http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: A. S. PARMAR & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/01/1984

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR  643            1984 SCR  (2) 476  1984 SCALE  (1)113  CITATOR INFO :  E&R        1987 SC 415  (1,2,3,8,9,14,15)  E&R        1987 SC 424  (11)  R          1989 SC2082  (3,4,6,11,12,15)

ACT:      Constitution of  India, Article  311  and  305  proviso thereto-Promotion employees from Class 11 service to class I service in  the P.W.D.  (Irrigation branch Punjab-Possession of a  degree is not a pre-requisite for promotion from class 11 .  class I  Service-Punjab service  of Engineer  Class 1, P.W.D.   (Irrigation   Branch   Rules,   1964   Rule   6(a), interpretation of      Promotion of  Assistant Engineers  in class ll service, not possessing  degree to  the cadre  of Executive Engineers Class 1,  but satisfying  the requirements  of clause (b) of Rule 6  of class  I Rules-Whether in order or whether Rule 6 (a) will be applicable- Comparison between Punjab Service of Engineers class  11 P.W.D,  (Buildings  and)  Roads  Branch) Rules 1965,  Rules 6  & 7  with Punjab  Service of Engineers class I.P. W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 6 (a) and 6 (b).

HEADNOTE:      Eight officers  including the  appellants  entered  the class II  service in  accordance with  tho Punjab Service of Engineers class  II, P.W.D.  (Buildings  and  Roads  Branch) Rules,  1965.   They  are   all  holders   of  diplomas   in Engineering. They  were promoted  alongwith nine others from the class  II service  to the  class I  service by  an order dated May 7, 1981, passed by the Haryana State Government on a temporary  basis subject to approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission.  In the  case  of  these  officers,  the Government of Haryana passed an order relaxing the condition of degree qualification in public interest. The above orders of promotion  in so far as these persons were concerned were questioned by  eleven officers  in the class II service, who were below  them in  the gradation  list  of  the  class  II service having  entered that  service in  1972 in  the  writ petition out  of which these appeals arise. The officers who filed the  said petition  were all  holders  of  degrees  in Engineering. Their  principal contention was that an officer in the class II service could not be promoted to the class I

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

service unless  he possessed  a  degree  in  Engineering  as prescribed by  Rule 6(a) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, class I,  P.W.D, (Buildings  and Roads  Branch) Rules,  1960 which governed the recruitment to the class I service in the State of  Haryana and  the relaxation  of  that  requirement alleged to  have been  ordered by  the State  Government  in exercise of the power under the tho proviso to Rule 6 (a) in the  case   of  the   officers  whose  promotions  had  been challenged was  illegal and  void. The Punjab & Haryana High Court  accepted   the  said  contention  and  dismissed  the petition. Hence the appeals after obtaining special leave of the Court,      Allowing the appeals the Court, ^      HELD: 1.1.  A degree  is not  a pre-requisite for being promoted from  the class  II service to the class I service. [493 D] 477      1.2. A  comparison between  the 1956 Rules and the 1964 Rules makes it A clear that there was no insistence upon the qualification of a degree in the said 1956 Rules in the case of the  promotees from  the class  II service. When the 1964 Rules of  the Irrigation  Branch, class  I were promulgated, the pattern of the Rules was changed. While doing so, in the new Rule  6, the word "directly" which was in the old Rule 7 was no  doubt omitted  but the  new Rule  6 referred to both kinds of appointment namely direct recruitment and promotion from the  class II  service. It  was  not  a  case  of  just reproducing the  old Rule 7 and omitting one word therefrom, but the  introduction of  a new  Rule  6  with  a  different structure. [493A-B]      O.P.  Bhatia  &  Anr.  v.  State  of  Haryana  &  Ors., ILR[1980]1 Punjab & Haryana 470. Overruled.      1.3. In  these cases, the State Government having first consumed Rule  6 of  the  class  I  Rules  required  that  a promotee should  also have  a degree,  tried to  relax  that condition by  making orders  relaxing as  it found  that its construction had  led to injust results. In view of the fact that the  question of  interpretation of  New Rule  6 of the class I  Rules was  raised, and  service Rule  6 (a)  of the class I Rules is not applicable to the class II officers who are to  be promoted  to the  class I  service, the  question whether  the  order  of  relaxation  made  in  the  case  of promotees is  validly passed or not becomes non-est. [493 E; 494B]      2.1. It  is indisputable  that if the Government wishes to appoint  only holders  or degrees to the class I service, it may  do so  by promulgating appropriate rules. That power is beyond  question, and  classification  on  the  basis  of educational qualifications  of officers belonging to a cadre for purposes  of promotion to a higher cadre is permissible. But, the  class I  Rules as  they now exist do not debar the promotion of  an Assistant  Engineer in the class II service who does  not possess  a degree  to the  cadre of  Executive Engineers even  when he satisfies the requirements of clause (b) of  Rule 6  of the  class I Rules and is selected by the Public Service Commission. [493 G-H]      2.2. Rule  6 of the class I Rules treats the possession of  a   degree  plus   the  selection   at  the  competitive examination and  the passing of the departmental examination af ter  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  of eight  years  plus  the  passing  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

departmental examinations  before promotion  of an Assistant Engineer in the Class II Service as sufficient qualification for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers. [487 E-F]      2.3 The  distinction between the two methods of filling the posts  of Executive  Engineer by  promotion is clear. If that post  is to  be filled  up by  promoting  an  Assistant Executive  Engineer,   the  Assistant   Executive  Engineer, concerned should  possess five  years experience  and should have passed  the Departmental Examination prescribed by Rule 15 of  the Class I Rules. If that post is to be filled up by promotion of  an Assistant Engineer in the class II Service, the Assistant  Engineer to  be promoted should possess eight years experience  in the  Class II  Service and  should have passed the  Departmental Examination  prescribed by Rule 15. That means  that whereas an Assistant Executive Engineer who is a  holder  of  a  degree  needs  have  only  five  years’ experience in  the Public  Works  Department,  an  Assistant Engineer in the Class [ [ Service who may or may not possess a degree  should have  eight years’ experience in the Public Works Department for being promoted to the cadre of 478 Executive Engineers.  This extra  experience of  three years appears to  have been  treated as  being sufficient  to make good the deficiency, if any, that may arise by reason of the Assistant Engineer  in the  Class II Service possessing only a. diploma and nota degree. [487 H; 488 A-C]      2.4. 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  Engineer would have to retire only  as a Class II officer and cannot hope to become an Executive  Engineer till  his retirement. If that was the intention, Rule  6 (b)  of the  Class  I  Rules  would  have contained necessary words conveying that meaning. Clause (b) of Rule  6 appears to be exhaustive of the qualifications of the Assistant  Engineers who  can seek  promotion  from  the Class II  Service to  the Class  I Service  So Rule 6 of the Class I  Rules will  read in  so far  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  provided in Rule 1  S" and  clause (a) of Rule 6 should be read as being applicable to the other mode of recruitment. [490 B-D]      3.  In  such  a  case,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the expertness of  the Class I Service would very much suffer if persons without  degrees but  with only diplomas are allowed to get  into it. In administrative and professional services a combination  of high  educational qualifications  and long experience is  always preferred  so that the services may be efficient  by   each  of   them  supplementing   the  other. Experienced administrators  have opined  that in  the higher cadres of  services high educational qualifications alone or long experience  alone would  not be in the interests of the public. In order to see that there is no lack of proficiency in the  higher post in the Class I Service, Rule S(2) of the Class I  Rules expressly  provides that  recruitment to  the Service shall  be so  regulated that  the  number  of  posts filled by  promotion from  the Class  IT Service  shall  not exceed fifty  per cent of the number of posts in the Class I Service  excluding   the  posts   of   Assistant   Executive Engineers. It  provides for  a  healthy  blend  of  the  two classes. The effect of Rule S(2) is that more than fifty per

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

cent of  the Class  I Service  posts would always be held by direct recruits  because the  strength of promotees from the Class II  Service cannot  be more than fifty per cent of the total strength  of the  class I  Service minus the number of Assistant Executive  Engineers. The promotees from the Class II Service  will, therefore,  always be  less than fifty per cent of  the total  strength of  the Class  I Service.  Even amongst them 26 out of 40 are graduates because of Rule 6 of the Class  II Rules  which prescribes  the quota  of  direct recruits who  should always  be the  holders of  degrees. So diploma holders  who may  get into  the Class  I Service  by promotion will  be only 14 out of 40 promotees. Therefore it cannot be  said that the 28 diploma holders with the minimum length of  experience prescribed  by clause (b) of Rule 6 of the Class  I Rules  who are  selected by  the Public Service commission on the basis of merit and suitability (see Rule 8 (43  of   the  Class  I  Rules)  and  with  the  educational qualifications they  may possess  as prescribed by the Class II Rules  would dilute  the Class I Service so much that the efficiency of  the Class  I Service would go down to such an extent that  the Class  I Service will become unequal to the tasks to  be performed  collectively by  the entire service. Further, if a Class II officer is found wanting in merit and is otherwise  unsuitable, he  would not  be selected  by the Public Service  Commission. This  is not  like a nurse in an operation the  atre carrying  out surgery.  Nor is it like a laboratory assistant  teaching stro-physics.  [488D-H; 489A- B;F-G] 479

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10585 & 10586 of 1983      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and order dated the 3rd March, 1983 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No. 2018 of 1981      F.S. Nariman  and P.C.  Bhartari for  the Appellant  in CA.10585/83      P.P.  Rao  and  Prem  Malhotra  for  the  Appellant  in CA.10586/83.      K.G. Bhagat,  Addl. Solicitor  General and R. N. Poddar for the State of Haryana.      S.K. Mehta,  P.N. Puri,  M.K.  Dua  and  EMS  Anam  for Respondents in Both the Appeals.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.  These appeals  are filed against the judgment dated March 3, 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2018 of 1981  on the  file of  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court quashing the  promotion of  eight officers  of the  Class II Engineering Service  of the  Haryana Public Works Department (Buildings and  Roads Branch)  (hereinafter referred  to  as ’the Class  II  Service’)  as  Executive  Engineers  in  the Haryana  Service   of  Engineers,   Class  I,  Public  Works Department  (Buildings   and  Roads   Branch)   (hereinafter referred to as ’the Class I Service’). The said officers are S.L. Gupta,  I.C. Dewan, S.K. Chopra, Bodh Raj, A.S. Parmar, O.P. Gupta,  Sumair Chand Jain and G.L. Sharma. They entered the Class  II Service  in accordance with the Punjab Service of Engineers,  Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the  Class  II Rules’) on  the dates  mentioned against  their names in the following table: ...........................................................

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

    Name           Date of entry          S. No. in the                     into Class II          gradation list of                     Service                Class II Service ............................................................ 1. S.L. Gupta         19.8.1969                   54 2. I.C. Dewan         29.1.1970                   68 3. S.K. Chopra        29.1.1970                   63 4. Bodh Raj           14.8.1969                   65 480 5 A S Parmar          20.2.1970                   66 6 O.P. Gupta          14.8.1969                   70 7. Sumair Chand Jain  10.4.1970                   71 8. G.L. Sharma        9.4. 1970                   72      They are  all holders of diplomats in Engineering. They do not  possess a  degree in Engineering. They were promoted alongwith nine others from the Class II Service to the Class I Service  by an  order dated  May 7,  1981  passed  by  the Haryana State  Government on  a temporary  basis subject  to approval of  the Haryana  Public Service  Commission. In the case of  these officers, the Government of Haryana passed an order relaxing  the condition  of  degree  qualification  in public ’C interest The above order of promotion in so far as these  persons  were  concerned  was  questioned  by  eleven officers in  the Class  II. Service,  who were below them in the gradation  list of the Class. II Service, having entered that service in 1972 in the writ petition out of which these appeals arise. The officers who filed the said petition were all holders  of  degrees  in  Engineering.  Their  principal contention was that an officer in the Class II Service could not be promoted to the Class I Service unless he possessed a degree in  Engineering as  prescribed by  Rule 6(a)  of  the Punjab Service  of Engineers, Class 1, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch)  Rules, 1960  (hereinafter referred to as ’the Class [  Rules’) which govern the recruitment to the Class I Service in  the State  of Haryana and the relaxation of that requirement alleged  to  have  been  ordered  by  the  State Government in  exercise of  the power  under the  proviso to Rule 6(a)  of the Class I Rules in the cases of the officers whose promotion had been challenged was illegal and void. It was, therefore,  urged  that  the  promotions  of  the  said persons should  be quashed.  The State  Government and-  the officers whose  promotions had  been challenged  stated that the order  of relaxation  was justified in the circumstances of the  case and  the  promotions  were  not  liable  to  be annulled. The question whether the qualification of a degree in Engineering  was necessary or not in the case of officers in the  Class II  Service for  promoting them to the Class I Service was,  however, not  raised before  the  High  Court. After hearing  the parties,  the High  Court held  that  the order of  relaxation passed  by  the  State  Government  was unsustainable and  hence the impugned promotions were liable to be  set aside.  Accordingly the writ petition was allowed quashing the  impugned promotions. Aggrieved by the judgment of the  High Court, these appeals have been filed by special leave of this Court.      Civil Appeal No. 10585 of 1983 is filed by A.S. Parmar, I.C. 481 Dewan and  S.K. Chopra.  Civil Appeal  No. 10586  of 1983 is filed  by S.L. Gupta, O.P. Gupta and Sumair Chand Jain. Bodh Raj and  G.L. Sharma  have  already  retired  from  service. Sumair Chand  Jain is stated to have died in May, 1983 after the special Leave Petition was filed. When the Special Leave Petitions out  of which  these appeals  arise  came  up  for orders on  March 23,  1983, a Bench of this Court consisting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

