LAWS(SC)-1993-3-124

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. A C SHAH

Decided On March 16, 1993
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
A. C. Shah And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat, the appellant herein, is aggrieved against a mandamus issued by the High Court of Gujarat on March 26, 1980 in Special Civil Application No. 1606/75 whereby its decision to impose a ratio while working out a quota rule was upset.

(2.) The minimum facts are these:- In the State Public Works Department there was an Electrical Engineering Branch. By Resolution dated July 10, 1972, the services in the said branch w.e.f. May 1, 1972 were trifurcated on the same pattern as was done in other branches. The result was that the trifurcation ended into three cadres (1) Junior Engineers, (2) Supervisors and (3) Overseers. The compartment of Overseers is a surplusage. There was only one Overseer at the relevant time and he stood retired. In substance it was a bifurcation between Junior Engineers and Supervisors, the former being graduates and the latter being diploma holders. This exercise of the State Government was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1855/73, which was negatived by the High Court by an order dated 2nd April, 1975. The High Court directed that in working out the trifurcation the Government must provide criterion for promotion from the three independent cadres. In compliance thereof, the State Government adopted a Resolution dated 26-9-1975 introducing a quota rule effective from May 1, 1972 at the ratio of 2:1 for Junior Engineers and Supervisors respectively for promotion to the posts of Deputy Engineers. The nine contesting respondents herein preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1606/ 75 before the High Court challenging the trifurcation as also the quota rule. The High Court repelled the challenge in so far as it related to the trifurcation and the adoption of quota rule but struck down the ratio of 2:1 holding it to be unjustified as also the disparity in qualifying service from both the channels.

(3.) The High Court concluded as follows: