Holding

Rule 5, read with its second and last provisos, mandates a degree qualification for promotion to Assistant Engineer; temporary Junior Engineers without a degree are not eligible, rendering the quota notification invalid.

Summary

The case concerned promotion of Junior Engineers/Overseers holding diplomas in engineering to the post of Assistant Engineer under the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941. A 1992 notification fixed promotion quotas, but the petitioners argued that Rule 5 required a university degree for such promotion, and that the second and last provisos of Rule 5 could not dispense with this requirement. The High Court held that non‑degree holders were ineligible for promotion except where the government exercised its power under the last proviso to relax the qualification. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, interpreting the second proviso as imposing additional conditions and the last proviso as only allowing relaxation for persons of outstanding merit, not removing the degree requirement. Consequently, the notification fixing a promotion quota for diploma holders was held invalid and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the second proviso of Rule 5 of the Punjab Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, dispenses with the degree qualification for promotion of temporary engineers/overseers.
Whether the last proviso of Rule 5 permits relaxation of the educational qualification for such promotion.
Whether the 1992 notification fixing promotion quotas for Junior Engineers without a degree is legally valid.
Interpretation of Rule 5 and its provisos in the context of promotion eligibility.

Subjects

Service lawPromotionEducational qualificationDegree requirementPunjab Service of EngineersTemporary engineerRule interpretationAdministrative law

Judgment

A SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA.AND ANR. ETC.
v.
ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

MAY 14, 1999

B [G.T. NAN AVA Tl AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Service Law-Punjab Service of Engineers, class II (Irrigation Branch)
Rules, 1941-Rules 3,5-Qualification of a degree in engineering is a must
for appointment as Assistant Engineer-A temporary Junior Engineer not
C possessing a degree qualification held, not eligible for promotion to the post.

Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer is governed by the
Punjab Service of Engineers Class II (Irrigation Branch) Rules 1941. By a
notification dated 23-4-1992 certain percentage was fixed for promotion.
D Junior Engineers who were graduated in engineering challenged this
notification on the ground that no promotion can be made of those junior
Engineers who do not have the requisite educational qualifications prescribed
by Rule 3 and, therefore, no quota could have been fixed for their promotion.
The High Court quashing the notification held that the Junior Engineers
who do not possess university degree or other qualification prescribed in
E Appendix A to the Rules are not eligible for promotion under Rule 5 except
in case where relaxation in that behalf is made by the Government in exercise
of its power under the last proviso to Rule 5 read with Note 2 to Rule 3 of
the Rules.

The Appellants, working as Junior Engineers/overseers in the Punjab
F Overseers Service, since about 1962, holding diploma in engineering,
submitted that the second proviso to Rule 5 is an independent provision made
in respect of promotion of temporary Engineers and that the third or last
proviso is again an independent provision in respect of Junior Engineers
possessing independent merit and that it could not have been intended by the
G rule making authority that temporary junior engineers apart from the
qualification of a degree in engineering should satisfy the other conditions
also mentioned in the second proviso to Rule 5.

The respondents submitted that on a correct interpretation of Rule 5
l'
it should be held that the qualification of a degree in engineering is a must
H for appointment as Assistant Engineer and unless that condition is relaxed /
740
S.C. SHARMA v. STATE 741

either by exercising the power available under the third or the last proviso A
to Rule 5 or the general power of relaxation under Rule 19, Junior Engineer,
who is a diploma holder, cannot be promoted to the post of an Assistant
Engineer.
•· I

