Case: A. S. Parmar &amp; Others Vs. State Of Haryana &amp; Others

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 (Building 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 :NameDate of entry into Class II ServiceS. No. in the gradation list of Class II Service1. S. L. Gupta19-8-1969542. I. C. Dewan29-1-1970623. S. K. Chopra29-1-1969634. Bodh Raj14-8-1969655. A. S. Parmar20-2-1970666. O. P. Gupta14-8-1969707. Sumair Chand Jain10-4-1970718. O. L. Sharma9-4-1970722. They are all holders of diploma in Engineering. They do not possess a degree in Engineering. They were promoted along with 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 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 R. 6 (a) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Class 1 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 R. 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.

Reasoning:
16. 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 R. 6, the word directly which was in the old R. 7 was no. doubt omitted but the new R. 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 R. 7 and omitting one word therefrom but the introduction of a new R. 6 with a different structure. The High Court also appears to have overlooked while relying upon R. 9 of the Irrigation Branch Rules of 1964 that the proviso to R. 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 R. 2 (7) of the Irrigation Branch Rules which corresponded to the Explanation to R. 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.17. In these cases the State Government having first construed that R. 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 R. 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 R. 6 of the Class I Rules was raised.18. It is indisputable that if the Government wishes to appoint only holders of degrees to the Class I Service, it may do so by promulgating appropriate Rules. That power is beyond question and it to 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 degree to the cadre of Executive Engineers even when he satisfies the requirements of clause (b) of R. 6 of the Class I Rules and is selected by the Public Service Commission. Our answer is in the negative.19. Since R. 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 promotees 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 ofare of the view that in the circumstances it could not have been the intention of theauthority 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, R. 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 R. 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 15" and clause (a) of Rule 6 should be read as being applicable to the other mode of recruitment.