K. JAGADEESANversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                          K. JAGADEESAN
A
                                 v.
                    UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                           FEBRUARY 19, 1990

B                 [M.H. KANIA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.)

          Civil services: Geological Survey of India (Group 'A' and 'B'
    posts) Recruitment Rules, 1967: Promotion-Promotion to the post of
    Director (M.E.)-Requirement of Degree qualification-Notification
    by Government amending Rules-Whether given retrospective effect-
C   Validity of notification.

          The appellant, a diploma holder, was, in 1964, appointed as
    Transport Officer (Class-I Technical Grade, Group A), which post was
    later redesignated and merged with the post of Mechanical Engineer
D   (Junior) in 1968. The Geological Survey of india (Group' A' and Group
    'B' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1967, framed under Article 309 of the
    Constitution were brought into force in 1969. The appellant was pro-
    moted as a Mechanical Engineer (Senior) in 1973 and his conditions of
    service were governed by the said Rules, which had been amended from
    time to time. One such amendment made in 1984 prescribed that for          )
B   promotion to the post of Director (M.E. ), a degree in Engineering was a
    requisite qualification. The appellant challenged before the Central
    Administrative Tribunal, the validity of the said notification on the
    ground that it affected his chances of promotion or alternatively his
    right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.). It
    was contended that applying the amended Rule, in so far as the appel-
F   lant was concerned, would amount to giving retrospective effect to the
    operation of the rule, and no retrospective rule could be framed under     ·\-
    Article 309 of the Constitution. The Tribunal rejected the contention
    and held that it was for the Government to prescribe such qualifications
    as it considered fit, and the Tribunal could not interfere unless it was
    shown to be perverse.
0
          Aggrieved against the Tribunal's order, the appellant has prefer-
    red this appeal by special leave.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

          HELD: 1. Mere chance of promotion is not condition of service

                                      444
                        K. JAGADEESAN v. U.0.1.                        445

and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did
not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be         A
considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of
promotion are not. [448D]

     State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni
and Others, [1981] 4 SCC 130, relied on.                                       B

     T.R. Kapur and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, [!986]
(Suppl.) SCC 584, referred to.

      2. In the instant case, no retrospective effect has been given to the
said amended role. It is not the case that the appellant has been
reverted from the post which he occupies on the ground of lack of any          c
qualification. The only effect is that his chances of promotion to the
higher post is adversely affected. Alteration of rules of eligibility cannot
be Invalidated on the ground that an employee's claim to be eligible for
promotion is adversely affected. This cannot be regarded as retrospec-
tive effect being given to the amendment of the rules carried out by the       D
Notification and the challenge to the said notification on that ground
must fail. [448F-G]

      3. The fact that' for the higher post of Deputy Director General
(Engineering Service), it is not necessary to hold a graduate degree is no
reason why a degree requirement for the post of Director (Mechanical)          E
should be regarded as unreasonable or bad in law. It is for the Govern-
ment to decide what qualification was required for promotion to the
post of Director (M.E.) and, unless that requirement was totally irrele-
vant or unreasonable, it could not be said to be bad in law. [449B-C]

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3607                      F
of 1989.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.88 of Central
Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in T.A. No. 1185186.

    R. Venkataramani, V.G. Pragasam and S.M. Garg for the                      G
Appellant.

    Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, B. Datta, Mrs. Indra
Sawhney, Ms. Sushma Suri, B. Rajeshwar Rao, Vimal Dave and C.V.
Subba Rao for the Respondents.
                                                                               H
     446                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1990] 1 S.C.R.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
          KANIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against a decision
    of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Transfer Appli-
    cation No. 1185 of 1986 (W.P. NO. 8226 of 1985).

B         All the relevant facts have been set out by the Tribunal in its
    judgment. As we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions
    of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment, we propose to set out only
    the brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal.

           Under the relevant rules, the recruitment to the post of
    ~perintending Mechanical Engineer was by promotion and failing
c that by direct recruitment. It may be mentioned that for direct recruit-
    ment to the said post, the qualifications of a degree in Mechanical or
    Automobile Engineering was prescribed as. essential. For promotion
    to the post of Director (M.E.) the requisite qualification was five years
    of service in the grade of Mechanical Engineer (Senior). The appellant      >
D became eligible for promotion in 1978, but he was not promoted as
    there were some senior persons in his grade, who were promoted to
    the said post. On January 31, 1984, a Notification was issued by
    respondent No. 1, amending the said Rules and the said Notification
    was duly published in the Gazette of India. By the said amendment,
    the said Rules were amended and it was prescribed that for promotion        j
E · to the post of Director (M.E.) a degree in Engineering was a.requisite
    qualification. The appellant challenges the validity of this Notification
    on the ground that it affected his chances of promotion or alternatively
    his right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director
    (M.E.). The appellant is a Mechanical Engineer (Senior) in the
    Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Hyderabad. The appel-
F lant is a diploma holder and does not hold any degree in engineering.
    On April 27, 1964 he was appointed as Transport Officer (Class-I
    Technical Crade, Gruop 'A'). This post was redesignated and merged
    with. the post of Mechanical Engineer (Junior) in March 1968. On
    November 28, 1969, the Geological Survey of India (Group 'A' and
    Group 'B' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1967, made under Article 309 of
G the Constitution were brought into force. The appellant was promoted
    as a Mechanical Engineer (Senior) with effect from March 17, 1973
    and his conditions of service were governed by the aforesaid rules.
    These rules have been amended from time to time. It was submitted by
    learned counsel for the appellant that the said amendment purported
    to be carried out by the said Notification was bad in law as it adversely
H affected a condition of service relating to promotion. It was submitte'I!_
                 K. JAGADEESAN v U.0.1. [KANIA, J.J                   447

