No 1275 of 1989 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Ms Rani Chhabra K Ramkumar Govind Mukhoty and Vimal Dave for the Petitioners
MK Ramamurthy NP KK Venugopal HS Gururaj Rao Ms Chandan Ramamurthi MA Krishnamurthi TVSN Chaff section Markandeya WA Nomani GS Giri Rao and AK Raina for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
These are petitions under article 32 of the Constitution
Petitioners are promotee Engineers of the Roads  Buildings Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service and challenge mainly is to certain earlier decisions of this Court resolving similar disputes by judgments ren dered in writ petitions and to the guidelines formulated by the State Government in the matter or  the drawing up of the seniority list by way of implementation of this Court s directions
705 Facts are not in dispute
Shortly stated under the Rules substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers have to be filled up from two sources 37 I2 per cent by direct recruitment and the remainder of 62 12 per cent by transfer of Supervisors and Draughtsmen and by promotion of Junior Engineers
Regular direct recruitment had not been made as and when due and promotees beyond the limit had been put in in the place of direct recruits
While disposing of a group of petitions in a contest of this type in K Siva Reddy  Ors
vs State of AP  Ors
   a two Judge Bench of this Court instead of disturbing the entire group of promotee Engineers in excess of the quota made the following direction Reopening the question of inter se seniority on the basis of non enforcement of the rules from the very beginning may create hardship and that would be difficult to mitigate but we see no justification as to why the benefit of the scheme under the rules should not be made available to direct recruits at least from 1982
When the State Government by rules duly framed prescribed the method of recruitment and put the scheme into operation it had the obligation to comply with it
The explanation offered by the State Govern ment for non compliance of the requirements of the rules does not at all impress us
We therefore direct that as on December 31 1982 the State Government must ascertain the exact substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers in the service
On the basis that 37 12 per cent of such vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruit ment the position should be worked out
Promotees should be confined to 62 12 per cent of the substantive vacancies and in regard to 3712 per cent of the vacancies the shortfall should be filled up by direct recruitment
General Rules shall not be applied to the posts within the limits of 37 12 percent of the substantive vacancies and even if promo tees are placed in those posts no seniority shall be count ed
The State Government shall take steps to make recruitment of the shortfail in the direct recruitment vacancies within the limit of 37 12 per cent of the total substantive vacan cies up to December 31 1987 within four months from today by following the normal method of recruitment for direct recruits
The seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers shall be redrawn up as directed by the Tribunal by the end of September 1988 keeping the directions re ferred to above in view
There 706 shall be a direction issued to the State of Andhra Pradesh to make recruitment to the category of Assistant Engineers by strict compliance of Special Rules henceforth
 The State Government came forward to implement the direction and published the draft seniority list drawn up on the basis of discussed guidelines
Keeping the directions in view the draft list placed the 1982 direct recruits from serial nos
234 to 269 without disturbing promotees upto serial No 233 and the remainder of promotees given promo tion prior to 1982 were placed against serial nos
270 to 300
Writ petition No 369 of 1989 C Radhakrishna Reddy  Ors
vs State of A P  Ors had earlier raised the same dispute
By judgment dated November 10 1989 while dismiss ing the said writ petition a two Judge Bench of this Court said In Siva Reddy s case this Court found that promotees had exceeded the quota and even got regularised in respect of the posts in excess of the limit
Taking into consideration the fact that regularisation had been done after the promo tees had put in some years of service and disturbing regu larisation would considerably affect the officers concerned regularisation was not interfered with
This Court s inten tion obviously was not to take away the benefit of regulari sation in respect of the officers belonging to the promotee group in excess of their quota but the Court did not intend to allow such regularised officers in excess of the quota to also have the benefit of such service for purposes of sen iority
A reading of the judgment in Siva Reddy s case clearly indicates that this Court intended what the Govern ment have laid down by way of guideline
We see no justifi cation to interfere with the Government direction
A draft seniority list on the basis of such direction has already been drawn up and has been circulated
We are told that objections have been received and would be dealt with in usual course by the appropriate authorities
