engineering Service Rules 2004 (in short 'the 2004 Rules').
c 4. Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules states :
"5. Recruitment to the posts in the service shall be made
from the following sources:
D (i) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the
Commission.
(ii) Fifty percent by promotion through the Commission
from amongst the substantively appointed Junior
E Engineers (Civil) and Junior Engineers (Technical)
who have completed seven years service as such
on the first day of the year of recruitment.
Provided that the promotion shall be made in such
a manner that ninety percent posts shall be filled up •
F by Junior Engineers (Civil) and ten percent posts
shall be filled up by Junior Engineers (Technical)."
5. The dispute is between the Junior Engineers of the
PWD department of the U.P. Government who are degree
G holders and those who are only diploma holders.
6. The submission of Shri B.A. Bobde, learned counsel for
the appellants (the degree holders) is that while the U.P. Service
of Engineers (Building and Road Branch) (Class II) Rules, 1936
H (in short 'the 1936 Rules) provided in Rule 9(ii) thereof that no
DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND 959
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
Junior Engineer who was only diploma holder would be A
promoted as Assistant Engineer unless he has passed the
qualifying examination that the Government may prescribe, this
requirement has been done away with by rule 5 of the 2004
Rules.
B
7. It may be mentioned that in 1966 there was an
amendment to the 1936 Rules which provided that a Junior
Engineer who is a diploma holder could be promoted as
Assistant Engineer provided he either acquired the qualification
prescribed in Rule 9(1) or he passed the qualifying examination. C
8. Thereafter certain amendments were made to the
Rules, but in our opinion they are not relevant in the present
case.
9. The submission of Shri Bobde is that Rule 5(ii) of the 0
2004 Rules violates Article 14 of the Constitution, because it
makes unequals as equals by completely divesting the
requirement for the Junior Engineers who are only diploma
holders either of acquiring the requisite technical qualification
or passing a qualifying examination for promotion as Assistant E
Engineer. It is submitted that Article 14 can be violated not only
by treating equals as unequals, but also by treating unequals
as equals.
10. In State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa
& others AIR 1974 SC 1, the rule which provided that only F
degree holders in the cadre of Assistant Engineers shall be
entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher cadre
of Executive Engineers while the diploma holder Assistant
Engineers were not eligible for such promotion was challenged
as violative of Article 14. However, the Constitution Bench of G
this Court repelled this challenge and observed that though the
persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated
into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for the
purpose of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be
classified on the basis of educational qualifications. H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A 11. However, in Mohammad Shujat Ali & others vs. Union
of India & others, Al R 1974 SC 1631, another Constitution
Bench of this Court struck a different note and observed that
for promotion to a higher post, discrimination based on
educational qualifications not obligated by the nature of duties
8 or responsibilities of the higher post would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
12. In Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi
Development Authority & others, AIR 1989 SC 307, this Court
while taking note of T.N. Khosa's case (supra) and Mohd.
C Shujat Ali's case (supra) observed in para 7 as under:
" 7 ....... If the differences in the qualification has a
reasonable relation to the nature of duties and
responsibilities, that go with and are attendant upon the
D promotional-post, the more advantageous treatment of
those who possess higher technical qualifications can be
legitimized on the doctrine of classification. There may,
conceivably, be cases where the differences in the
educational qualifications may not be sufficient to give any
E preferential treatment to one class of candidates as
against another. Whether the classification is reasonable
or not must, therefore, necessarily depend upon facts of
each case and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant ..
time. When the state makes a classification between two
F
sources, unless the vice of the classification is writ large
on the face of it, the person assailing the classification must
show that it is unreasonable and violative of Article 14. A
-
wooden equality as between all classes of employees
irrespective of all distinctions or qualifications, or job-
requirements is neither constitutionally compelled nor
G practically meaningful. This Court in General Manager,
South Central Railway vs. A. V.R. Siddhanti, (1974) 3 SC
207 at p. 214: (AIR 1974 SC 1755 at p. 1'760 observed:
"....A wooden equality as between all classes of
H employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs,
DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND 961
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
#
nature of responsibility and performance of the A
employees is not intended, nor is it practicable if
the administration is to run. Indeed, the maintenance
of such a 'classless' and undiscerning 'equality'
where, in reality, glaring inequalities and intelligible
differentia exist, will deprive the guarantee of its B
practical content. Broad classification based on
reason, executive pragmatism and experience
having a direct relation with the achievement of
efficiency in administration, is permissible .... "
13. In P. Murugesan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu
c
•
and others, (1993) 2 sec 340, this Court upheld the validity
of the rule prescribing the ratio of 3:1 between graduates and
diploma holders in promotion as also the longer qualifying
period for service for diploma holders. While noting the earlier
decisions a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: D
"14. This decision clearly supports the appellant's
contention and goes to sustain the validity of the impugned
amendment. If the diploma holders can be barred
altogether from promotion, it is difficult to appreciate how E
and why is the rule-making authority precluded from
restricting the promotion. The rule-making authority may be
of the opinion, having regard to the efficiency of the
A
administration and other relevant circumstances that while
it is not necessary to bar the diploma holders from F
promotion altogether, their chances of promotion should
be restricted. On principle, there is no basis for the
contention that only two options are open to a rule-making
authority - either bar the diploma holders altogether or
allow them unrestricted promotion on par with the
G
graduates."
~
14. In J. Ranga Swamy vs. Govenrment of Andhra
Pradesh and others, AIR 1990 SC 535 and in State of
Rajasthan and others vs. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642, this
Court observed that the eligibility qualification for admission to H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.
A a course or for recruitment or promotion in service are matters
•
to be considered by the appropriate authority, and not by the
Courts.
15. In the present case, what we find is that Rule S(ii) of
the 2004 Rules has done away with the requirement of passing
8
a qualifying examination for the diploma holder Junior
Engineers for promotion as Assistant Engineers, and they have
been placed at par with degree holder Junior Engineer for this
purpose. We see no unconstitutionality or illegality in the same.
C It is entirely for the authorities to decide whether the degree
holders and diploma holders should be treated at par or not
for the purpose of promotion from the post of Junior Engineer
to the post of Assistant Engineer.
16. Shri Bobde, learned counsel for the appellants
D submitted that degree holders Junior Engineers have always
been treated differently from Junior Engineers who are only
diploma holders for the purpose of promotion, and that the latter
have always been required either to get the requisite
qualification or pass the qualifying examination. In our opinion,
E merely because in the past they have been treated differently
does not mean that they cannot be treated identically
subsequently.
17. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too
far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administration
F Impossible. The administrative authorities are in the best
position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion
from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this
Court to sit over their decision like a Court of Appeal. The
administrative authorities have experience in administration,
G ~nd the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily
with administrative decisions. (See Union of India vs. Pushpa
Rani and others 2008 (9) sec 242 and Official Liquidator VS.
Oayanand and others 2008 (10) sec 1).
H 18. The decision to treat all Junior Engineers, whether
i
J
DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND 963
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
degree holders or diploma holders, as equals for the purpose A
of promotion is a policy decision, and it is well-settled that this
Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions unless
there is clear violation of some constitutional provision or the
statute. We find no such violation in this case.
B
19. In Tata Cellular vs Union oflndia, AIR 1996 SC 11
SC, it has been held that there should be judicial restraint in
administrative decision. This principle will apply all the more to
a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution.
20. For the reasons afore-mentioned, this appeal fails and C
is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. The Interlocutory Application for intervention stands
dismissed as the same becomes infructuous in view of our
' decision given in Civil Appeal No. 5122/2007. 0
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 14"Sign in to search