of three  learned Judges  (A.P. Sen,  Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra, JJ)  felt that  Rule 6(1)  of the  Class 1  Rules was prima facie not applicable to promotions made from the Class II  Service   to  the   Class  I   Service  and,  therefore, specifically raised  the  said  question  and  directed  the parties including  the State Government to address the Court on it.  Then on  November 25,  1983, a  Bench of  two Judges (A.P. Sen  and Venkataramiah,  JJ)  after  hearing  all  the parties granted  special  leave  to  appeal  to  this  Court limited to  the question  whether this  was a case of direct recruitment to  the Class  I Service  and therefore, whether Rule 6(a)  of the  Class I  Rules  was  applicable,  on  the assumption that  if it  was a  promotion from  the Class  II Service to  the Class  I Service,  Rule 6(a)  would  not  be applicable It  should be  mentioned here  that this question was not  argued before  the High Court apparently because of the decision  in O.P.  Bhatia &  Anr. v.  state of Haryana & ors.(1) in  which a  similar question  had arisen  under the rules applicable  to the  Irrigation Branch  of the  Haryana Public Works Department. The only point now argued before us relates to  the applicability  of Rule  6(a) of  the Class I Rules to  the promotions  referred to  above.  In  older  to determine the said question it is necessary to refer briefly to some  of the  provisions of the Class II Rules and of the Class I Rules.      Rule 6  of the Class II Rules provides that recruitment to the  Class II Service for cadre and ex-cadre posts should be  made  against  a  lot  of  40  posts  in  the  following proportions: (i) direct recruitment-26 posts, (ii) promotion from the members of Punjab P.W D. (B & R) Sectional officers (Engineering)  Service-8   posts,   (iii)   promotion   from draftsmen members  of the  Draftsmen and  Tracers  Service-2 posts, (iv) promotion from members of the Punjab P.W.D. (B & R) Sectional  officers Engineering Service and the Draftsmen members of  the Draftsmen and Tracers Service and possessing qualifications prescribed  in Appendix  ’B’ of  the Class II Rules-4 posts.  Rule 7  of the Class II Rules prescribes the qualifications for entry into Class II Service. It reads: 482      "(7) Qualifications:  No person  shall be  appointed to      the service unless he:-           (1) in  the case  of person  appointed  by  direct           appointment.           (a) possesses  one of  the degrees of a recognised      university  or   other  qualification   prescribed   in      Appendix ’B’.           (b) obtains  from the  Standing  Medical  Board  a      certificate of  mental and physical fitness after being      examined in  accordance with the regulations prescribed      in Appendix  ’C’  and  is  considered  by  the  Medical      Authority to  be fit in all respects for active outdoor      duties;           (c) is  a person with a satisfactory character and      antecedents, verification  in respect of which shall be      arranged through  appropriate Government  agency except      in case  where such  verification may have already been      made at the time of his entry into Government Service.           (2) In  the case  of appointment by promotion from      sources 2  and 3  under rule  6(1) is  a member  of the      Punjab PWD  (B &  R) Sectional  officers  (Engineering)      Service, or  a Draftsman  member of  the B  & R  Branch      Draftsmen and  Tracers Service and has put in a service      of ten years;           (3)(i) In  case of  the appointment  by  promotion      from source 4 under rule 6(1) is a member of the Punjab

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

    PWD. (B  & R)  Branch Draftsmen  &  Tracers’  Sectional      officers Engineering  Service or  a Draftsman member of      the B & R Branch Draftsmen and Tracers Service.           (ii) Possesses  any of the qualifications included      in Appendix  ’B’ and  has put  in five years service in      case he possesses A.M.I.S. qualifications and two years      service in case he is a degree holder.           (4) In  case of appointment by transfer, possesses      the qualifications  prescribed for  the members  of the      service.           (5) Has  not more  than one  wife living or in the      case of  woman, is  not married  to  a  person  already      having a wife living. 483           Provided that the Government may if satisfied that      there   are special  grounds for  doing so,  exempt any      person from the operation of this clause."      It is  thus seen that in the Class II Service 26 out of 40 vacancies  are filled  up  by  direct  recruits  who  are holders of degrees in Engineering of recognised universities or other  equivalent qualifications. 10 vacancies are filled up by promotion from sources (2) and (3) of Rule 6(1) of the Class II  Rules of  members who  have put  in ten  years  of service and the remaining 4 vacancies are to be filled up by promotions from  the fourth  source referred to in Rule 6(1) of the  Class II Rules of persons who possess the prescribed qualifications and  have put  in five  years  or  two  years service, as  the case may be. The direct recruitment is made on the  basis of a competitive examination held by the State Public Service  commission and  promotions are  made on  the basis of  recommendations  made  by  a  Selection  Committee presided over  by the  Chairman or  a Member  of the  Public Service Commission  on the  basis of  merit and  suitability with due  regard to  seniority. The  members of the Class II Service are designated as Assistant Engineers (See Rule 4 of the Class  II Rules)  and they  are officers incharge of sub divisions or  incharge of  posts of  equal responsibility in the Public  Works Department  (Building and  Roads  Branch). They are Gazetted Officers.      We shall  now proceed  to deal  with the Class I Rules. The Class  1  Service  comprises  of  four  cadres-Assistant Executive  Engineers,  Executive  Engineers,  Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers (Rule 3). A member of service’ means an officer appointed substantively to a cadre post and includes (a) in the case of direct appointment an officer on probation  cr   such  an  officer  who  having  successfully completed his  probation awaits  appointment to a cadre post and in the case of appointment by transfer an officer who is on  probation  or  who  having  successfully  completed  his probation awaits  appointment to  a cadre post provided such officer does  not have  a lien  on a substantive post in any Government  Department  (Rule  2(12)).  Assistant  Executive Engineer’ means  a member of the service in the junior scale of pay.  (Rule 2(2)).  All others in the Class I Service are in the  senior scale  or in  a higher  scale. Rule  5 of the Class 1  Rules provides  that the  recruitment  to  Class  I Service shall  be made  by the Government in any one or more of the  following methods (i) by direct appointment, (ii) by transfer of  an officer  already in  the service  of a State Government or  of he  Union or (iii) by promotion from Class 11 Service.  All first  direct appointments  to the  Class I Service can  be only  to the  posts of  Assistant  Executive Engineer (Rule 5(4)). An 484 officer promoted  from  the  Class  II  Service  has  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

