148 and 150 respec tively.
1 2 had been appointed as Temporary Engineers on ad hoc basis de hors the rules and under the terms of appointment they were number entitled to any seniority or other benefit under the service rules as a result of such appointment.
1 2 appeared at a companypetitive examination along with the appellants and respondents Nos.
1 2 were eligible for being companysidered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer under r. 6 b , there was numberjustification whatever for the State Government to grant general relaxation under the proviso thereof to make the ineligible persons eligible for promotion in denial of their claims.
1 and 2 were entitled to the benefits of the period of service rendered by them as Temporary Engineers on an ad hoc basis in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department, State of Haryana i.e. prior to their appointment as Assistant Engi neers on regular basis on April 21, 1975 along with the six appellants and respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. In this appeal by special leave, the short question involved is whether respondents Nos.
It was further pleaded that the State Government having relaxed the companydi tion of eligibility under the proviso to r.6 b read with the Explanation thereof as regards eight years service in the case of promotion of the appellants and respon dents Nos.
5 24 for purposes of reckon ing their eligibility for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer under r.6 b read with the Explanation thereto of the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department Irrigation Branch Rules, 1964, as amended in 1975, Class I Rules for short as also for purposes of their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers.
Accordingly, both these respondents companytinued to hold the posts of Temporary Engi neers on ad hoc basis till the end of the year 1974 i.e. till they were recruited as Assistant Engineers through the Public Service Commission on April 21, 1975 on regular basis.
9, 10 and 11 Gyan Singh, P.D. Kadian and C.P. Goel as regards the passing of the departmental professional and revenue examinations as required by r. 15 was invalid.
He also upheld their companytention that the power companyferred on the State Government under r.22 was number a general power of relaxation but a power exercisable only to mitigate any undue hardship in the case of a particular individual and therefore the impugned order of the State Government permitting relaxation in the case of respondents Nos.
Facts bearing on the question are as follows.
These ad hoc promotions of the appellants and respondents Nos.
1 2 remained employed as Temporary Engineers on ad hoc basis, companyld number be treated as period in that class of service within the meaning of r.6 b i.e. in Class II service.
5 24 being at serial Nos.
1 2 as ineligible for promotion on the ground that the period from January 1971 and May 1969 upto April 21, 1975 i.e. the period during which respondents Nos.
The ad hoc promotion of appellants and respondents Nos.
He found on perusal of the records placed before him that reasons for the relaxation in public interest of the companydi tion of eight years service imposed by r.6 b had in fact been recorded for reducing the period to 31/2 years in companysultation with the Finance Department.
In the letter of appointment issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana Irrigation Power Department dated January 13, 1975 it was specified that inter se seniority of Assistant Engineers would be determined on the basis of the companybined merit list prepared by the Public Service Commission In the companybined merit list prepared by the Commission, respondents Nos.
5 24 was number invalid on that account.
1 2 that they were entitled to the bene fit of the period of companytinuous officiation as Temporary Engineers on an ad hoc basis from January 1971 and May 1969 to April 21, 1975 in reckoning eight years experience in that class of service within the meaning of r.6 b i.e. Class II service by reason of Explanation to r. 6 b and were therefore eligible for promotion to the post of Execu tive Engineer under r. 8 2 in view of the definition of the expression Temporary Engineer companytained in r.2 5 , as amended in 1975.
In re sponse to an advertisement published in the Daily Tribune of February 6, 1970 inviting applications for appointment as Temporary Engineers on an ad hoc basis, respondent No.
5 24 and therefore they were number entitled to be companysidered for promotion.
1 2 in the seniority list prepared by the Public Service Commission were ranked junior to the appel lants and respondents Nos.
The learned Single Judge however accepted the companytention of respondents Nos.
1 2 who were recruited along with them and had also put in more or less 31/2 years service as Assistant Engineers became entitled to the benefit of such relaxation and the action of the State Government in number companysidering their cases for such promotion was wholly arbitrary and was tantamount to denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment in violation of Arts.
5 24 as Executive Engineers on a purely ad hoc basis for a period of six months subject to certain terms and companyditions.
Presumably, the State Government excluded from companysideration the case of respond ents Nos.
namely The promotions were subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission as also to the claims of other officers.
Also that their inter se seniority among the Temporary Engineers would be in the order of merit in the list of candidates as set tled by the Commission.
149 of 1981.
5 24 for being companysidered for promo tion since numbere of them had companypleted eight years service as Assistant Engineer on the ground that the State Govern ment was empowered in terms of proviso to r. 6 b to relax generally, in public interest, the companydition regarding eight years experience for reasons to be recorded in writing.
