http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DHARAM BIR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/06/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J. 1.   "No, mere  experiential knowledge is no equivalent to a Degree  in  Engineering"  is  our  positive  answer  to  the negative argument that respondent, though not possessing the requisite qualification,  be held  to be validly holding the post of principal, ITI, on the basis of the experience. 2.   The  facts,  the  questions  raised  and  the  findings thereon are recorded hereinafter. 3.   The respondent  was appointed  as Senior  Instructor on 3.12.1957 and  was  promoted  as  Supervisor  Instructor  on 13.12.1959. Thereafter  he was  promoted as Foreman and then as Group Instructor. 4.   On 15.6.1976,  respondent was  promoted  as  Principal, class II,  for a period of six months or till the candidates duly selected by the Public Service Commission for that post were  available   (whichever  was   earlier).  The  post  of Principal, Class  II was  a newly  created post  and was not included  in   the  M.P.   Industrial   (Gazetted)   Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 and since the mode of appointment or recruitment Rules, 1965 and since the mode of appointment or recruitment on that post was not prescribed till about 1985, the respondent  continued to  work on that post at different places where he was transferred from time to time. 5.  On   28.6.1985,  Madhya   Pradesh  Industrial   Training (Gazetted)  Service   Recruitment  Rules  1995  (for  short, Rules), made  by the  State Government  under Article 302 of the Constitution,  were published.  These Rules replaced the M.P. Industrial   (Gazetted  )   Service Recruitment  Rules, 1965. The  new Rules  provided that  the post  of principal, Grade Ii,  would be  filled up  by direct recruitment to the extent of  75 per  cent and by promotion to the extent of 25 per cent.  The manner of recruitment by way of promotion was indicated in Rules 13 to 18. 6. After the Rules were made and duly promulgated, a meeting of  the   Departmental  promotion   Committee  was  held  in November, 1985  to  consider  the  eligible  candidates  for regular promotion  on the post of principal, Class II. Since the respondent  did not  possess  a  Degree  or  Diploma  in Engineering prescribed  under the  Rules  for  the  post  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Principal, Class  II, the  Committee found  him fit only for the post  of Vice  Principal and,  therefore, by order dated 12.06.1986,  he   was  promoted   and  appointed   as  Vice- Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Bhilai. 7.   It is  this order  which constitutes  the basis of this protracted litigation  as the  respondent  who  was  already working as  Principal, Class II characterises the said order as an order of reversion. 8.   The respondent challenged this order in a Writ Petition filled before  the M.P.  High Court which was transferred to the M.P.  State Administrative  Tribunal, Jabalpur,  and the Tribunal, by  its  judgment  dated  19.4.1994,  allowed  the petition with the finding that the requirement of possessing the educational  qualification of  a Degree  or  Diploma  in Engineering for the post of Principal was applicable only to direct recruitment  and not  to promotions  and as  such the respondent who, admittedly, did neither possess a Degree nor a Diploma  in Engineering, was still entitled to be promoted as Principal, Class II. 9.   It is  the logic of this apparently illogical reasoning which is to be scrutinised by us in this appeal. 10.  Appointments,   either  by  direct  requirement  or  by promotion, on  the post of Principal, Class I or class II as pointed  out  earlier,  are  made  in  accordance  with  the provisions of  the Rules  promulgated in  1985, Rule 7 which deals with "appointment to the Service" provides as under:-      " 7. Appointment to he service.- An      appointment to  the service,  after      commencement of  these rules, shall      be made  by the  Government and  no      such  appointment   shall  be  made      except after  selection by  one  of      the    methods    of    recruitment      specified in rule 6." 11.  Method of  recruitment has  been indicated  in  Rule  6 which is quoted below:-      " 6.  Method of  recruitment.-  (1)      Recruitment to  the  service  after      the commencement  of these  unless,      shall be  by the following methods;      namely,:-      (a) By  direct recruitment  through      selection;      (b) By  promotion of the members of      the Service  as specified in Column      (2) of the Schedule IV;      (c)  By  transfer  of  the  persons      substantively  appointed   on   the      specified posts  in  the  specified      service.      (2)  The   number  of  the  persons      recruited under clauses (b) and (c)      of sub-rule  (1) shall  not at  any      time  exceed,   the  percentage  as      shown in  Schedule II of the number      of duty posts.      (3) Subject  to the  provisions  of      these rules,  the method or methods      of recruitment  to be  adopted  for      the   purpose    of   filling   any      particular vacancy  or vacancies in      the service,  as may be required to      be  filled  during  any  particular      period  of   recruitment,  and  the      number  of   the  persons   to   be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    recruitment, and  the number of the      persons to  be   recruited by  each      method shall  be determined on each      occasion  by   the  Government   in      consultation with the Commission.      (4)    Notwithstanding     anything      contained in sub-rule (1) if in the      opinion of  the    Government,  the      exigencies,  of   the  service   so      requires, the Government may, after      obtaining  the   approval  of   the      Government    in     the    General      Administration  Department,   adopt      such   method    or   methods    of      recruitment to  the  service  other      than those  specified in  the  said      sub-rule, as it may by order issued      in this behalf prescribe." 12.  Conditions of  eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment are  indicated in Rule 8. first part of the rule deals with  the requirement  of "age".  Sub-rule  (2)  which prescribes educational qualifications is quoted below:-      (2) educational  qualifications.  -      The  candidates  must  possess  the      educational           qualification      prescribed for the service as shown      in the Schedule III:      Provided that-      (a)  In   exceptional   cases   the      Commission     may,      on     the      recommendations of  the Government,      treat any  candidate  as  qualified      for  appearing  for  selection  who      though not  possessing any  of  the      qualifications prescribed  in  this      Clause,  has   passed   examination      conducted by  other institutions by      a standard which, in the opinion of      the   Commission    justifies   the      consideration of  the candidate for      selection.      (b) Candidates,  who are  otherwise      qualified but  have  taken  degrees      from   foreign   Universities   not      specifically  recognized   by   the      Government, may; also be considered      for selection  at the  direction of      the Commission. 13.  The educational  qualification prescribed  in  Schedule III is a Degree or Diploma in Engineering. 14.  Rule 13  provides for appointment by promotion. Rule 14 provides conditions  of eligibility  for promotion. Both the Rules are quoted below:      " 13.  Appointment  by  promotion.-      (1) There  shall be  constituted  a      Committee  consisting  the  members      mentioned in Schedule IV for making      a   preliminary    selection    for      promotion    of     the    eligible      candidates.      (2) The  committee  shall  meet  at      intervals ordinarily  not exceeding      one year.      (3) 15  percent and  18 percent  of      the   vacancies    available    for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

    promotion in  such posts  in  which      the percentage  of promotion  is 33      1/3 or  more as  specified  in  the      Schedule II,  shall be reserved for      the  candidates  belonging  to  the      Scheduled  Castes   and   Scheduled      Tribes   respectively    who    are      eligible    for     promotion    in      accordance with  the provisions  of      rule 14.      (4) The  procedure for promotion to      the reserved  vacancies shall be in      accordance  with   the  instruction      issued by  the  Government  in  the      General  Administration  Department      from time to time."      "14. Conditions  of eligibility for      promotion.-    subject    to    the      provisions  of  sub-rule  (2),  the      Committee shall, consider the cases      of all  those persons,  who, on the      first day  of January  of that year      had  completed   service  of   such      number   of   years,   whether   in      officiating     or      substantive      capacity, on  the post  from  which      promotion  is   to   be   made   as      specified in column (3) of Schedule      IV  and  are  within  the  zone  of      consideration  in  accordance  with      the provisions of sub-rule (2):      Provided that  the services  of the      released officers  of the Emergency      Commission   and    short   Service      Commission after  their appointment      in the  service, shall  be  counted      from the date from which, they have      been deemed  to have been appointed      in the  service in  accordance with      the General  Administration  Deptt.      Memo No. 2266/1987/1 (3) 67 dt. the      21st October, 1967.      Provided further  that  under  this      rule  no  junior  person  shall  be      considered   for    Select    Grade      Promotion  in   Preference  to  the      person senior  to him merely on the      basis   of   his   completing   the      proscribed service.      92) The  field of  selection  shall      ordinarily  be   limited  to  seven      times of  the number of officers to      be included  in the  select list in      respect of  posts to  be filled  on      the basis  of "merit-cum-seniority"      and  five   times  the   number  of      officers  to  be  included  in  the      select list  in respect of posts to      be   filled   on   the   basis   of      "seniority-cum-merit";      Provided that if required number of      suitable officers are not available      in the  field  so  determined,  the      field may be enlarged to the extent      considered   necessary    by    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

    committee by mentioning the reasons      in writing". 15.  Rule 15  provides for  the preparation  of  a  list  of officers found suitable for promotion. Rule 16 requires this list to  be sent  to the  Commission for  approval. Once the list is  approved by  the Commission,  it becomes the Select List  contemplated   by  Rule  17.  rule  18  provides  that appointment to  the service  shall be  made from  the Select List and  in making  appointment of the officers included in the Select  List, the  order in  which their names appear in the select  List shall  be strictly  adhered  to  except  as otherwise provided  in the Provision to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18.  Since   Rule  14  which  sets  out  the  conditions  of eligibility for promotion specifically refers to Schedule IV for purposes  of indicating  the number  of years of service which should have been completed by the officer concerned in order to  be eligible for promotion, the relevant provisions of Schedule IV are reproduced below:- "SCHEDULE IV (See Rule 13) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the  Name of the Minimum     Name of the Name of the Department   Service or  experience  service or  Members of              post from   for         post to     the              which       eligibility which       Departmental              promotion               Promotion   promotion              is to be                is to be    Committee              made                    made  (1)         (2)          (3)         (4)           (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Man Power     The Madhya Planning     Pradesh Depart-      Industrial ment         Training              (Gazetted              Service              ........... .........   .....         ...........              ........... .........   .....         ...........              Principal   3 years     Dy. Appren-   Director,              Class II                ticeship      Employ-                                      Adviser       ment and                                      (junior)      Training,                                      Principal,    Madhya                                      class I       Pradesh                                                    Member              Group Inst- 3 years     Principal              ructor/                Class II              Technical              Assistant /Jr.              Adviser, Appren-              ticeship/Mill              Wright Forman/              Superintendent,              Training provided              that they possess              the technical and              educational              qualifications              specified in              Column(5) of              Schedule III.              Group       10 year     Vice-              Instructor/             Principal              Technical              Assistant/

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

            Junior Adviser              Apprenticeship              /Mill Wright              Foreman/              Superintendent,              Technical, not              possessing              Diploma/              Degree              ........    ....        ............ 16.  It is  thus specifically  mentioned in Schedule IV that Group Instructor/Technical Assistant/Junior Advisor Etc. Who have completed  3 years  of service  would be  eligible  for promotion  to   the  post   of  principal,   Class  II.  the requirement  does not stop here. It proceeds further to say, "provided  they   possess  the   technical  and  educational qualification specified  in Column  (5)  of  Schedule  III". Reading Rules  13 and  14 along  with schedule  IV  as  also column (5)  of Schedule  III, it  becomes apparent  that  in order to be eligible for promotion to the post of principal, Class II,  the officer concerned should not only have put in 3 years of service but should also possess the technical and educational qualification  set out in Column (5) of schedule III, namely,  that they  should  have  either  a  Degree  or Diploma in  Engineering. Column  (5) of  Schedule III  which prescribes educational qualifications for direct recruitment thus becomes  a part  of Schedule  IV on  the principles  of "legislations  by   reference   or   incorporation."   These qualifications will,  therefore, be  applicable not  only to direct recruitment but also to promotions . 17.  Schedule    IV     also    indicates     that     Group Instructor/Technical        Assistant/Junior         Adviser Apprenticeship/Mill    Wright    Foreman,    Superintendent, Technical  who   do  not   possess  Degree   or  Diploma  in Engineering will  be eligible only for promotion to the post of Vice-principal provided that they have put in 10 years of service. 18.  Thus, the  Rules specifically  provide for promotion of both the  groups, namely,  those  who  hold  the  Degree  or Diploma in  Engineering and  those who  do not  possess this qualification.  Those  who  possess  Degree  or  Diploma  in Engineering can  be promoted to the post of Principal, Class II and  other higher posts indicated Schedule IV while those who do  not possess  such Degree  or Diploma can be promoted only up to the post of vice-principal. 19.  Admittedly, the  respondent does  not possess  either a Degree or  Diploma in  Engineering. He  possesses Diploma in Craft and consequently was not eligible for promotion to the post of principal, Class II or Class I. 20.  The Tribunal  failed to  notice the relevant provisions of the Service Rules in their true perspective and proceeded to allow  the claim  of the  respondent on an erroneous view that the  requirement of  possessing  a  Degree  or  diploma cannot be applied to appointments by way of promotion. 21.  The post  of Principal  whether it  is of  Class II  or Class  I   is  a   post  of   higher  responsibilities.  The administrative qualities  are mixed  and  blended  with  the academic achievements  of the  candidates and, therefore, it has been  specifically provided  in the Rules, specially the Schedule appended thereto, that the candidates, whether they are to  be appointed  by direct recruitment or by promotion, must possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering. 22.  Learned counsel for the respondent contended that since he had already been promoted to the post of principal, Class II and  was also  placed on  the post  of principal, Class I

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