recruited to  the cadre  of Executive Engineers (Rule 5(5)). The posts  of  Executive  Engineers  can  be  filled  up  by promotion of  Assistant Executive  Engineers also  (Rule 9). ’Direct  appointment’   means   an   appointment   by   open competition but  does not  include  (a)  an  appointment  by promotion and  (b) an  appointment by transfer of an officer already in the service of a State Government or of the Union (Rule 2(7)).  The Explanation  to Rule  2(7) provides that a Class II  officer who  enters the  Class l  Service by  open competitive selection  shall, for  the purposes  of Class  I Rules, he  deemed to  have entered  the Class  I Service  by direct appointment. This means that a member of the Class II Service can  either be  recruited directly  to the  cadre of Assistant Executive  Engineers (vide  Rule 5(4)) or promoted to the  cadre or  Executive Engineers. (vide Rule S(S)). Now we set out below Rule 6 of the Class T Rules which lays down the qualifications  for entering the Class I Service. Rule 6 reads:           "6. Qualifications-No person shall be appointed to      the Service, unless he-           (a) possesses  one of  the University  Degrees  or      other qualifications  prescribed in Appendix B of these      rules:  Provided   that  Government   may  waive   this      qualification in  the  case  of  a  particular  officer      belonging to Class 11 Service,           (b) in  the case  of an  appointment by  promotion      from Class II Service has eight years completed service      in  Class   IT;  and   has  passed   the   Professional      Examination of  the Department  as provided  in rule 15      infra           (c) being  a person to be appointed to the service      by  direct   recruitment,  obtains  from  the  Standing      Medical Board  a certification  of mental  and physical      fitness after  being examined  in accordance  with  the      regulations prescribed in Appendix and is considered by      the Medical  Authority to  be lit in all respects r.. ,      active outdoor duties:           (d) is  a person with a satisfactory character and      antecedents, verification  in respect of which shall be      arranged through  appropriate Government  Agency except      in cases where such  verification may have already been      made at the time of his entry into Government service; 485           (e) has  not more  than one wife living or, in the      case of  a woman  is not  married to  a person  already      having a wife living;           Provided that  Government may,  if satisfied  that      there are  special grounds  for doing  so,  exempt  any      person from the operation of this condition.      Clause (a)  of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules says that no person shall be appointed to the Service unless he possesses one  of  the  University  degrees  or  other  qualifications prescribed in  Appendix ’B’  of the  Class I  Rules.  It  is further provided  therein that  Government  may  waive  this qualification in  the case of a particular officer belonging to the  Class II  Service Clause  (a) of  Rule  6  no  doubt applies to  all direct  recruitments. If  a Class II officer seeks-to enter  the Class  T Service  by direct  recruitment i.e. by  recruitment by  open competition as provided by the Explanation to  Rule 2(7),  he should  possess a  degree  as provided in  Rule 6(a) unless under the proviso to Rule 6(a) Government waives  the said  qualification in  his  case.  A direct recruit  has also  to satisfy the condition in clause (c) of  Rule 6  which deals with the production of a medical certificate as  provided therein and the condition in clause

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

(d) of  Rule 6  which provides  for the  verification of his character and antecedents except where such verification may have already  been made  at  the  time  of  his  entry  into Government service.  He should  also  not  suffer  from  the disqualification mentioned in clause (e) of Rule 6. A direct recruit shall  also have to comply with Rule 15 of the Class I Rules  which provides  that unless he has not already done so, he  should pass such departmental examination and within such period as may be prescribed by the Government      Rule 6(b)  of the  Class I Rules provides that ’’in the case of  an appointment  by promotion  from Class II Service (the officer)  has eight years completed service in Class II and  has   passed  the   professional  examination   of  the Department as  provided in Rule 15". The question is whether an officer  in the  Class II Service should satisfy both the qualification mentioned in clause (a) and the qualifications mentioned in clause (b) of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules or he should satisfy  only the qualifications under clause (b) for purposes of  promotion to the Class I Service. If clause (b) of Rule  6 had  contained the words ’also’ or in addition to what is  contained in  clause (a) or any other word cr words conveying that  meaning, there would have been no difficulty in construing  that clause  as then  it would  have  clearly meant that  an officer  in the  Class II  Service who  seeks promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers should possess a degree as provided in 486 clause (a)  unless it  has been waived by the Government and should also  satisfy the conditions mentioned in clause (b). But we do not find any such words in clause (b) of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules. Clause (b) of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules opens with  the words  ’in the  case of  an  appointment  by promotion from  Class II  Service’. It deals with a separate and distinct  class of  persons who  are to  be recruited by promotion  from  the  Class  II  Service  to  the  cadre  of Executive Engineers. The question whether all the clauses in Rule 6  should be  read cumulatively  or separately  depends upon the  structure of the sentences and the contents of the different clauses.  In Rule 6, we do not have the word ’and’ used at the end of any of the clauses (a) to (d), clause (e) being the  last one.  Clause (c) of Rule 6 deals with only . direct recruits  and does not apply to promotees and that is clear by  its language. Clause (d) of Rule 6 applies only to direct recruits who enter the service for the first time and those persons  who are  already in Government service and in whose case the verification of character and antecedents has not already  been done.  Clause (e) of Rule 6 can apply only to those who enter the service for the first time and cannot apply to  those who  are already  in the  Class  II  Service before appointment to the Class I Service because there is a corresponding provision  even in the Class II Rules creating a  similar  disqualification  for  being  appointed  to  the Government service  in Rule  7(5) of the Class II Rules. Now we are  left with clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules. In Rule 7 of the Class II Rules (which is extracted in the  earlier part  of this  judgment) which are analogous Rules dealing  with the  qualifications for  entry into  the Class II  Service there  is no room for doubt for clause (1) begins with  the words  ’in the  case of person appointed by direct recruitment: clause (2) begins with the words ’in the case of  appointment by  promotion from  sources (2) and (3) under Rule  6(1) clause  (3) begins  with the  words ’in the case of  the appointment  by promotion  from source  4 under Rule 6(1)  and clause (4) begins with the words ’in the case of appointment  by transfer’.  Each of  the above clauses is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

