1211 of 1977 and 3795 of 1978 Under Article 32 of the Constitution Dr. Y. S. Chitale, P. H. Parekh and C. B. Singh for the Petitioners in W.P. 159/77 and appellants in C.A. 1275/75.
1275 of 1975 Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated 28 9 1973 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
There is also numberquestion of giving any directions for number promoting any of the respondents to the posts of Executive Engineers so long as the promotions are number to posts borne on the cadre of the Service.
159 of 1977 Under Article 32 of the Constitution AND CIVIL APPEAL No.
W. 537 of 1970 was filed by 3 Executive Engineers against 1 3 Executive Engineers, 2 of whom were promoted as Superintending Engineers.
Two Lists, one showing the names of officers appoint ed to the two Services on the date of the companymencement of the new Rules and the other showing the inter se seniority of the officers of the two Services, were circulated to the officers companycerned with a request to bring to the numberice of the Government any factual errors or omissions and to submit representations, if so advised, against the proposed Seniority Lists within one month.
K. Ramamurthi, Janardhan Sharma and Jitendra Sharma for the Petitioners in W.P. 1211/77.
Even if somehow the petitioners can be regarded to have been appointed to the Service, as was asserted on their behalf, still respondents 2 to 11 having been directly selected as Executive Engineers against ex cadre posts can in their turn aspire for promotion to higher ex cadre posts The appointments of respondents 2 to 11 to ex cadre posts, were in numberway invalid.
The orders by which respondents 2 to 6 were promoted as Executive Engineers are number liable to be quashed as it companyld number be shown that the promotions were made to the posts borne on the cadre of the Service or that as a result of those promotions the respondents came to be appointed to the Service.
In both the writ petitions the High Court made a significant observation, to which events leading to the present proceedings may perhaps be traced, that if it was desired by the Government of India, that persons who were appointed against ex cadre posts should also become members of the regular Service, the service shall have to be reconstituted by providing, amongst other matters, for the initial companystitution of the Service, future recruitment and determination of inter se seniority.
M. Khanna for the Petitioners in W.P. 3795/78 and RR 6, 12, 13 and 16 in the Appeal.
159/77.
Accordingly, the High Court did number pronounce upon the same.
By the latter Memorandum orders were issued in each individual case that officers appointed by the interview method will be deemed to have been inducted into Central Engineering Service Roads Class I Service as temporary officers in the particular grade with effect from August 2, 1966 being the date on which the 1959 Rules were amended so as to provide for appointment by the interview method.
Respondents 2 to 11 to that writ petition were appointed by the, interview method.
On the same date, provisional joint seniority lists were issued separately for different categories of Class I Technical Gazetted officers in the Roads Wing of The Ministry and representations from the companycerned officers were invited within a period of one month.
A similar Writ Petition C.W. 537 of 1970 was filed in the Delhi High Court by three Executive Engineers, who are amongst the present respondents, companytending that whereas their appointment after passing a companypetitive examination held by the U.P.S.C. was in accordance with the recruitment rules, the present petitioners were appoint ed to ex cadre posts after a mere interview, that such a method of recruitment was number permissible under the rules, that the petitioners herein were appointed for the limited purpose of assisting in the execution of certain projects and that those who were appointed in accordance with the rules were entitled to be treated as senior to those who were number.
R Lalit, E. C. Agrawala and Miss A. Subhashini for R. 1 in W.P. 159/77, 3795/78.
Their appointments were to ex cadre posts and outside the Service and those appointments were valid.
159/77.
B. Datar and B. P. Singh for RR 2 5 in CA 1275/75, RR 27 Chandrachud, C. J. 30, 38 40, 42, 44, 47, 49 52 in W.P. 159/77 and R. 4 in W.P. 3795/78.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
AND WRIT PETITION NOS.
Their initial appointments 35 well as promotions have been outside the service and number to any posts borne on the cadre of the Service.
1275/75, RR 42, 44, 118 and 150 in WP No.
Mudgal for RR 12, 14 and 18 in W.P. 159/77.
While dismissing the writ petition the High Court held.
The parties requested the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions without taking into companysideration the effect and legality of the Presidential order dated August 28, 1973 and the provisional seniority lists circulated on that date.
Certain other companysequential amendments were made to the 1959 Rules by the 1966 Amendment.
All the three petitioners in that writ petition were appointed by companypetitive examination, two in 1957 and one in 1958, that is to say, before the making of the 1959 Rules.
N. Murthy and R. Vasudevan for RR 19 21 and 24 in CA.
It held that the petitioners were appointed to temporary posts without any right to become permanent, for the purposes of projects like the International Development Association Loan Programme, Emergency Road and Bridge Works Programme and Lateral Road Project and Strategic Roads Work.
536/70.
On May 31, 1974 the Government of India in the Ministry of Shipping and Transport Roads Wing issued a Memorandum saying L that in view of the judgments of the High Court in the two writ petitions, the provisional inter se Seniority Lists dated August 28, 1973 of all Class I Technical Gazetted officers appointed to the various grades in the Roads Wing were being withdrawn and cancelled.
1211/77.
On the same date, that is, on May 31, 1974 the President issued a Memorandum in each individual case cancelling the orders issued under an earlier Memorandum dated August 28, 1973.
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES APPEARING PURSUANT To NOTICE P. Sharma, J. M. Khanna, A. Subba Rao and B. P. Singh in Writ Petition No.
In person R. 53 in W. P. 159/77 .
As respondents 2 to 52 were number appointed to the Service or to any posts borne on the cadre of the Service, the only relief to which the petitioners are entitled is that the Union of India shall number, so long as the said respondents are number legally appointed to the Ser vice or to any posts borne on the cadre of the Service, treat them as having been appointed to the Service or promote them to any posts that may be included in the cadre of the Service.
N. Murthy and R. Vasudevan in W.P. No.
While the writ petitions were being argued in the High Court, orders expressed in the name of the President were issued on August 28, 1973 by which persons appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers on the basis of interviews held by the U.P.S.C. were to be deemed to have been inducted into the Engineering Service as Assistant Executive Engineers with effect from August 2, 1966.
The recruitment Rules for the two Ser vices were published in the issue of the Gazette of India, dated February 28, 1976.
In C.W. 536 of 1970 filed by 4 Assistant Executive Engineers who were appointed by companypetitive examination, against 4 Executive Engineers and 47 Assistant Executive Engineers who were appointed be the interview method, the High Court passed the following order To summarise the position, it may be stated that respondents 2 to 52 were number appointed to the Service or to any posts borne on the cadre of the Service.
42 44 and 115 118 of published Notice in W.P. No.
1211/77 and RR at Sl.
On March 1, 1976 the Government of India issued a Notification saying that having regard to the judgments of the High Court in Civil Writ Petitions 536 and 537 of 1970, the Government after a most careful companysideration had decided to set up 2 Services for Technical Class I officers of the Roads Wing, one to be called the Central Engineering Service Roads , Group A, companyprising of officers appointed by the method of examination promotion, and the other, to be called the Central Engineering Pool, Group A, companyprising of officers appointed by the method of interview.
The promotion of any one of them to the higher post of Planning officer or Superintending Engineer cannot legally be objected to by the petitioners.
As respondents 2 to 11 were number appointed to the service and numberposts have so far been declared to be posts borne on the cadre of the Service it follows that they are holders of ex cadre posts outside the Service.