before the  promulgation of  the  Rules,  his  promotion  as Principal cannot  be disturbed.  It is  contended  that  the Rules would  apply to  a situation  where the post was lying vacant  and   was  intended   to  be  filled  up  after  the promulgation of  the Rules. It is also contended that having worked on  the post  of Principal  since 1976,  he cannot be shifted to  the post  of Vice-Principal  after such  a  long period of  dedicated  service  on  the  higher  post.  These contentions are devoid of merit. 23.  It is  not disputed that the respondent was promoted to the post  of Principal,  Class II  for a short period of six months or  till the availability of candidates duly selected by the  commission, whichever  was earlier.  It is  also not disputed and the Tribunal itself has found it as a fact that the respondent  was placed  on the post of principal only in an ad  hoc capacity. Consequently, the post, having not been filled up  on a  regular basis in accordance with the Rules, was rightly  treated by  the appellant  to be  vacant.  That being so,  the respondent  had only  ad hoc  status which he would continue to hold till it was altered by the appointing authority. 24.  Government service  is essentially  a matter  of status rather than  a contract.  A Constitution Bench of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon Vs. Union of India (1968) 1 SCR 185 had observed as under:      " It  is true  that the  origin  of      Government service  is contractual.      There is an offer and acceptance in      every case.  But once  appointed to      his post  or office  the Government      servant acquires  a status  and his      rights  and   obligations  are   no      longer  determined  by  consent  of      both parties,  but  by  statute  or      statutory rules which may be framed      and  altered  unilaterally  by  the      Government.  In  other  words,  the      legal  position   of  a  Government      servant is  more one of status than      of  contract.   The  hall-mark   of      status is the and duties imposed by      the public  law  and  not  by  mere      emolument of the Government servant      and  his   terms  of   service  are      governed by  statute  or  statutory      rules  which  may  be  unilaterally      altered by  the Government  without      the consent  of the employee. It is      true   that    Art,   311   imposes      constitutional  restorations   upon      the power of removal granted to the      President and  the  Governor  under      Art, 310.  But it  is obvious  that      the   relationship    between   the      Government and  its servant  is not      like  an   ordinary   contract   of      service  between   a   master   and      servant. The  legal relationship is      something    entirely    different,      something in the nature off status.      It  is  much  more  than  a  purely      contractual            relationship      voluntarily  entered  into  between      the parties.  The duties  of status      are fixed  by the  law and  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    enforcement of these duties society      has an interest. In the language of      jurisprudence status is a condition      of membership  of a  group of which      powers and  duties are  exclusively      determined  by   law  and   not  by      agreement   between   the   parties      concerned. 25.  These observations were quoted with approval by another Constitution Bench  in Union  of India  & Anr.  vs. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 = 1985 (3)  SCC 398 = (1985) Suppl 2 SCR 131. A 9- judge Bench in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor  Congress. AIR  1991 SC  101 = 1991 (Supp.1) SCC 600 =  (1990) Supp.  1 SCR  142 also approved the principles laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon’s case (supra) that the legal relationship between  the Government  and  its  servants  is something entirely  different. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship and is in the nature of ’status’. 26.  Whether  a   persons  holds   a  particular  pos  in  a substantive capacity  or is  only temporary  or ad  hoc is a question which  directly relates  to his  status  .  It  all depends upon the terms of appointment. It is not open to any Government employee  to claim automatic alteration of status unless  that   result  is  specifically  envisaged  by  some provision in  the statutory  rules. Unless, therefore, there is a  provision in  the statutory  rules for  alteration  of status in  a particular  situation, it  is not  open to  any Government employee  to claim  a status  different than that which  was   conferred  upon  him  at  the  initial  or  any subsequent stage of service. 27.  Applying these  principles to  the instant  case, since the respondent,  admittedly, was  appointed  in  an  ad  hoc capacity, he  would continue to hold the post in question in that capacity.  On the promulgation of Rules, therefore, the post of  Principal which he was holding could not be treated to have  been filled  up on  regular basis  and  had  to  be treated as  vacant. In  order to make regular appointment by promotion  on   that  post,  the  eligible  candidates  were considered and  the respondent,  not possessing the required educational qualification, was not found fit or suitable for the post  of principal  and was consequently directed to the appointed on regular basis as Vice-principal as he was found suitable only  for that post principally for the reason that he did not possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering. 28.  It is  next contended  by the  learned counsel  for the respondent that  although the  respondent does not possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering, he has been working on the post of  principal for a long time and since he has acquired sufficient experience  on the  post  he  need  not,  in  the circumstances,  be   disturbed  by  reverting  him  as  Vice Principal. This plea is also without merits. 