Supreme Court of India
N. SURESH NATHAN AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 308
- Decided
- 22 November 1991
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- L M SHARMA
Holding
The three‑year service period for degree‑holder Junior Engineers must be calculated from the date the degree is obtained, and earlier service as a diploma‑holder cannot be counted.
Summary
The dispute concerned Junior Engineers in the Pondicherry Public Works Department who held a diploma and later obtained a civil engineering degree. They sought to have their pre‑degree service counted towards the three‑year service requirement for promotion to Assistant Engineer under Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules, arguing that the total service, irrespective of when the degree was obtained, should qualify them. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed this view, directing that they be considered for promotion on par with degree‑holding engineers. The degree‑holding engineers appealed, contending that the three‑year period must commence only after the degree is obtained, consistent with the department’s long‑standing practice. The Supreme Court examined the construction of Rules 7 and 11, noting that Rule 7 equates a degree with a diploma plus three years of professional experience, and that Rule 11 creates distinct categories for degree‑holders (three years as degree‑holders) and diploma‑holders (six years). The Court held that the three‑year service requirement for degree‑holders must be counted from the date the degree is obtained, and prior diploma service cannot be included. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the tribunal’s order set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the three‑year service requirement for promotion of degree‑holder Junior Engineers under Rule 11 must be reckoned from the date of obtaining the degree, excluding prior service as a diploma‑holder.
- Whether the recruitment rules can be interpreted to allow counting pre‑degree service towards the three‑year period.
Subjects
civil servicesrecruitment rulespromotiondegree versus diplomaservice periodpublic works departmentcentral administrative tribunalspecial leave petitioninterpretation of rules
Judgment
N. SURESH NATHAN AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 22, 1991
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.S. VERMA B
AND S.C. AGRAWAL., JJ.]
Civil Services:
Recruitment Rules for Assistant Engineers in the Public Works De-
partment, Pondicherry: C
Rules 7 and 1 ]-Promotion ofDegree-holder Junior Engineers with
three years' service in the grade-Period of three years-Whether to
commence from the date of obtaining Degree by Diploma-holders.
The respondents, Diploma-holder Junior Engineers in the Pub- D
lie Works Department, Pondicherry, approached the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, with the plea that the period of service ren-
dered by them before they obtained the Degree should be included
for reckoning the period of three years' service prescribed in the
Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer
hi the category of those possessing Degree with three years' service E
and if the earlier period was so included, they would be eligible for
promotion. However, Degree-holders opposed the respondents' plea '
;- contending that the period of three years prescribed in the Rules
was subsequent to the date of obtaining tlie Degree.
The Tribunal upheld the respondents' claim and directed that F
they should be considered for promotion on par with the other De-
gree-holder Junior Engineers, taking due note of their total length
of service rendered in the grade of Junior Engineer.
Hence the appeal, by the Special Leave, by the Degree holders ..
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 The rules must be construed to mean that the
three years' service in the grade of a Degree-holder for the purpose
of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules, for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department Pondicherry, is H
423"
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A three years from the date of obtaining the Degree by· a Diploma-
holder. This is in conformity with the past practice followed consist-
ently. The Tribunal was not justified in taking the contrary view
and unsettling the settled practice in the Department. [427 D]
1.2 Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules lays down the qualifica-
B tions for direct recruitment from the two sources, namely, D~gree
holders and Diploma-holders with three years' professional experi-
ence. Thus, a Degree is equated to Diploma with three years' pro-
fessional experience. Rule 11 provides for recruitment by promo-
tion from the grade of Section Officers, now called Junior Engi-
neers. There are two categories provided therein, viz., (1) Degree-
c holder Junior Engineers with three years' service in the grade and
(2) Diploma-holder Junior Engineers with six years' service in the
grade, the provision being for 50% from each category. This matches
with Rufo 7 wherein a Degree is equated with Diploma with three
years' professional experience. In the first category meant for De-
gree-holders, it is also provided that if Degree-holders with three
D years' service in the grade are not available in sufficient number,
then Diploma-holders with six years' service in the grade may be
considered in the category of Degree-holders also for the 50% va-
cancies meant for them. The entire scheme, therefore, does indicate
that the period of three years' service in the grade required for
Degree-holders according to Rule 11 as the qualification for promo-
E tion in that category must mean three years' service in the grade as
a Degree-holder and, therefore, that period of three years can com-
mence only from the date of obtaining the Degree and not earlier.
The service in the grade as a Diploma-holder prior to obtaining the
Degree cannot be counted as service in the grade with a Degree for
the purpose of three years' service as a Degree-holder. (427 G-H,
F 428 A-CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4542 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9. l.1990 of the Centra.1 Admin-
G istrative Tribunal, M::..dras in O.A. No. 552of1989.
P.P.Rao, Narsimha P.S. and Ms. VijaylakshmiMenon for the Appel-.
lants.
Santosh Hegde, A.S. Nambiar, Ms. Sangeeta Garg, P.P.Tripathi, Mrs.
H . Shanta Vasudevan, P;K. Manohar and K.R. Choudhary for the Respond-
ents.
SURESH NATHAN v. U.O.I. [VERMA,J.] 425
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
VERMA, J. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Engi-
neer in the Public Works Department, Pondicherry, prescribe the educa-
tional and other qualifications for appointment by -direct recruitment and
promotion. For direct recruits, the qualification prescribed is a Degree in
Civil Engineering of a recognised University or Diploma in Civil Engi- B
neering from a recognised institution with three years' professional expe-
rience. For appointment by promotion of Section Officers now called
Junior Engineers, the qualification prescribed is as under:-
"l. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil
Engineering or equivalent with three years' service in the grade C
failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engi-
neering with six years' service in the grade - 50%.