Dismissing the Appeal, this Court
B
HELD : 1.1. Rule 5 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II
(Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941, leaves no doubt that the rule making
authority intended by enacting the second proviso that a temporary engineer/
oversear referred to therein should also satisfy other conditions before he
can be promoted to class II service. If the intention of the rule making C
authority was to do away with the requirement of degree qualification then
it was not at all necessary to incorporate the last proviso in Rule 5. The
second pro~iso also deals with a member of the Overseers Engineering
Service or Draftsmen Service and the last proviso also deals with promotion
of a member of the Overseer Engineering Service of Irrigation Branch,
Punjab or Irrigation Branch (Provincial Draftsmen and Tracers) Service. If D
a member of such a service without being a graduate was to be treated as
eligible for promotion as an Assistant Engineer then it is difficult to appreciate
how it became necessary to provide for relaxation of educational qualification
in his favour again by enacting a separate proviso. Therefore, if second
proviso to Rule 5 is interpreted as suggested that would render the last E
proviso to Rule 5 oti9se. The last proviso could not have been intended to
enable the Government to relax the other conditions mentioned in the second
proviso in case of class of persons referred to in the last proviso. Outstanding
merit of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service or Draftsmen and
tracers service could not have been ascertained unless he had completed at
least his two years continuous service. Similarly a person having outstanding F
merit could have been easily declared by the Commission on the report of
the Chief Engineer to be fit for service and, therefore, there was hardly any
point in making a special proviso for relaxation of such conditions. It is also
not possible to believe that the said proviso was enacted for dispensing with
the requirement of age. It would not have been difficult for a person having G
outstanding merit to have passed a departmental test and, therefore, it is not
possible to believe that the last two provisos were enacted with the view to
dispense with the requirement of that condition. Moreover if only conditions
specified in the second proviso were intended to be relaxed then the last
proviso would have been worded in a different manner. The important words
in this context in the last proviso are "this Rule may be relaxed". The Rule H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A which is obviously referred to is the Rule that no person shall be appointed
unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the Rules. The Note to
Rule 3 also specifically refers to the last proviso of Rule 5 and that is also
indicative of the fact that educational qualification is to be relaxed only in
respect of persons specified in the last proviso if they are of outstanding '..,.
B merit. [750-E-H; 751-A-D)

A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana, [1984) Supp. SCC 1 and TR. Kapur
v. State of Haryana, [1986] Supp. SCC 584, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3174 of
1999. Etc.
c From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.98 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 12725of1997.

K.T.S. Tulsi, K. Sultan Singh, Vikas Pahwa, Ms. Nanita Shanna, L.okesh
Kumar and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellants.

D P.P. Rao, N.D. Garg, Ms. Arnita Gupta, (Rao Ranjit) (NP), R.K. Chopra
and P.N. Puri for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

NANA VATI, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

E The appellants are working as Junior Engineers/Overseers in the Punjab
Overseers Service, Irrigation Branch, P.W.D. since about 1962. They hold
diploma in engineering. For Junior EI?-gineers/Overseers the n.ext post of
promo~ion is the post of Assistant Engineer. In fact, th.e Assistant Engineers
constitute Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II (Irrigation Branch). The
F recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer 1s governed by the Punjab
Service of Engineers, Class II, (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941.
On August 20, 1957 the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, P.W.D.
(Irrigation Branch) issued a letter regarding recruitment to PSE Class II. It was
stated therein that in view of large number of temporary engineers being in
G employment in irrigation branch due to heavy expansion of Bhakra Nangal'
ahd other projects, the Government has decided that till further orders no
officer shall be appointed by direct recruitment to P.S.E. Class II and henceforth
the same shall be filled by promotion from amongst temporary engineers and
section officers and head draftsman in the ratio mentioned in the letter. Later
on the said percentage was revised in October 1969, May 1972 and February
H 1974 but it is not necessary to go into those details. Again by a notification
S.C. SHARMA v. STATE [NANA VA TI, J.] 743
dated April 23, 1992 the percentage was fixed as under: A
"I. Direct recruitment: Temporary Engineers. 55%

.... 11 By promotion
(i) from Junior Engineers (Civil) 20%
(ii) from Junior Engineer (Mech.) 5%
B
(iii) from members of Drawing staff 6%
(iv) From A.M.l.E. qualified
Junior Engineers 11 %
Drawing staff 3 % 14%"

This notification was challenged by those Junior Engineers who are C
graduates in engineering by filing writ petitions in the Punjab & Haryana High
Court on the ground that no promotion can be made of those Junior Engineers
who do not have the requisite educational qualifications prescribed by Rule
3 and, therefore, no quota could have been legally fixed for their promotion.
The Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the reasoning of the D
Single Judge of the High Court in R.C. Tandon v. State of Punjab, (1995) (6)
Services Law Reporter 307 held that the Junior Engineers who do not possess
university degree or other qualifications prescribed in Appendix A to the

- Rules are not eligible for promotion under Rule 5 except in cases where
relaxation in that behalf is made by the Government in exercise of its power
under the last proviso to Rule 5 read with Note 2 to Rule 3 of the Rules. E
Taking this view the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions.