apparently an  independent clause.  It  means  that  persons falling under  one clause do not fail under any of the other clauses and they start excluded from the other clauses. Each clause deals  with a specific class. Even though the opening words of  Rule 7  cf the Class II Rules are "No person shall be appointed  to the Service unless he" as they are found in Rule 6 of the Class I Rules also these words have to be read with each  of the  clauses (I) to (1) of Rule 7 of the Class II Rules  If the  same method  is adopted  in  the  case  of clauses (a)  and (b)  of Rule  6 of  the Class I Rules, then there would  be no  room for ambiguity. Clause (a) of Rule 6 seems to apply to direct appointments to the 487 Class I  Service which  ordinarily can  be to  the posts  of Assistant Executive  Engineers in view of clause (4) of Rule 5 of the Class I Rules and only in exceptional circumstances for reasons  to be  recorded in  writing  to  the  posts  of Executive Engineers.  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 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 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 concerned it is seen  that   as  regards   Class  II  officers  the  minimum educational qualifications  which they  should possess  have been fixed  in the  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 Rule treats the possession 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  of eight  years  plus  the  passing  of  the departmental examinations  before promotion  of an Assistant Engineer in  the Class ll Service a sufficient qualification for promotion  to the  cadre of  Executive Engineers. We may here note  that under  Rule 9(3)  of the  Class I  Rules  an Assistant Executive  Engineer who  is recruited  directly to the Class  I Service  would not be eligible for promotion to the post  of Executive  Engineer unless he was rendered five years service  as an  Assistant Executive  Engineer and  has passed the Departmental Professional Examination as provided in Rule 15 of the Class I Rules.      The distinction  between the two methods of filling the posts of  Executive Engineers  by promotion is now apparent. If that  post is  to be  filled up by promoting an Assistant Executive Engineer, the 488 Assistant Executive  Engineer concerned  should possess five

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

years experience  and should  have passed  the  Departmental Examination prescribed  by Rule  15 of the Class I Rules. If that post  is to  be filled  up by promotion of an Assistant Engineer in  the Class  II Service the Assistant Engineer to be promoted  should possess  eight years  experience in  the Class II  Service and  should have  passed the  Departmental Examination prescribed  by Rule  15. That means that whereas an Assistant  Executive Engineer who is a holder of a degree need have  only five  years’ experience  in the Public Works Department, an  Assistant Engineer  in the  Class II Service who may or may not possess a degree should have eight years’ experience in the Public Works Department for being promoted to the  cadre of  Executive Engineers. This extra experience of three  years  appears  to  have  been  treated  as  being sufficient to  make good  the deficiency,  if any,  that may arise by  reason of  the Assistant  Engineer in the Class II Service possessing only a diploma and not a degree.      It is  seriously urged that the expertness of the Class I Service  would very much suffer if persons without degrees but with  only diplomas  are allowed  to get  into it. It is not, however, suggested that no diploma holder has ever been promoted to the Class I Service in our country. While we are aware of  the difference between the proficiency of a person with a  degree who  enters service by direct recruitment and of a  person who  is promoted  after he has acquired certain experience in  the same  kind of  work in  a lower cadre, we should  state   that  in   administrative  and  professional services a  combination of  high educational  qualifications and long experience is always preferred so that the services may be  efficient by  each of  them supplementing the other. Experienced administrators  have opined  that in  the higher cadres of  services high educational qualifications alone or long experience  alone would  not be in the interests of the public. It  is true that it is not wise to have only persons with diplomas  in all  the posts  in the Class I Service. In order to  see that  there is  no lack  of proficiency in the higher posts  in the Class I Service, Rule 5(2) of the Class I Rules  expressly provides  that recruitment to the Service shall be  so regulated  that the  number of  posts filled by promotion from  the Class  II Service shall not exceed fifty percent of  the number  of posts  in  the  Class  I  Service excluding the  posts of  Assistant Executive  Engineers.  It provides for a healthy blend of the two classes. What is the effect of this clause ? More than fifty percent of the Class I Service  posts would  always be  held by  direct  recruits because the  Strength of promotees from the Class II Service cannot be  more than fifty per cent of the total strength of the Class 1 Service minus the 489 number of  Assistant Executive Engineers. The promotees from the A  Class II Service will, therefore, always be less than fifty per cent of the total strength of the Class I Service. Even. amongst  them 26  out of  40 are  graduates because of Rule 6  of the  Class II Rules which prescribes the quota of direct recruits who should always be the holders of degrees. S..) diploma holders who may get into the Class I Service by promotion will  be only  14 out of 40 promotees. It would be easier to ascertain now many non-degree holders can get into the Class  I Service  by the  following illustration. (Note: This illustration is adopted without reference to the actual strength in  the Class  I Service). Let us assume that there are 240  Class I  posts and  out of  them 40  are  posts  of Assistant Executive  Engineers. Then  there will  be in  the Class I Service:      40    Assistant  Executive Engineers  who are graduates