1 2 by a petition under Art.
1 S. Jain was appointed as a Tem porary Engineer ad hoc w.e.f.
January 2, 1971 for a period of six months i.e. after the companying into force of the Har yana Service of Engineers, Class II, Public Works Department Irrigation Branch Rules, 1964 Class II Rules for short .
1 2 were recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer on April 21, 1975 and thus had only about 31/2 years service on December 20, 1978 to their credit when appellants and re spondents Nos.
In his judgment the learned Single Judge repelled the companytention of respondents Nos.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.
Prior to their appointment as Assistant Engineers, respondents Nos.
226 of the Constitution filed before the Punjab Haryana High Court mainly on the ground that when qualified persons like them i.e. respondents Nos.
5 24 were promoted as Executive Engineers on an ad hoc basis.
5 24 and directed the State Government to reach a decision afresh as regards the ad hoc promotions with advertence to the observations made by him.
Prior to this, respondents No.
5 24 as Executive Engineer on an ad hoc basis, failed to appreciate that respondents Nos.
Further, it was pleaded that respondents Nos.
The services of respondents Nos.
It may be stated that the merit list prepared by the Commission has never been questioned before us.
1 2 for promotion because in the companybined sen iority list they ranked below the appellants and respondents Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 S.L. Gupta was also appointed as a Temporary Engineer on an ad hoc basis w.e.f.
5 24 was assailed by respondents Nos.
A learned Single Judge R.N. Mittal, J. by his judgment dated October 8, 1980 quashed the impugned order of the State Government making ad hoc promotions of the appellants and respondents Nos.
And iii Such of the officers as had number passed the departmental professional and revenue exami nations were required to pass such examinations within a period of one year or otherwise they were liable to be reverted to their original post.
May 19, 1969 by calling his name through the Employment Exchange i.e. subsequent to the companying into force of the Class II Rules.
A few more facts.
14 and 16 1 of the Constitution.
Their appointments were de hors the rules to meet the exigencies of service.
In the letters of appoint ment issued to them, it was specified that their appointment was purely on an ad hoc basis for a period of six months from the date of their joining the post on a fixed salary of Rs.400 plus allowances and their services were terminable without numberice.
They were also intimated that the posts of Temporary Engi neers in Class II service would be advertised in due companyrse by the Haryana Public Service Commission and they should apply for such posts through the Commission, and that if they were number selected by the Commission, their services would be liable to be terminated without numberice.
They were specifically informed that the appointment would number entitle them to any seniority or other benefit under the service rules for the time being in force and would also number companynt towards increment in their salary.
1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.P.A. No.
1 2 were placed very much below the appellants and respondents Nos.
The specific stand taken by the State Government in the return filed before the High Court was that respondents Nos.
5 24 being placed at serial Nos.
5 24 were made in relax ation of the provisions companytained in rr.6 b and 15 of the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Depart ment Irrigation Branch Rules, 1964.
It was asserted that the State Government and the Engineer in Chief, Irriga tion Department, Haryana had wrongly treated respondents Nos.
1 and 2 were however companytinued by the State Government from time to time, six months at a time, till the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission by his letter dated July 8, 1973 addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the State Government of Haryana, Public Works Department Irri gation Branch companyveyed the approval of the Commission to the ad hoc appointment of 251 Temporary Engineers beyond the period of six months till regular appointments were made to the posts through the Commission.
It was also pleaded that the power companyferred on the State Government to grant relaxation under r.22 was number a general power but a power to mitigate hardship in a particular case and thus the general relaxation granted by the State Government to some of the respondents who had number passed their departmental profes sional and revenue examinations was invalid.
5 24 and were selected by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Assistant Engineers under the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class II, Public Works Department Irrigation Branch Rules, 1970.
K. Ramamurthy, U.R. Lalit, Shanti Bhushan, M.R. Sharma, P. Rao, S.K. Mehta, B.R. Agarwala, N.D. Garg, E.M.S. Anam, P. Sharma, K.S. Tiwari, C.V. Subba Rao, I.S. Goel, P.H. Parekh, Sohail Dutt, Uma Datta and V.P. Goel for the appear ing parties.
148 and 150 respectively.
The State Government of Haryana by order dated December 20, 1978 promoted 62 Assistant Engi neers including the appellants and respondents Nos.
ii Such promotions were number to give any right to the officers for being appointed on a substantive basis as Executive Engineers.
It appears that in response to an advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission in October 1973, respond ents Nos.
811 of 1980.
He accordingly held that the ad hoc promotion of the appellants and re spondents Nos.