Mr. Tulsi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that the High Court has not only over-looked the fact that if Junior Engineers,
who do not possess graduate degree or an equivalent question is hel_d
ineligible for promotion then they will not have even one chance of promotion F
throughout their career but has also-mis-interpreted Rule 5. He submitted that
the second proviso to Rule 5 which is in respect of promotion of temporary
engineers, is an independent provision and keeping the object of the provision
in mind it ought to have been held that for promotion of a temporary engineer
to the post of Assistant Engineer the eligibility criteria is (I) he has been G
declared by the Commission on the report of the Chief Engineer to be fit for
the service; (2) has held an appointment for not less than two years
continuously before the date of entry into the service; (3) is not less than 26
years or more than 50 years of age on the first day of June, immediately
preceding the date on which taken into the service and (4) in case of promotion
of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service or Draftsmen Service H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A unless he has passed both the departmental professional and revenue
examinations of Irrigation Branch. He also submitted that third or the last
proviso to Rule 5 is again an independent provision made in respect of Junior
Engineers possessing outstanding merit. He also submitted that it could not
have been intended by the rule making authority that temporary junior engineers
B apart from the qualification of a degree in engineering should satisfy the other
conditions also mentioned in the second proviso to Rule 5. On the other
hand, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that on correet interpretation of Rule 5 it should be held that the

-
qualification of a degree in engineering is a must for an appointment as
Assistant Engineer and unless that condition is relaxed either by exercising
C the power available under the third or the last proviso to Rule 5 or the general
power of relaxation under Rule 19 Junior Engineer, who is a diploma holder,
cannot be promoted to the post of an Assistant Engineer.

The Rules relevant for consideration of the rival contentions are as
under:
D
"(2) In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject
or the context -

-

(f) "Temporary Engineer" means an Engineer in the service of the
.Public Works Department, Punjab, whose appointment is temporary
within the meaning of the Fundamental Rules, is non pensionable and
who is not a member of any regular service.

G (g) "the service" means the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II
(Irrigation Branch)

(h) "Assistant Engineer" means a member of Punjab Service of
Engineers, Class II (Irrigation Branch)
,~

H (3} No Person shall be appointed to service unless he
S.C. SHARMA v. STATE [NANAVATl, J.] 745
(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx A
(b) xxx xxx xxx xxx

(C) possesses one of the university degrees or other qualifications
prescribed in Appendix 'A' to these Rules;

(d) xxx xxx xxx xxx B

NOTE : Clause ( c ) may be waived in the case of members of the
Oversear Engineering Service, Irrigation Branch, Punjab to be promoted
to the Service, under the proviso at end of Rule 5 of Part II, appointment
r rules.
c
4. Constitution of the Service. The Service shall consist of -

(a) existing members of the Service, (b) Officers transferred or promoted
from another State Service, whether in the same or another State, or
promoted from the Overseers Engineering Service, Irrigation Branch, D
Punjab, or Irrigation Branch (Provincial Draftsman and Tracers) Service
or temporary engineers taken into the service ..

- (c) Officers directly appointed by Government

NOTE:xxx xxx xxx
5. Appointment to the Service: Government may make appointments
xxx
E
to the service from the classes mentioned in rule 4, provided that no
person shall be appointed unless he possesses the qualifications
specified in Rule 3, and provided further, that no temporary Engineer
shall be taken into and no member of the Overseers Engineering F
Service or Draftsmen Service shall be promoted to the service unless
he has been declared by the Commission on the report of the Chief
Engineer to be fit for the service, is serving in the Department, and
has held an appointment for not less than 2 years continuously before
the date of entry into the service, and is not less than 26 years or more
than 50 years of age on the first day of June, immediately preceding G
the date on which taken into the service and in the case of promotion
of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service or Draftsmen Service
unless he has passed both the Departmental Professional and Revenue
Examinat.ions of Irrigation Branch;

Provided that this rule may be relaxed by Government on the H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A recommendations of Chief Engineers in order to admit the promotion
of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service or Draftsmen Service
.unless he has passed both the Departmental Professional and Revenue
Examinations of Irrigation Branch.