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

         (because of Rule 6(a) of the Class I Rules).      80   Being 50%-of 200-40-160 degree holders (because of           Rule S(2) of the Class I Rules).      52    Degree  holders at  the rate of 26 out of 40 from           amongst 80  promotees (because  of Rule  6 of  the           Class II Rules). ............................................................ Total: 172 ...........................................................      The balance  of 28  posts alone  will be  available for diploma holders.  Can it be said that the 28 diploma holders with the  minimum length  of experience prescribed by clause (b) of  Rule 6  of the Class I Rules who are selected by the Public  Service   Commission  on  the  basis  of  merit  and suitability (see  Rule 8(4)  of the  Class I Rules) and with the  educational   qualifications  they   may   possess   as prescribed by  the Class  II Rules  would dilute the Class I Service so  much that  the efficiency of the Class I Service would go  down to  such an  extent that  the Class I Service will  become   unequal  to   the  tasks   to  be   performed collectively by the entire Service ? It has also to be noted that if  a Class II officer is found wanting in merit and is otherwise .  unsuitable, he  would not  be selected  by  the Public Service  Commission. This  is not  like a nurse in an operation theatre  carrying out  surgery. Nor  is it  like a laboratory assistant  teaching astrophysics.  Who are  after all these members of the Class II Service who seek promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers ? They are all Assistant Engineers who  have held  the office  of a  Sub-Division for eight years, Even 490 amongst these  diploma holders  who are  so selected  by the Public Service  Commission how  many can possibly reach even the cadre  of Superintending  Engineers, let alone the cadre of Chief  Engineers in view of their entering the Government service earlier  than the  direct recruits  ? 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  Engineer would have to retire only  as a Class II Officer and cannot hope to become an Executive  Engineer till  his retirement. If that was the intention, Rule  6(b)  of  the  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 from the Class II Service to  the Class I Service. So read Rule 6 of the Class 1 Rules  will read  in so far 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  provided in Rule 15"  and clause  (a) of  Rule 6 should be read as being applicable to the other mode of recruitment.      Our attention  is drawn  by the learned counsel for the petitioners in  the writ petition out of which these appeals arise to the decision in O.P. Bhatia’s case (supra) in which a rule  similar to  Rule 6  of the  Class I  Rules arose for consideration. That  Rule is Rule 6 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class  I, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964. The relevant  part of  Rule 6  of the said Irrigation Branch Rules reads as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

         "6. Qualifications-No person shall be appointed to      the Service unless he-           (a) possesses  one of  the University  Degrees  or      other qualifications  prescribed in  Appendix of  these      rules;           Provided   that    Government   may   waive   this      qualification in  the  case  of  a  particular  officer      belonging to Class II Service;           (b) in  case of  an appointment  by promotion from      Class II  Service,  has  completed  in  that  class  of      Service, for a period 491      of ten  years from the commencement of these rules, six      years  service   and  after  that  period  eight  years      services           Provided that  if it  appears to  be necessary  to      promote  an   Officer  in   the  public  interest,  the      Government may  for reasons  to be recorded in writing,      either generally  or in  any individual case reduce the      period of  six or  eight years to such extent as it may      deem  proper   in   consultation   with   the   Finance      Department.      Explanation-For  the   purposes  of   this  clause   in      computing the  period of six or eight years any service      rendered as  a temporary  Engineer shall  be taken into      account..... "      The High  Court held  in that case that a member of the Class II  Service in  the Irrigation  Branch of  the  P.W.D. should possess  a degree to be eligible to be promoted as an Executive Engineer  in the Class I Service in the Irrigation Branch of the P.W.D. The High Court was of the view that the omission of  the word ’directly which was in . Rule 7 of the 1956 Rules  which were  replaced by  the  Irrigation  Branch Rules of  1964 led  to the  inference that  Rule 6(a) of the 1964 Rules was applicable both to the direct recruitment and promotions from the Class It Service. In order to understand the above  reason, we  have ourselves  looked into  the said 1956 Rules.  Rule 7  of the said 1956 Rules which dealt with only direct appointments to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers read as follows :           "7.  Qualifications   for  appointment.-No  person      shall be appointed directly to the Service unless he-           (a) possesses  one of  the university  degrees  or      other qualifications  prescribed in  Appendix to  these      rules;           (b) has in the case of a candidate for appointment      on the advice of the Commission passed such competitive      examination or  such other  test as  the Commission may      prescribe for appointment to the Service; and           (c) has  obtained from a Standing Medical Board in      the State  of  Punjab,  a  certificate  of  mental  and      physical fitness  as prescribed  by the  regulations in      Appendix C  and is considered by the Board to be fit in      all respects for active outdoor duty; 492           Provided that in the case of officers belonging to      the Class  II Service  the State  Government may, after      consultation   with    the   Commission,    waive   the      qualifications required by clause (a):           Provided further  that other  things being  equal,      preference will be given to a candidate who has himself      worked for  the cause  of national  independence or has      rendered some out standing social or public service."      The  above  Rule  did  not  contain  any  reference  to recruitment by  promotion from  the Class  II Service to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

