Holding

Promotion to Senior Scientific Officer Grade‑II under the Defence Quality Assurance Rules, 1979 requires both three years of regular service as a Junior Scientific Officer and a degree in engineering, and the amendment imposing this requirement is valid.

Summary

The Scheduled Caste Uplift Union filed a writ petition challenging an amendment to the Defence Quality Assurance Rules, 1979 which required a three‑year regular service as Junior Scientific Officer and a degree in engineering for promotion to Senior Scientific Officer Grade‑II. The petitioners, who were only diploma holders and had been empanelled as Junior Scientific Officers but were not actually serving in that post, argued that the degree requirement should apply only to direct appointments, that it could not be imposed on them after their empanelment, and that their long service experience should suffice. The Supreme Court examined Schedule I of the Rules and held that the amendment was valid and applied uniformly to all promotees, irrespective of prior empanelment. It found that the petitioners were not Junior Scientific Officers, had not completed the requisite three years of service, and did not possess the required degree, thus failing to meet the eligibility criteria. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court also rejected the contention that the amendment was ultra vires of the Constitution.

Issues considered

The amendment to the Defence Quality Assurance Rules, 1979 requiring a degree in engineering for promotion to Senior Scientific Officer Grade‑II applies to promotees and not only to direct appointments.
Whether persons empanelled as Junior Scientific Officers but not actually serving and lacking the required degree can be considered for promotion.
Whether the amendment is ultra vires of the Constitution, particularly Article 32.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

service lawpromotion eligibilitydefence rulesdegree requirementJunior Scientific OfficerSenior Scientific Officerconstitutional challengeArticle 32

Judgment

A THE SCHEDULED CASTE UPLIFr UNION AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 20, 1995

B [R.M. SAHA! AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Service Law :

Defence Quality Assurance Rules, 1979 :

c Rule 8-Schedu/e I.

Junior Scientific Officei-Promotion to Senior Scientific Of-
ficer-Amendment of Rules-For Promotion amended mies prescribing three
years service as Junior Scientific Officer and a degree in Engineering-Chal-
D lenge to mies by persons who were empanelled as Junior Scientific Officers
but were not satisfying either condition on the date of amendment of
Rules-Held such persons were not affected by the mies.

The petitioners, with only Diploma qualifications, were empanelled
for being promoted as Junior Scientific Officers. Subsequently, the service
E Rules viz. Defence Quality Assurance Rules, 1979 were amended and it was
prescribed that a Junior Scientific Officer (Promotee) could be promoted
only if he had put in three years regular service and possessed a Degree
In Engine.ering. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition in this Court challeng-
ing the amended Rules contending that (i) the requirement of degree was
F applicable for direct appointments and not to promotees (ii) once a
diploma-holder was selected as Junior Scientific Officer then the eligibility
criteria of higher qualification could not be applied for purposes of his
promotion; and (iii) the petitioners having worked for quite a long time
petitioners were entitled to be promoted on the basis of experience and
G therefore the requirement of degree should not be adhered to.

Dismissing the petition, this Court \
HELD : .1 Under the amended Rules no one could be promoted
unless he satisfied the eligibility criteria as laid down. The petitioners had
H no doubt been empanelled on the basis of earlier Rules for being promoted
634
SCHEDULED CASTE UPLIFT UNION v. U.0.1. 635

to the post of Junior Scientific Officers, but that did not confer any right A
on them to be considered for higher post. They were not Junior Scientific
Officers. They had not even acquired any experience as Junior Scientific
Officer. Mere entitlement to be appointed as Junior Scientific Officer did
not make them a Junior Scientific Officer. Since the petitioners were not
working as Junior Scientific Officers they could not be said to have B
undergone three years' regular service as such. Further they are only
diploma holders. Therefore, neither of the eligibility criteria was satisfied.
I
Since on the date when Rules came into force they were not even Junior
Scientific Officers they cannot successfully claim to have been affected by
the rule. (637-D to F]
c
2. The submission that the requirement of possessing a degree for
being appointed to the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II applied
only to direct appointments and not to the promotion is not made out by
Schedule I to 1979 Rules. (637-F) '
D
3. The submission that the petitioners who were empanelled should
be extended the same benefit as those who were working on regular basis
too cannot be accepted as those who were empanelled could not be treated
alike to those who were working and holding the post of Junior Scientific
Officer. (637-H, 638-A)
E
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 390 of
1995.