Provided that this rule may be relaxed by Government on the
B recommendations of Chief Engineers in order to admit the promotion
of a member of the Overseer Engineering Service of Irrigation Branch,
Punjab or Irrigation Branch (Provincial Draftsmen and Tracers) Service
of outstanding merit, who may not possess the qualifications specified

c·
in rule 3. ·

NOTE:xxx xxx xxx xxx
-
19. Relaxation: Where the Government is satisfied that the operation
of any of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case,
it may by order dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule
to such extent and subject to such condition as it may consider
D necessary for dealing with the case in ajust and equitable manner."

A reading of the above rules discloses that Rule 3 provides for
qualification of a candidate, Rule 4 specifies the feeder category or the source
of recruitment and Rule 5 provides for appointments out of those who are
E otherwise eligible for appointment including promotion to the post of an
Ass_istant Engineer. Rule 3 in categorical terms provides that no person shall
be appointed to the service unless he possesses one· of the university's
degrees or relevant qualification prescribed by the Rules. The only relaxation
contemplated by the Rules in this behalf is to be found in Note to Rule 3 and
the proviso at the end of Rule 5 and that relaxation is in respect of certain
F Overseers and Junior Engineers possessing outstanding merit. Only other
rule left for consideration is Rule 5 and what is required to be considered is
whether Rule 5 dispenses with the requirement of a degree or an equivalent
qualification in the matter of promotion of temporary junior engineers.

G Rule 5 first provides that the Government may make appointments to the
service from the feeder cadre mentioned in Rule 4. Having thus positively
provided generally both in respect of direct recruitment and promotion or
transfer, it further provides that even out of the persons from those feeder
cadre no person shall be appointed unless he possesses the qualifications
specified in Rule 3 meaning thereby a degree or an equivalent qualification.
H This proviso to the general provision making all persons in the feeder cadre
S.C. SHARMA v. STATE [NANAVATI, J.) 747
eligible for appointment including promotion has restricted the power of the A
Government by confining it to only those persons who possess the required
educational qualification. Having provided like this it further provides by
stating "and provided further" that no temporary engineer shall be taken into
and no member of the Overseer Engineering Service or Draftsmen and Tracers
Service shall be permitted to the service unless he satisfies the four conditions B
which we have referred to above. It was submitted by Mr. Tulsi that this
proviso is a different proviso and should not be read as a proviso to the
earlier proviso and has an additional condition of eligibility. On the other
hand, Mr. Rao emphasised the words "and provided further" and submitted
that they clearly indicate the intention of the rule making authority and leave
no doubt that they are additional conditions of eligibility in respect of a C
certain category of persons in Class III service, namely, temporary engineers
and overseers. He also submitted that in case of direct recruitment there is
heavy competition but in case of promotion it is comparatively less and it was
therefore, thought fit by the rule making authority to impose those four
additional conditions for persons like temporary engineers and overseers for
their promotion. In support of his submission's Mr. Tulsi relied upon A.S. D
Parmar v. State of Haryana, [1984] Supp. SCC I. In that case, this Court was
called upon to examine Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I P.W.D. (Buildings
and Roads Branch) Rules, 1960. This Court was also required for the purpose
to consider the Punjab Service of Engineers Class II P.W.D. (Building and
Roads Branch) Rules, 1965. After taking into consideration Rule 7 of Class E
II Rules and Rule 6 of Class I Rules this Court observed as under:

"Clause (b) of Rule 6 which specially deals with appointments by
promotion from the Class II Service to the posts of Executive Engineers
exhaustively deals with the qualifications of officers to be promoted
from the Class II Service. The special clause excludes the application F
of the general. That appears to be the intention of the rule making
authority because clause (a) of Rule 6 deals with educational
qualifications and clause (b) deals with the qualification, of experience
for eight years in the Class II Service and the passing of the
departmental examination. So far as direct recruitment through
competitive examination is concerned the minimum educational G
qualification has to be prescribed in the Class I Rules themselves and
it is accordingly prescribed by clause (a) of Rule 6. So far as recruitment
by promotion from the Class II Service to the post of Executive
Engineer is conpemed it is seen that as regards Class II officers the
minimum educational qualifications which they should possess have H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 3 S.C.R.

