Civil Appeal Nos
2 16687  2 14684
From the Judgment and Order dated 266
1987  1611
1983 of the Bombay High Court in WP Nos
216186 and 500 of 1983
VA Bobde
RN Keshwani AG Ratnaparkhi and SD Mudaliar for the Appellant
523 SB Bhasme Dr NM Ghatate SV Deshpande and AS Bhasme for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V RAMASWAMI J
The interpretation of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Ground Water Service Class I Recruitment Rules
1976 hereinafter called the rule  arises for consideration in these appeals
That Rule related to the appointment to the post of a Deputy Director in Maharashtra Ground Water Service Class I and the relevant portions of it as is stood in 1983 read as follows 31 Appointment to the post of a Deputy Director in the Maharashtra Ground Water service Class 1 shall be made either a by promotion from amongst Senior Geologists in the Ground Water Surveys and Development Agency of Government possessing the qualifications mentioned in sub clauses ii and iii of Clause c of this sub rule b by transfer of a suitable officer from the Department of Geology and Mining of Government c by nomination from amongst the candidates who i unless already in the service of Government are not more than 45 years of age on the first day of the month in which the post is advertised and ii Possess a post graduate degree in Geology or Applied Geology of a recognised University or Diploma in Applied Geology of the Indian School of Mine Dhanbad or any quali fications recognised by Government to be equivalent thereto and iii have practical experience in the field of a carrying out systematic hydro geological surveys in ingeneous sedi mentary and metamorphic terrains b ground water explora tion and assessment by drilling and testing and c process ing interpretation of field date and in preparing and editing technical reports for a total period of ten years out of which three years
experience shall be in organising
supervising and guiding field units
 We are now concerned with the case of promotion from amongst the Senior Geologists under Sub Clause a of Rule 31 of the Rules
524 The appellant herein joined in the Agricultural Depart ment of the State some time in the year 1963 and at that time he possessed the qualification of BSc
with Geology as a principal subject
He was promoted as Senior Geologist on 256 1979
He passed his MSc
Geology in 1982 with first class and he was also first in the Nagpur University in the subject of pure Geology
He is also the senior most in the seniority list of senior Geologists
He was also holding the additional charge as Deputy Director from 166
1982 for quite some time
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission by the notification dated 21st May 1983 called applications for direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Director in the Ground Water Survey and Development Agency
which is gov erned by Rule 31c of the Rules
In regard to the quali fication for appointment the advertisement stated Qualifications Candidates must possess i A post graduate degree in Geology or Applied Geology of a recognised University or Diploma in Applied Geology of the Indian School of Mines Dhanbad or any qualification recog nised by Govt to be equivalent thereto ii 10 years practical experience in the field of a Carrying out systematic hydrological surveys in ingene ous sedimentary and metamorphic terrains
b Ground water exploration and assessment by drilling and testing and c Processing interpretation of field data and in prepar ing and editing technical reports of which three years  experience shall be in organising supervising and guiding field units
NB 1 The academic qualifications and experience ac quired upto the last date prescribed for receipt of applica tions alone will be taken into account in determining the eligibility of candidates for the posts and for selecting them for the interview
2 Academic qualification shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date on which the result of the relevant examination is declared by the competent authority
3 Experience acquired after obtaining the prescribed 525 academic qualifications only will be taken into account
 The appellant applied to the Service Commission but he was not called for an interview on the ground that he acquired the post graduate degree in Geology only in the year 1982 and he does not possess the necessary qualification of 10 years practical experience after obtaining the post graduate degree
The appellant filed Writ Petition No 500 of 1983 before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad contending that rule 31c of the Maharashtra rules does require the practical experience after obtaining the quali fication of a post graduate degree in Geology and the in sistence on such experience after obtaining the prescribed academic qualification was illegal
In this connection he contended that sub clauses ii and iii of clause c of Rule 31 of the rules are two independent requirements that they have to be read disjunctively and the experience required under subclause iii need not be after possessing the basic educational qualification of a post graduate degree in Geology
This contention was not accepted by a Division Bench of that Court and by order dated 16
1983 Writ Petition No 500 of 1983 was dismissed
Against that judgment the appellant has preferred Civil Appeal No 2146 of 1984
While granting special leave this Court in its order dated 164
1984 observed The Government will decide itself as to whether the petitioner should or should not be reverted
However it appears the petitioner was reverted on 47 1985 to the position of Senior Geologist
Subsequently the Government created a new post of Deputy Director Ground Water Survey at Aurangabad
This post was sought to be filled by promotion under Rule 31a of the rules by the Selection Committee
The appellant was selected and appoint ed as Deputy Director on 1412
This appointment was challenged under Writ Petition No 2161 of 1986 on the file of Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by one Bhaiyya so Govindrao Karale on the ground that even for promotion from amongst the Senior Geologists the candidate should possess not only a post graduate degree in Geology but also IO years experience posterior to such acquisition of post graduate degree and that since the appellant does not have the neces sary experience he is not qualified to be promoted under clause a of Rule 31 of the rules