post of  Executive Engineer.  The promotion  to the cadre of Executive Engineers  was dealt  with by  Rule 15 of the said 1956 Rules.  Sub-rule (7)  of Rule 15 of the said 1956 Rules read as under.           "15. (7)  A member  recruited  by  promotion  from      Class  II.   Service,  who  is  reported  to  be  fully      qualified to hold charge of a Division will be promoted      as Executive Engineer on completing 10 years qualifying      service as  in sub-rule  4 above,  but  such  promotion      shall not establish the right to be placed in charge of      a Division  or draw  pay in  the senior  scale  of  pay      unless a Divisional charge is available."      Clause (4)  of Rule 15 of the said 1956 Rules laid down the method  of determining ten years of service in the Class II Service as follows.           "15. (4)  In the case of members promoted from the      Punjab Service  of Engineers,  Class II, the equivalent      length of  Service shall  determine the seniority. This      will be worked out as under:-           (a)  Service in  the Punjab  Service of Engineers,                Class I Full           (b)  Service in  the Punjab  Service of Engineers,                Class II 0.8           (c)  Service as Temporary Engineer 0.64           (d)  Service as officiating Sub-Divisional officer                or Assistant  Design Engineer  (Non-gazetted)                0.4" 493      There was  no insistence  upon the  qualification of  a degree in  the said 1956 Rules in the case of promotees from the Class  II Service. when the 1964 rules of the Irrigation Branch, Class  I were  promulgated, the pattern of the Rules was changed.  While doing  so, in  the new  Rule 6, the word ’directly’ which  was in the old Rule 7 was no doubt omitted but the  new Rule  6 referred to both kinds of appointment,. namely, direct  recruitment and  promotion from the Class II Service. It  was not a case of just reproducing the old Rule 7 and  omitting one word therefrom but the introduction of a new Rule  6 with  a different structure. The High Court also appears to  have overlooked while relying upon Rule 9 of the Irrigation Branch  Rules of  1964 that  the proviso  to Rule 6(a) of  the said  Rules was  applicable only  to a Class II officer who wanted to get into the Class I Service by direct recruitment as  provided in  the Explanation to Rule 2(7) of the  Irrigation  Branch  Rules  which  corresponded  to  the Explanation to  Rule 2(7) of the Class I Rules with which we are  concerned.   The  High   Court  has  not  examined  the Irrigation Branch  Rules as  fully as  we have  examined the Class I  Rules. The  judgment of  the  High  Court  is  very cryptic. We  do not  agree with its conclusion that a degree is a  pre-requisite for  being promoted  from the  Class  II Service to  the Class  I Service  for the  reasons  we  have already given above.      In  these  cases  the  State  Government  having  first construed that  Rule 6  of the Class I Rules required that a promotee should  also have  a degree,  tried to  relax  that condition by  making orders relaxing it as it found that its construction had  led to unjust results. It did not make any attempt to reconsider its interpretation of Rule 6 even when the matter  came up  before the High Court. It only tried to justify the order of relaxation but ultimately failed in its attempt. It  is only  in this  Court that  the  question  of interpretation of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules was raised.      It is  indisputable that  if the  Government wishes  to appoint only  holders of  degrees to the Class I Service, it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

may do  so by  promulgating appropriate Rules. That power is beyond question and it is not, therefore, necessary to refer to those decisions which lay down that classification on the basis of educational qualifications of officers belonging to a cadre  for purposes  of promotion  to a  higher  cadre  is permissible.  The  question,  however,  in  these  cases  is whether the  Class I  Rules as  they  now  exist  debar  the promotion of  an Assistant  Engineer in the Class II Service who does  not possess  a egree  to the  cadre. Of  Executive Engineers even  when he satisfies the requirements of clause (b) of  Rule 6  of the  Class I Rules and is selected by the Public 494 Service Commission. Our answer is in the negative.      Since Rule  6(a) of the Class I Rules is not applicable to the Class II officers who are to be promoted to the Class I Service, the question whether the order of relaxation made in the case of the promotes is validly passed or not becomes immaterial. We,  therefore, set  aside the  judgment of  the High Court  and dismiss  the writ  petition filed before the High Court.  Since we  have disposed  of these  appeals on a ground different  from the  ground  urged  before  the  High Court, we express no opinion on the validity of the order of relaxation      For the  foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed but in the  circumstances of  the cases  without any order as to costs. S. R.                                       Appeals allowed. 495