A been fixed in tbe Class II Rules where 26 out of 40 vacancies are to
be filled up by the holders of degrees in engineering of recognised
universities and the remaining are to be filled up by promotion from
amongst persons with certain educational qualifications and experience
of ten years in the lower cadre or such other experience as stated in
the Class II Rules. Rule 6 of the Class I Rules treats the possession
B of a degree plus the selection at the competitive examination and the
passing of the departmental examination after appointment as sufficient
for getting into the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers or to the
cadre of Executive Engineers when direct recruitment is made to those
posts and the experience in the Class II Service for a minimum period
c of eight years plus the passing of the departmental examinations
before promotion of an Assistant Engineer in the Class II Service as
sufficient qualification for promotion to the cadre of Executive
Engineers."

The Court further observed that:
D
"We are of the view that in the circumstances it could not have been
the intention of the rule making authority that no person without a
degree should be allowed to enter the Class I Service. If the
construction placed by the petitioners in the writ petition and the
Government is accepted every diploma holder who is an Assistant
E Engineer would have to retire only as a Class II officer and cannot
hope to become an Executive Engineer till his retirenient. If that was
the intention, Rule 6(b) of Class I Rules would have contained ...
necessary words conveying that meaning as it is pointed out earlier.
We feel that clause (b) of Rule 6 appears to be exhaustive of the
qualifications of the Assistant Engineers who can seek promotion
F from the Class II Service to the Class I Service. So read Rule 6 of the
Class I Rules will read insofar as the promotees are concerned as "no
person shall be appointed to the Service unless in the case of an
appointment by promotion has eight years completed service in Class
II and has passed the professional examination of the department as
G provided in Rule 15" and clause (a) of Rule 6 should be read as being
applicable to the other mode of recruitment."

Relying upon these observations it was submitted by Mr. Tulsi that
Rule 5 of the Rules with which we are concerned is substantially the same,
that it is similarly worded except that different categories of persons have
H been referred to for appointment in Class I service. Rule 5 of the Rules with
l

S.C. SHARMAv. STATE [NANAVATI, J.] 749

which we are concerned provides for the same thing by adopting the method A
of including in a proviso an independent clause. We do not think that Mr.
Tulsi is right in his submission that Rule 5 is substantially the same as Rule
6 of Class I rules dealt by this Court in A.S. Parmar 's case (supra). As this
Court found that each of those clauses was dealing with the persons falling
under those clauses independently, in other words each clause was dealing B
with a specific class, they deserved to be considered as independent clau~es.
The appellants in that case were the members of Haryana Pub/re Works
Department. It was under those circumstances that this Court held in that

- case that the High Court was not right in holding that degree is a pre-requisite
for being promoted to class III, class II and class I service.

Mr. Tulsi next relied upon T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, [1986] Supp.
c
SCC 584. In that case the petitioners were diploma holders in engineering who
were in due course promoted to Class II service. The question which had
arisen in that case was whether such diploma holders in Class II service could
be promoted to Class I service in the absence of a university degree. This
Court after referring to its earlier decision in A.S. Parmar's case (supra) D
observed as under:

"One should have thought that the controversy whether a degree in
Engineering was an essential qualification for promotion of Sub-
Divisional .Officers in Class II Service to the post of Executive Engineer E
in Class I service under Rule 6(b) of the Class I Rules had ended with
the decision of this Court in A. S. Parmar case. Curiously enough,
learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the
decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar case was incorrect. He presses
into service for our acceptance the decision of the High Court in O.P.
Bhatia v. State of Punjab, taking a view to the contrary. It is urged F
that in the erstwhile State of Punjab a degree in Engineering was
essential for recruitment of Assistant Engineers in Class II service
under Rule 3(c) of the 1941 Rules as held by the High Court in O.P.
Bhatia's case and that view was in consonance with the departmental
instructions of the relevant rules in the State of Punjab and the State G
of Haryana as also in the erstwhile State of Punjab that Rule 6(b)
required the promotees to have the essential qualification of a degree
in Engineering. We do not think that it is open to question the
correctness of the decision in A.S. Parmar case which expressly
overrules the view taken by the High Court in O.P. Bhatia case .. That
apart, the proviso to Rule 5 of the 1942 Rules conferred power on the H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 3 S.C.R.