(Uuder Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

D. Goburdhan for the Petitioners. F

N.N. Goswami, T.C. Sharma, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Neelam and Ms.
A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
The petitioners working under the Directorate General of Quality
Assurance and holding the post of Junior Scientific Officers, a Class-JI post
/ on the date the petition was filed, seek a direction that the amendment in
the Rules which provide that Junior Scientific Officer (Promotees) in
order to hold the post of Senior Scientific Officers-II should have a H
636 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A Master's Degree, be declared ultra vires. In the alternative it is claimed that
since the petitioners were empanelled as Junior Scientific Officers Grade-
n they were entitled to same benefit under the Rules framed by the
Government as was extended to those promotees who were working on the
post of Senior Scientific Officers Grade-II.
B
Relevant Rules framed by Ministry of Defence are known as Defence
Quality Assurance Rules, 1979. Rule 8 of it provides that 50% of the posts
of Senior Scientific Officers are to be filled by promotion on basis of
selection on merit from the grade of Junior Scientific Officers. The number
of posts, designation, pay and eligibility are provided by Schedule I to the
C Rules. The post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II is mentioned.at serial
no. 6. The entry is reproduced below :

Grade from which
SI. Designation Scale of No, of promotion is permissible
No. of post pay posts and the minimu)ll eligibility
D
period prescribed
1. ·················
2. ·················
3. .................
E 4. .................
5. ·················
6. Senior Rs. 700-40- 200 Junior Scientific Officer
Scientific 900EB-40- with 3 years' regular
Officer 1100-50-130 service in the grade and
F Grade-II possessing degree in Engi-
neering/Masters degree in
Science or equivalent
qualification. The
requirement of educational
G qualification shall not
apply to those holding the
post of Junior Scientific
Officer on regular basis on \
the date of promulgation
of these rules.
H
SCHEDULED CASTE UPL!Ff UNION v. U.0.1. 637

A Junior Scientific Officer thus could be promoted as Senior Scientific A
Officer only if he had put in three years regular service and poss~ssed a
Degree in Engineering. The petitioners did not satisfy either condition.
They were not'working as Junior Scientific Officer on the date on which
these Rules were enforced. They were only Diploma holders. What is urged
on behalf of the petitioners is that the requirement of being possessed of B
a degree was applicable for direct appointments and not to promotees. The
learned counsel vehemently urged that once a person holding diploma was
• I
selected as a Junior Scientific Officer then for purposes of promotion to
the post of Senior Scientific Officer the eligibility criteria of higher
qualification could not be applied to him. The learned counsel further C
urged that the petitioners having worked- for quite long time they were
entitled to be promoted on basis of their experience. And the requirement
of degree should not be adhered to. The Rules came into force in Septem-
ber 1979. The feeder post for Senior Scientific Officer Grade II under
Schedule I to the Rules is Junior Scientific Officer. Therefore, no one could
be promoted unless he satisfied the eligibility criteria as laid down in the D
Rules. The petitioners had no doubt been empanelled on the earlier Rules,
for being promoted to the post of Junior Scientific Officers, but that did
not confer any right on them to be considered for higher post. They were
not Junior Scientific Officers. They had not even acquired any experience
of Junior Scientific Officer. Mere entitlement to be appointed as Junior E
Scientific Officer did not make them a Junior Scientific Officer. Since the
petitioners were not working as Junior Scientific Officers they could not
be said to have undergone three years' regular service as such. Further they
are only diploma holders. Neither of the eligibility criteria was. satisfied.
Since on the date when Rules came into force they were not even Junior F
Scientific Officers they cannot successfully claim to have been affected by
the rule. Even the submission that the requirement of possessing a degree
for being appointed to the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II
applied only to direct appointments and not to the promotion is nor made
out by Schedule. I to 1979 Rules. The submission of the learned counsel
that this provision should be read by bifurcating into two and the require- G
ment of three years should be taken for promotion and engineering for the
J direct recruitment is without any substance.

The submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners who were H
r

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A empanelled should be extended the same benefit as those who were
working on regular basis too cannot be accepted as those who were
empanelled could not be treated alike to those who were worh1g ar,:
holding the post of Junior Scientific Officer.

In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed.
B
T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

' .

\