Besides the minimum educational qualification, which was the same for both the services three years experience as a Civil Engineer was.
Connected with Katyani Dayals case were writ petitions filed in a represen 1022 tative capacity, purporting to represent all temporary Assistant Engineers on a later point of time known as temporary Assistant Officers appointed by the Railway Board, pursuant to the authority given by the President of India, on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission selection based on interview alone.
additionally required for the aspirants to the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class 1 hereafter referred to as the Engineers at places .
K. Garg, Aruneshwar Gupta, R.K. Kamal and S.K. Gupta for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
1021 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.84 27.7.84 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos.
While the President was the appointing authority of the Engineers, the Railway Board was the appointing authority of the Officers.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH Civil Appeals Nos.
and for the Respondent No.
The challenge was to the authority of the Railway Board to create such an unclassified parallel service, something outside the preview of the Indian Railway Establishment Board.
4 in CA.No.
7900 02 of 1982.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil Nos.
WITH M.P. Nos.
F. Nariman and P.H. Parekh for the intervenor in WPs.
Sridharan for the Petitioner in WPs.
1649/78.
WITH Writ Petition Nos.
3137 38 of 1993.
14 in WP.
K. Ramamurthi, and Parijat Sinha for the Appellants in CA.
7900 02/82.
837 853 of 1982.
19643 45 of 1988 C.M.P. No.
837 853 of 1982.
12682/84,830/85.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. These are a handful of writ petitions and special leave petitions which, on grant of leave hereby, and having become appeals, can companyveniently be disposed of by a companymon judgment.
Before adverting to the facts and circumstances in which this cause has been presented to this Court it would be fruitful to give a broad outline of Katyani Dayals case, in the immediately succeeding, paragraphs.
1980 3 SCR 139 decided on March 26, 1980.
1649/78 and for the Respondent No, 4 in WPs.
7900 02/82.
R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, V.C. Mahajan, Ms.B. Sunita Rao, V.K. Verma and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent in U.O.I. V.S. Rao, NP for the Respondent in SLP Nos.
182 184 of 1984.
12682/84,830/85.
v. Union of India Ors.
8272 of 1986.
The fulcrum of the companytroversy herein, and the shadow in which it works is a three judge Bench decision of this Court in Katyani Dayal Ors.
V. Rappai for the Respondent No.
7900 82/82.
7900, 7902/82, SLPS.