This Division Bench also took similar view as in the earlier case and by an order dated 26th June 1987 the writ petition was allowed and the selection and promotion of the appellant as Deputy Director under Rule 31a of the rules was also quashed
Against this judgment Civil Appeal 2 166 of 1987 has been filed
When this appeal was pending the Government of Maha rashtra amended Rule 31a by 526 substituting for the words sub clauses ii and iii of clause c the words sub clause ii of clause c
Thus the requirement of 10 years experience mentioned in sub clause iii of clause c was deleted in respect of ap pointment by promotion
In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government it is stated that this was done because in the case of a promotion the requirement of 10 years experience subsequent to the acquisition of post graduate degree in Geology was redundant and therefore
should not be insisted upon and it is in that view the rule was amend ed
However in direct recruitment the 10 years experience after acquiring the post graduate qualification was re tained
On the interpretation of the rule prior to its amendment which was relevant for considering Civil Appeal No 2 146 of 1984 we are of the view that the view taken by the Aurangabad bench does not call for any interference
Normally when we talk of an experience unless the context otherwise demands it should be taken as experience after acquiring the minimum qualifications required and
there fore
necessarily will have to be posterior to the acquisi tion of the qualification
However in the case of a promo tion the same interpretation may not be just or warranted
It would depend on the relevant provisions as also the particular type of experience which is required
However
this need not detain us because as we have already stated the Government have now omitted the requirement of experi ence by the said Amendment
The Amendment was made on 16th February
1988 and published in the Gazette on 243
Though the Rule does not say anything about its retrospec tive operation there could be no doubt that it is retroac tive
This amendment shall be deemed to apply to the present case as well especially when the matter is pending in this Court and this appointment is with reference to a case of promotion and appointment It is true that at the time when the appellant was promoted the Rule had not been amended
However it may also be mentioned that the appellant is the senior most among the Senior Geologists and even if he is to be considered again trader the amended rules he shall have to be appointed and nothing is stated in these proceedings which would disqualify him even now
In the circumstances we are of the view that the appeal against the decision in Writ Petition No 2161 of 1986 will have to be allowed though Civil Appeal No 2146 of 1984 will have to be dismissed
Accordingly we allow Civil Appeal No 2166 of 1987 set aside the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No 2161 of 1986
Civil Appeal No 2146 of 1984 is however dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
GN CA No 216687 allowed
and CA No 214685 dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners are the wives of three detenus who had been detained under an order dated 10th November 1989 passed under subsection 1 of section 3 of the against each of them with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods 
The order of detention as well as the grounds of detention dated November 10 1989 were served on the three detenus on 21st November 1989 while they were already in jail custody on remand following their arrest at the Sahar International Airport on October 5 1989 when on suspicion they were searched which resulted in the recovery of diamonds precious stones and foreign currency which they had planned to smuggle out
Thereafter on Decem ber 20 1989 a declaration under section 91 of the Act was passed in respect of each detenu which was served on them within the time allowed by law
Thereupon the wives of all the three detenus filed separate habeas corpus writ peti tions in the High Court of Bombay
Four contentions were raised before the High Court namely 1 since the detenus were in custody their detention was unwarranted 2 the detaining authority had betrayed non application of mind by describing 458 the offence as bailable  3 the representation of the detenus dated 18th December 1989 had not been disposed of promptly and there was inordinate delay and 4 the author ities had failed to supply certain crucial documents called for by the detenus thereby depriving them of the opportunity of making an effective representation
The High Court nega tived all the contentions and dismissed the writ petitions
Against that the wives of the detenus have filed Special Leave Petitions and also separate writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raising several contentions including those negatived by the High Court
Dismissing all the Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions and upholding the view taken by the High Court this Court HELD Even in the case of a person in custody a deten tion order can validly be passed 1 if the authority pass ing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody 2 if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him a that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail and b that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity and 3 if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing
278F G It is not sufficient to say that the detenu was not supplied the copies of the documents in time on demand but it must further be shown that non supply has impaired the detenu s right to make an effective and purposeful represen tation
281B Demand of any and every document however irrelevant it may be merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order
No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenu must show that failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board had impaired or prejudiced his right however slight or insignificant it may be
281B C Vijay Narain Singh vs State of Bihar 1984 3 SCC 14 Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat vs Union of India   Ramesh Yadav vs District Magistrate ET  Suraj Pal Sahu vs State of Maharashtra   Binod Singh vs District Magistrate Dhanbad   Abdul Wahab Sheikh vs
SN Sinha   Meera Rani vs State of Tamil Nadu   Shashi Aggarwal vs State of Uttar Pradesh   Anand Prakash vs State of Uttar Pradesh   Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal vs Union of 459 India   Gurdip Singh vs Union of India  Ors 1989 Crl
LJ NOC 41 Delhi and Nand Kishore Purohit vs Home Secretary Maharashtra 1986 2 Bombay CR 25 referred to