29.  Rule   8(2),    which    provides    for    Educational qualification, is  in mandatory  terms and  it is  mentioned therein   that "the  candidates must possess the educational qualification  prescribed   for  the  service  as  shown  in Schedule III."  In column  2 of  Schedule III,  the posts of Principal Class  I and  principal Class II are mentioned and in column  5 thereof,  it is  again mentioned  in  mandatory terms  that   "the  candidates  must  possess  a  Degree  in Engineering from any recognised University or must possess a Diploma in  engineering from  any recognised  University  or Board along  with five  years’ experience  of working in any Training Institute or in any reputed business concern." 30.  We   have   already   held   above   that   educational qualifications mentioned in column 5 of Schedule III for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

post of  Principal class  I or  Principal class  II are also applicable  to   appointments  by  promotion  and  that  the applicability of  column 5 of Schedule III is not restricted to direct appointments. In this situation, therefore, before a person  is eligible  for being  promoted to  the  post  of Principle class  II or  Principal Class I, he must possess a Degree or Diploma in Engineering. 31.  The plea  that the Court should have a "human approach" and should not disturb a person who has already been working on this  post for more than a decade also cannot be accepted as the  Courts are  hardly swayed  by emotional  appeals. In dispensing justice to the litigating parties, the courts not only go  into the  merits of the respective cases, they also try to  balance the  equities so  as to  do complete justice between them.  Thus  the  courts  always  maintain  a  human approach. In  the instant  case also, this approach  has not been  departed   from.  We  are  fully  conscious  that  the respondent had  worked on  the post  in question for quite a long time but it was only in ad hoc capacity. We are equally conscious that  a  selected  candidate  who  also  possesses necessary educational  qualification is  available. In  this situation, if  the respondent is allowed to continue on this post merely on the basis of his concept of "human approach", it would  be at  the cost  of a  duly selected candidate who would be  deprived of  cleared the selection. In fact, it is the  "human  approach"  which  requires  us  to  prefer  the selected candidate  over a person who does not  possess even the requisite qualification. The Courts as also the Tribunal have no  power to  override the  mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the  essential educational qualifications. should be allowed  to continue  on the  post merely on the basis of his experience.  Such an  order would  amount to altering or amending the  Statutory provisions  made by  the  Government under Article 309 of the Constitution. 32.  " Experience"  gained by  the respondent  on account of his working on the post in question for over a decade cannot be equated  with Educational  Qualifications required  to be possessed by  a candidate  as a condition of eligibility for promotion to higher posts. If the Government, in exercise of its executive power, has created certain posts, it is for it to prescribe  the mode  of appointment or the qualifications which have  to be   possessed  by the candidates before they are appointed  on  those  posts.  The  qualifications  would naturally vary  with the  nature of  posts   or the  service created by the Government. 33.  The post  in question  is the  post of Principal of the Industrial Training Institute. The Government has prescribed a  Degree   or  Diploma  in  Engineering  as  the  essential qualification of this post. No one who does not possess this qualification can be appointed on this post. The educational qualification has  direct nexus with the nature of the post. The principal  may also have an occasion to take classes and teach the  students. A  person who  does not  hold either  a Degree or  Diploma in  Engineering cannot possibly teach the students of Industrial Training Institute the technicalities of the subject of Engineering and its various branches. 34.  The respondent  having worked  in an ad hoc capacity on the post  of principal might have gained some administrative experience but  the same  cannot be treated as equivalent to his knowledge  in the  field of  Engineering. A  compounder, sitting  for   a  considerably   long  time  with  a  Doctor practicing  in   Modern  medicine,   may  have  gained  some experience by  observing  the  medicine  prescribed  by  the Doctor for  various diseases  or ailments  but that does not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

mean that  he, by  that process,  acquires knowledge  of the Human  Anatomy   or  Physiology   or   the   principles   of pharmacology or  the  field  of  action  of  any  particular medicine or  its side effects. The Compounder cannot, merely on the  basis of  experience, claim a post meant exclusively for persons  having MBBS or other higher degrees in medicine or surgery.  The plea  of experience,  therefore, must fail. Moreover, this would amount to a relaxation of Rule relating to educational  qualification. Power to relax the Rule vests exclusively in  the Governor  as provided  by Rule  21. This power cannot be usurped by the Court or the Tribunal. 35.  For the  reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed, the judgment  and order  dated 19.4.1994  passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal  is set aside and the claim petition of the  respondent is  dismissed but without any order as to costs.