by learned counsel for the appellarit that if the rule, requiring a degree A
qualification for promotion to ihe post of Director (M.E.), was
applied as far as the appellant was concerned, it would amount to
giving a retrospective effect to the operation of the said rule and no
retrospective rule could be framed under Article 309 of the Constitu-
tion. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal which held that it
was for the Government to prescribe such qualifications as it consi- B
dered fit for the post of Director (M.E.) and the Tribunal could not go
into the question whether that qualification was necessary unless the
prescribing of the requirement could be said to be perverse. The Tri-
bunal further took the view that the appellant had no vested right to
promotion but had d mere chance of promotion and he was not
entitled to challenge the rule merely on the ground that it affected his C
chance of promotion. The said appeal is directed against the said
decision.

      The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that
the Tribunal was in error in holding that the rule affected merely a
chance of promotion which the appellant had. It was submitted by him D
that although the appellant could not claim any right to be promoted,
he certainly had the right to be considered for promotion and the
amendment to the rule carried out by the said Notification depriving of
that right was bad in law.

      Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appel- E
!ant on the decision of this Court in T.R. Kapur and Others v. State of
1-Jaryana and Others, [1986] Suppl. SCC 584 at 595 where it was held
that right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service. This
decision is, however, of no assistance to the learned counsel in support
of his argument because the Bench which rendered the said decision
has stated (at paragraph 16, page 595 of the said report) as follows:     F

            "It is well settled that the power to frame rules tci regulate
            the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of
            the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter
            the rules with a retrospective effect. It is equally well set-
            tled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be G
            considered for promotion is a condition of service although
            mere chance of promotion may not be."

      It was further held that:

            "an authority competent to lay down qualifications for H
    448                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             I1990] 1 S.C.R.

                promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications.
A
                The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promo-
                tion are conditions of service and they can be changed
                retrospectively".

          It was, however, clarified that:
B
                "unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the
                employees who are already promoted before the amend-
                ment of the rules, cannot be reverted and their promotions
                cannot be recalled."

          It is only in this sense, that is, as set out in the immediately
c   preceding paragraph that the view has been taken that the rules cannot
    be retrospective. The ratio of this decision is not applicable to the case
    before us as there is no question of reverting the appellant. Again, it
    has been held by a Bench comprising three learned Judges of this
    Court. in State of Maharashtra and Another v. Chandrakant Anant
D   Kulkarni and Others, [1981] 4 SCC 130 (at paragraph 16, page 141 of
    the said report), that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of
    service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promo-
    tion did not tantamount to a change in the condition of service. A right
    to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances
    of promotion are not. It was also held there that mere passing of the
E   departmental examination conferred no right on the concerned S. T.
    Inspectors of Bombay, to promotion. They merely became eligible for
    promotion. They had to be brought on to a select list, not merely on
    the length of service but on the basis of merit.-cum-seniority principle.

          In our opinion, no retrospective effect has been given to the said
F   amended rule. It is not argued that the appellant has been reverted
    from the post which he occupies on the ground of any lack of any
    qualification. The only effect is that his chances of promotion or his
    right to be considered for promotion to the higher post is adversely
    affected. This cannot be regarded as retrospective effect being given to
    the amendment of the rules carried out by the impugned Notification
G   and the challenge to the said notification on that ground must fail.

          The next argument advanced before us by the learned counsel
    for the appellant is that employees in the drilling stream who might be
    diploma holders could move by promotion to the grade of Director
    (Drilling) which is equivalent to the post of Director (Mechanical
H   Engineering) and would be further eligible to be considered for the
                 K. JAGADEESAN v. U.0.1. !KANIA, J.]                449

next higher post of Deputy Director General (Engineering Service) on       A
the basis of a common seniority of Directors (Mechanical) and
Directors (Drilling). It was submitted that, in this situation, the
requirement of a degree for promotion to the post of Director
(Mechanical) must be regarded as unreasonable and bad in law. This
argument was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the fact that
for the higher post 01 Deputy Director General (Engineering Service),      B
it is not necessary to hold a graduate degree is no reason why a degree
requirement for the post of Director (Mechanical) shoui.a be regarded
as unreasonable or bad in law .. It is for the Government tq decide what
qualification was required for the promotion to the post of Director
(M.E.) and, unless that requirement was totally irrelevant or
unreasonable, it could not be said to be bad in law. In this regard, we    C
agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Tribunal.

     In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no
                                                                               ..
order as to costs.

G.N.                                                 Appeal dismissed.     D