A State Government to relax the requirement of Rule 3(c) on the
recommendation of the Chief Engineer in order to admit the promotion
of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service (Irrigation Branch),
Punjab if he was an officer of outstanding merit although he did not
possess the qualification prescribed in Rule 3(c) i.e. the educational
qualification of a degree in Engineering. The requirement of a degree
B in Engineering for recruitment to the Class II service was done away
within the 1970 Rules. The contention also fails to take note of the
fact that the requirement of a degree in Engineering which was an
essential educational qualification for purposes of direct recruitment
of Assistant Executive Engineers in Class I service under Rule 6(a) of
c the Class I Rules could not be projected for promotion of Sub-Divisional
Officers belonging to Class II service to the posts of Executive
Engineers in Class I service under Rule 6(b) as they form two distinct
sources from which the appointments to the posts of Executive
Engineers could be made. As laid down in A.S. Parmar case, what was
of the essence for purpose of promotion of Sub-Divisional Officers
D who were members of Class II service to the post of Executive Engineer
under rule 6(b) of the Class I Rules was not a degree in Engineering
but 8 years' experience in that class of service i.e. Class II service."

Both the aforesaid decisions were not directly concerned with the Rules
E with which we are concerned in these appeals. Rule 5, as it is worded, leaves
no doubt that the rule making authority intended by enacting the second
proviso that a temporary engineer/overseer referred to therein should also
satisfy other conditions before he can be promoted to Class II service. If the
intention of the rule making authority was to do away with the requirement
of degree qualification then it was not at all necessary to incorporate the last
F proviso in Rule 5. The second proviso also deals with a member of the
Overseers Engineering Service or Draftsmen Service and the last proviso also
deals wit)l promotion of a member of the Overseer Engineering Service of
Irrigation Branch, Punjab or Irrigation Branch (Provincial Draftsmen and Tracers)
Service. If a member of such a service without being a graduate was to be
G treated as eligible for promotion as an Assistant Engineer then it is difficult
to appreciate how it became necessary to provide for relaxation of educational
qualification in his favour again by enacting a separate proviso. Therefore,
if we interpret second proviso to Rule 5 as suggested by Mr. Tulsi that would
render the last proviso to Rule 5 otiose. The last proviso could not have been
intended to enable the Government to relax the other conditions mentioned
H in the second proviso in case of class of persons referred to in the last

.., fr-
S.C. SHARMA v. STATE [NANAVATI, J.] 1s1 I
proviso. Outstanding merit of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service A
or Draftsmen and Tracers service obviously could not have been ascertained
unless he had completed at least his two years continuous service. Similarly
a person having outstanding merit could have been easily declared by the
Commission on the report of the Chief Engineer to be fit for service and,
therefore, there was hardly any point in making a special provision for relaxation
of such conditions. It is also not possible to believe that the said proviso was B
enacted for dispensing with the requirement of age. It would not have been
difficult for a person having outstanding merit to have passed a departmental
test and, therefore, it is. not possible to believe that the last proviso was
enacted with a view to dispense with the requirement of that condition.
Moreover if only the conditions specified in the second proviso were intended C
to be relaxed then the last proviso would have been worded in a different
manner. The important words in this context in the last proviso are "this Rule
'may be relaxed". The Rule which is obviously referred to is the Rule .that no
person shall be appointed unless he possesses the qualification specified in
'Rules. The Note to Rule 3 also specifically refers to the last proviso of Rule
5 and that is also indicative of the fact that educational qualification is to be D
relaxed only in respect of persons specified in the last proviso if they are of
outstanding merit.

In our opinion the High Court was right in holding that a temporary
Junior Engineer who does not possess a degree qualification is not eligible E
for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and, therefore, the impugned
notification fixing quota for promotion was bad to that extent. These appeals
are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

RA. Appeals dismissed.