This writ petition had been entertained in view of the allegation that the Government direction was on a misconception of what was indicated in the judgment and in case there was any such mistake the same should be rectified at the earliest
Now that we have found that the Government order is in accord with the Court direction this writ petition must be dis missed and individual grievances if any 707 against the draft seniority list would we hope be consid ered on the basis of objections filed by the competent authority
 At the hearing Mr Mukhoty appearing in support of the main petition vehemently contended that serious injustice had been done to the promotees and accrued rights of theirs had been disturbed
He submitted that some of the direct recruits had been given the benefit of seniority by counting service prior to their actual recruitment and relied upon observations made by this Court in some cases to the effect that for computation of length of service the period prior to selection was being counted by a deeming position of employment prior to recruitment
When called upon to sub stantiate his allegation he has not been able to do so
On the other hand the Court had taken a very equitable view in not disturbing the regularisation contrary to the quota and had taken every care to ensure that the cause of justice was not made to suffer and a balance was maintained by an appro priate admixture of relief by confining the reconsideration for a period after 1982
The year 1982 was fixed as the reasonings indicate on account of two features i that regular disputes had been raised from that time and ii a period of 5 6 years was not too long a period to give rise to a sense of conclusiveness generated by long lapse of time
The promotee Engineers should have been happy and thankful to their lot that their regularisation was not disturbed and even seniority prior to 1982 was not being affected
Oblivious of these benefits which they have re tained though acquired out of turn they have proceeded on the footing that their cause has been affected and justice to them has been denied by placing a group of them below the 1982 recruits
We do not think that for dismissing this group of petitions anything more should be said excepting to quote with approval what this Court had said in Dr G Marulasiddaiah vs Dr TG Siddapparadhya  Ors  The canker of litigiousness has spread even to a sphere of life where discipline should check ambition concerning personal preferment
 A government servant is justified in taking legal action when he feels that a stigma or punishment is undeserved but he is expected to bear with fortitude and reconcile himself to his lot suppressing disappointment when he finds a co worker raised to a position which he himself aspired after
708 Ordinarily we would have awarded exemplary costs but with a view to allowing an appropriate reconciliation of the petitioners to their lot and not to give them a feeling of infliction of any new injury we refrain from doing so
PSS Petitions dis missed


Summary:
The respondent college a religions minority institu tion invited application for the post of Principal from candidates possessing First or Second class Master s Degree five years teaching experience and possession of working knowledge of Urdu
The Selection Committee selected the appellant by relaxing the qualification of experience in her favour but the University declined its approval to the appointment under Section 3111 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973 and directed the Management Committee to readvertise the post
The appellant challenged the University s decision before the High Court contending that the college being a minority institution any interference by the University under the Act was violative of Article 301 of the Consti tution and that there was no justification to withhold the approval
The High Court rejected the attack on the ground of Article 30 by holding that the provisions of the Act were regulatory but held that the Selection Committee was not justified in relaxing the qualification and that the quali fication possessing working knowledge of Urdu  was unjust
Hence this appeal by special leave
700 Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
In the absence of statutory rules providing power of relaxation the advertisement must indicate that the Selection CommitteeAppointing Authority has the power to relax the qualifications
The High Court has rightly held the relaxation granted by the Selection Committee to be arbitrary
702B 2
The college being a Muslim minority institution the prescribing of the qualification of possession working knowledge of Urdu for the post of Principal is in
conform ity with the object of establishing the institution
The said qualification is not unjust
702B In the interest of justice and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Lucknow University and its Vice Chancellor are directed to grant the necessary approval to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Principal of College which the appellant is holding as a result of the Court orders with effect from the date she is holding the said post and the appellant shah be entitled to salary allowances and all other consequential benefits to which a regular Principal of the said college would have been enti tled 702G