2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma in Civil
Engineering with six years' service in the grade - 50%".
D
The dispute in the present case is whether a Diploma-holder Junior
Engineer who obtains a Degree while in service becomes eligible for
appointment as Assistant Engineer by promotion on completion of three
years' service including therein the period of service prior to obtaining the
Degree or the three years' service as a Degree-holder for this purpose is to
be reckoned from the date he obtains the Degree. The Diploma-holders E
contend that they are entitled to include the earlier period and would be
eligible for promotion in this category on obtaining the Degree if the total
period of service is three years inclusive of the earlier period. The Degree-
holders contest this position and contend to the contrary. According to the
Degree-holders, these are two distinct categories. In the first category are
Degree-holders with three years' service in the grade as Degree-holders, F
the period of three years being subsequent to the date of obtaining the
Degree as in the case of the Junior Engineers who join the service with a
Degree; and the other category is of Diploma-holders with six years'
experience.
(
The Diploma-holders went to the Central Administrative Tribunal G
with this contention and the Tribunals has upheld their claim and directed
as under:
•
\
"In the light of the above, we hold that the applicants are
entitled to the relief asked for and accordingly we direct the
respondents to consider them-· for promotion to the post of H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Assistant Engineer on par with the other Degree holding Jun-
ior Engineers, taking due note of their total length of service
rendered in the grade of Junior Engineer. Such a consideration
should be along side other Junior Engineers who might have
acquired the necessary Degree qualification earlier than the
applicants, while holding the post of Junior Engineer. For this
B purpose, the first three respondents shall take necessary action
to convene a review D.P.C. and pass orders on the basis of the
recommendations of that D.P.C. within a period of three months
from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order.
The application is allowed as above".
C Hence this petition for grant of special leave by the Degree-holders.
Leave i,S granted. .
In our opinion, this appeal has to be allowed. There is sufficient
material including the admission of respondents Diploma-holders that the
practice followed in the Department for a long time was that in the case of
D _Diploma-holder Junior Engineers who obtained the Degree during serv-
ice, the period of three years' service in the grade for eligibility for
promotion as Degree-holders commenced from the date of obtaining the
Degree and the earlier period of service as Diploma-holders was npt
co_unted for this purpose. This earlier practice was clearly admitted by the
respondents Diploma-holders in para 5 of thefr application made to the
E Tribunal at page 115 of the paper book. This also appears to be the view
of the Union Public Service Commission contained in their letter dated
December 6,1968 extracted at pages 99-100 of the paper book in the
counter affidavit of respondents 1 to 3. The real question, therefore, is
whether the construction made of this provision in the rules on which the
past practice extending over a long period is based is untenable to require
F upsetting it. If the past practice is based on one of the possible construc-
tions which can be made of the rules then upsetting the same now would
not be appropriate. It is in this perspective that the question raised has to
be determined.
The Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Engineers in the
G P.W.D. (Annexure-C) are at pages 57 to 59 of the paper book. Rule 7 lays
down the qualifications for direct recruitment from the two sources, namely,
Degree-holders and Diploma-holders with three years' professional expe-
rience. In other words, a Degree is equated to Diploma with three years~
professional experience. Rule 11 provides ·foi:. recruitment by promoti{>n
from the grade of Section Officers now called Junior Engineers. There a~
H two categories provided therein - one is of Degree-holder Junior Engi-
SURESHNATHAN v. U.0.1. [VERMA,J.] 4'1:7
~.
neers with three years' service in the grade and the other is of Diploma- A
holder Junior Engineers with six years' service in the grade, the provision
being for 50% from each category. This matches with Rule 7 wherein a
Degree is equated with Diploma with three years professional experience.
In the first category meant for Degree-holders, it is also provided that if
Degree-holders with three years' service in the grade are not available in
sufficient number, then Diploma-holders with six years' service in the B
·grade may be considered in the category of Degree-holders also for the
50% vacancies me~nt for them. The entire scheme, therefore, does indi-
cate that the period of three years' service in the grade required for De-
gree-holders according to Rule l l as the qualification for promotion in
that category must mean three years' service in the grade as a Degree-
holder and, therefore, that period of three years can commence only from C
the date of obtaining the Degree and not earlier. The service in the grade
as a Diploma-holder prior to obtaining the Degree cannot be counted as
service in the grade with a Degree for the purpose of three years' service
as a Degree-holder. The only question before us is of the construction of
the provision and not of the validity thereof and, therefore, we are only
required to construe the meaning of the provision. In our opinion, the D
contention of the appellants Degree-holders that the rules must be con-'
strued to mean that the three years' service in the grade of a Degree-
holder for the purpose of Rule l l is three years from the date of obtaining
the Degree is quite tenable and commends to us being in conformity with
the past practice followed consistently. It has also been so under-stood by
all concerned till the raising of the present controversy recently by the E
respondents. The tribunal was, therefore, not justified in taking the con-
trary view and unsettling the settled practice in the Department.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the
Tribunal is set aside resulting in dismissal of the respondents' application
made in the Tribunal. The Department will now consider the question of F
promotion in accordance with this decision. No costs.
N.P.V. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "civil services"Sign in to search