Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.             OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4871/2009

Baswant Shankarappa Swami          .. Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        ..Respondents  

J U D G E M E N T

R.M. LODHA, J.

Leave granted

2. This  appeal   by  special  leave  is  directed  against  the  

judgment and order dated November 21, 2008 passed by the High  

Court of  Judicature at Bombay whereby the   writ  petition  filed by  

the  present  appellant  was  dismissed  and  the  judgment  dated

November  26,  2007  passed  by  the  Maharashtra  Administrative  

Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has been upheld.

3. The appellant is a  Graduate Engineer (Civil).   He was  

selected  and  nominated  by  the  Maharashtra  Public  Service  

Commission  (for  short  ‘the  commission’)  as  Assistant  Executive  

Engineer Class I in the Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Group A)  

in the Irrigation Department on September 11, 1989.  The appellant  

was promoted  as Executive Engineer,  a Class I post, vide  office  

order dated  September 7, 1993.  On March 1, 1996  the Governor  of  

Maharashtra  made the rules  called the Superintending  Engineer  

(Civil)  in  the  Maharashtra  Service  of  Engineers  Group  A,  in  the  

Irrigation  Department  (Recruitment  Rules),  1996  (for  short  ‘the  

Rules’).   Rules  2  and  4  thereof  came  into  force  on  the  date  of  

publication of the notification in the official gazette while  as regards  

rule 3, it was  provided  that it shall  come  into   force  on such date  

as may be notified by the State Government in consultation with the  

Commission.   On September 30, 1999, a notification came  to be  

issued declaring March 1, 2001 to be date  for coming into  force of  

rule 3.  According to the appellant, although he completed 7 years on  

the  post  of  Executive  Engineer  (Civil)  in  the  month  of  September  

2

2000  and  his  juniors  in  the  cadre  of  Executive  Engineer   were  

promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in 2005  but he was  

denied promotion having not gained  experience in  any one or more  

of  the branches from each of  the groups provided in rule 3.   The  

appellant  constrained   thereby   approached  the  Tribunal   under  

Section 19 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985  for  

redressal  of  his   grievance.   The  appellant  challenged  the  

constitutional validity of rule  3 before the Tribunal being arbitrary,  

unreasonable and violative  of  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution  

of India.

4. The Tribunal vide its judgment  dated November 26, 2007  

held rule  3  intra vires  by considering the matter thus:

“………..Having noted the contention raised by the applicant in the  Original Application, we do not find any merit or substance put forth  by the applicant  to the challenge to the vires of the Rule 3 of the  Rules.  We accordingly hold that Rule 3 being intra vires  and do  not contravene either Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India… …..”

5. Not  satisfied  with  the  judgment  of  the  Tribunal,  the  

appellant filed a writ petition  under Article 226  of the Constitution  

before the High Court  of Judicature  at Bombay  and put in issue  

3

specifically the correctness of the Tribunal’s view   and set up the  

ground  that rule 3 was ultra vires the Constitution.

6. The High Court observed  that neither before the Tribunal  

nor before them, it  had been  substantiated as to how rule 3 was  

ultra  vires  the  Constitution  and,  accordingly,  dismissed  the  writ  

petition.   

7. It is pertinent to notice  that in  the  original application  

before the  Tribunal, while challenging the constitutional validity  of  

rule 3,  the appellant set up the grounds thus:

“………that  the ‘said rule’ is ultra vires the constitutional mandate  of  equality   before  law  and  equal  opportunity  in  Government  Service as provided by Article  14 and Article 16  of the Constitution  of  India.   The  Rule  3  bestows  unfettered  powers  upon  the  Respondents  in  the  matter  of  promotions  to  the  post  of  Superintending  Engineer  and   is  unreasonable,  arbitrary  and  discriminatory.   It  is  also incongruous  and contradictory  to  the  proviso to  Rule 2 which provides for relaxation of 2 years of service  in the feeder cadre out of 7 years service thereby making Rule  3  absurd, which mandates total  of  6 years of service with 3 years  service   in  each  of   Group  (a)  and  (b).   The  Rule  3  is  further  discriminatory  as  the  classification  of  Executive  Engineers,  a  homogenous group, into  two unequal and artificial  classes totally  at the mercy of the respondents  who have absolute power to post  or not to post an employee to a particular Group (a)  or (b) post.

……….The  Rule  3  provides  that  an  Executive  Engineer  in  the  Irrigation Department shall have “gained an experience of not less  than 3 years in any one or more of the branches from each of the  following two groups, namely:  

(a)  (i)  research, (ii)    designs, (iii)  project  preparation (iv)  investigation or (v) training work. (b) (i)  Construction or  (ii) Management.

4

However it does not provide for a situation where an eligible  Executive Engineer is not posted to either Group (a) or Group (b) or  for  reasons  of  non-availability  of   the  posts.   The  said  Rule  therefore is arbitrary, unreasonable and bestows unfettered power  in the Respondents in the matter of promotions by posting or not  posting a particular Executive Engineer to either of the groups.  

As a matter  of  fact,  this rule is  incongruous,  contradictory  and unreasonable  on  the back  drop  of  proviso  to  Rule  2  which  provides that where sufficient  persons  having held  the posts of  Executive Engineer (Civil) for a period of not less than 7 years as  aforesaid  are  not   available   to  fill  up  the  vacancies,  then  the  requirement of the such  service of 7 years  may be relaxed, so  however that such relaxation  shall not be  by more than 2 years.  It   is  evident   that  if  an  Executive  Engineer  is  to  be  promoted  according to this proviso, he puts a maximum service of 5 years  and  undisputedly  cannot   comply  with  the  provisions  of  Rule  3  which lays  down a total  of  6 years  experience,  3 years  each in  Group A and Group B posts.”   

8. The High Court  has practically given no  reasons as to  

why  contention  raised  by  the  writ  petitioner  (appellant  herein)  in  

challenging the vires of rule 3 did not merit  acceptance except saying  

that it  has not been substantiated as to how rule 3 was ultra vires the  

Constitution.   The  consideration   of  the  issue  by  the  High  Court  

concerning  vires  of  rule  3   is  far  from satisfactory.    On  a  short  

ground of  non-recording of  reasons  and non-consideration of  the  

contentions raised by the appellant in challenging the constitutional  

validity of  rule  3,  in  our  view,  the appeal  has to  be allowed  and  

matter deserves to be sent back to the High Court  for consideration  

afresh.

5

9. The  appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed  to  the  aforesaid  

extent.  Writ Petition No. 6812/2008 is restored on the file of the High  

Court for its fresh consideration.  No order as to costs.

…………………………J. (B. Sudershan Reddy)  

…………………………J. (R.M. Lodha)     

 New Delhi,

October  9, 2009

6