http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: A.K.  RAGHUMANI SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOPAL CHANDRA NATH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/04/2000

BENCH: Ruma Pal, M.J.Rao

JUDGMENT:

     RUMA PAL, J.

     The  appellants  and  the respondent No.   1  are  all Executive  Engineers  in  the   Public  Health   Engineering Department of the Government of Manipur.  All the appellants had  Degrees in Engineering before they joined service.  The respondent  No.   1 obtained a Diploma in 1989  having  duly qualified  in  both  sections of  the  Associate  Membership Examination  of the Institution of Engineers (AMIE).  It  is not  in  dispute that the AMIE Diploma is recognised by  the Central  Government as being on par with a Bachelors Degree of  Engineering  for the purpose of recruitment to  superior posts under the Central Government.  The question is whether the  respondent  No.   1 was eligible to be  considered  for promotion  to  the post of Superintending Engineer in  1991. The  Rules  regulating  the  recruitment   to  the  post  of Superintending  Engineers  of  the  State  of  Manipur  were notified  on  18th  October  1977.  The  Rules  called  The Manipur  P.W.D./Irrigation  and Flood Control/Public  Health Engineering  (Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Superintending Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1977 provide that the post  of  Superintending  Engineer  shall be  filled  up  by promotion  from  Executive  Engineer  (Civil)/  (Mech)  and Surveyor  of  Works  possessing Degree  in  Civil/Mechanical Engineering  or its equivalent from a recognised institution with 6 years regular service in the grade.  The vacancy in the  post of Superintending Engineer arose in 1991.  In  the same  year  the respondent No.  1 filed a  writ  application seeking  directions on the State Government to consider  his name  for  promotion to the post as he had put in 12  years service in the grade and possessed the necessary educational qualifications.   The  writ application was opposed  by  the State  Respondents.   They  contended that  the  eligibility criteria  required  six  years  regular  service  after  the educational  qualification  was  obtained.    In  the   writ petitioners  case, his period of service after he  obtained the  AMIE  diploma was far short of the requirement  and  as such,  according  to  the  respondents,   he  could  not  be considered  for  promotion  to the  post  of  Superintending Engineer.   The writ application was allowed by the  learned Single  Judge  on  17th March 1993.  It was  held  that  the requirement  of  six years service was independent  of  the requirement   of   educational    qualifications   and   the eligibility  criteria  was fulfilled even if  the  requisite experience   had   been  obtained   before   obtaining   the educational  qualifications.  The appellants herein moved an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

application  for  review  of the order  before  the  Learned Single Judge.  This was rejected.  The appellants then filed an  appeal  before  the Division Bench of the  Gauhati  High Court.   The  appeal was dismissed and the decision  of  the learned  Single Judge was upheld.  There is no dispute  that as  on  1991 the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had put  in more  than  6 years regular service in the grade.   Of  that period  only a little over 2 years was after he was  granted the   AMIE   Diploma.   The   controversy  hinges   on   the interpretation  of  the word with used in the  eligibility criteria.   The  word  with has been defined  in  the  New Shorter  Oxford  Dictionary   (1993),diversely  the  meaning depending  on the context in which it is used.  But when  it is  used  to  connect two nouns it  means  Accompanied  by; having  as an addition or accompaniment.  Frequently used to connect two nouns, in the sense and  as well. Applying the  definition to the eligibility criteria it is clear that it  requires the prescribed educational qualification and  6 years  experience  as well.  Given the plain meaning of  the phrase,  the  Court  would  not be justified  in  reading  a qualification  into the conjunctive word and imply the  word subsequent  after  the  word with.  Even on a  point  of principle  it  would be unreasonable to distinguish  between the  nature  of  the  regular service required,  as  if  the service  in  the  grade subsequent to the obtaining  of  the necessary  educational  qualification   were   qualitatively different  from the service in the grade prior thereto.   In fact  no  such  case has been made out  .   The  appellants contention  appears  to have been based on the  decision  of this  Court  in N.  Suresh Nathan and Another V.   Union  of India  and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584.  In that case,  the qualification for promotion prescribed was as under:

     1.  Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with three years service in the  grade failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineer with six years service in the grade  50 per cent.

     2.   Section Officers possessing a recognised  Diploma in  Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade 50 per cent.

     The Court held that the Rules would have to be read in keeping  with the practice followed in the Department for  a long  time  and that the period of service in the grade  for eligibility  for  promotion  commenced   from  the  date  of obtaining the degree and the earlier period of service prior to  the  obtaining the degree was not counted.   Since  this practice  had been consistently followed and was  understood as  such by all concerned, the Court held that it would  not be  justified in taking the contrary view and unsettling the settled  practice in the Department.  The decision in Suresh Nathans  case has been explained in M.B.  Joshi and  Others V.   Satish Kumar Pandey and Others 1993 Supp (2) SCC 419  ; D.   Stephen  Joseph V.  Union of India and Others 1997  (4) SCC  753  and  finally  in Anil Kumar Gupta  and  Others  V. Municipal  Corporation  of Delhi (2000) 1 SCC 128  as  being limited  to  the facts of that case.  In M.B.  Joshis  case the decision in Suresh Nathan case was distinguished in the facts  of  that  case  and it was indicated  that  when  the language  of the rule is quite specific that if a particular length  of  service  in  the   feeder  post  together   with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

educational   qualification   enables  a  candidate  to   be considered for promotion, it will not be proper to count the experience  only  from the date of acquisition  of  superior educational  qualification because such interpretation  will violate  the very purpose to give incentive to the  employee to  acquire  higher education. [See D.  Stephen Joseph  vs. Union  of  India  at  page 755] The  Court  in  D.   Stephen Josephs  case  was  also of the view that the  decision  in Suresh  Nathan was an exception to the accepted principle of interpretation  of  the rule on the plain language.  In  the last  mentioned  case, namely, Anil Kumar Guptas case,  the essential  qualifications for appointment were (a) Degree in Civil   Engineering   and  (b)   two   years   professional experience.   The  Court  interpreted the language  to  mean that  the  two  years  professional  experience  need  not entirely  be experience gained after obtaining the  Degree. Given  the meaning of the words, the principle involved  and the weight of precedents, the view of the High Court must be upheld.   The  appeal is accordingly dismissed  without  any order as to costs.