T R KAPUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution assail the constitutional validity of a notification issued by the State Government of Haryana in the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) dated June 22,1984 purporting to amend R. 6(b), Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 964 (for short 'the Class I Rules') with retrospective effect from July 10, 1964 as violative of Arts. 14 and 16(l) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the State Government by reason of the proviso to S. 82(6), Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The purport and effect of the impugned notification is to nullify the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana, (1984) 2 SCR 476 : (AIR 1984 SC 643) holding that a degree in Engineering was not essential for such promotion. By the impugned notification, a degree in Engineering is made an essential qualification for promotion of Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Branch, a Class II service under R. 6(b) of the Class I Rules and thereby the petitioners have been rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service.

(2.) The circumstances which led to the issuance of the impugned notification are these. A controversy had arisen on the construction of R. 6 of the Class I Rules as to whether a degree in Engineering was necessary when the post of Executive Engineer, which is a post in Class I service, was to be filled by promotion by members of Class II service and this was settled by the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar's case, (supra). The Court on a consideration of the relevant rules came to the conclusion that a member of Class II service, namely, Assistant Engineer or Sub-Divisional Officer did not require to have a Universtiy degree for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service. On February 24, 1984, the Additional Solicitor General gave an undertaking on behalf of the State Government that it would consider the cases of all eligible persons including the petitioners for regular appointment to the Class I service in accordance with the rules and complete the process within four months from that day. The Court, accordingly, in Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1981 (reported in AIR 1987 SC 424) (Ashok Gulati v. State of Haryana) and the connected matters as also in these petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution passed an order to the effect :

(3.) Presumably, the State Government adopted this unfortunate course of action taking cue of the observations made by this Court in the concluding part of the judgment in A.S. Parmar's case, (AIR 1984 SC 643) saying that if the Government wish to appoint only persons having a degree in Engineering to Class I service, it was free to do so by promulgating appropriate rules and that the power to frame such a rule was beyond question. But the Court never laid down that such a rule may be framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution with retrospective effect so as to render ineligible Class II officers like the petitioners who were Diploma-holders for further promotion as Executive Engineers in Class I service. In view of the clear formulation of law interpreting R. 6(b) of the Class I Rules holding that a degree in Engineering was not an essential qualification for promotion of Class II officers to the cadre of Executive Engineers in Class I service, there was no occasion for the State Government to issue the impugned notification unless it was with the object of nullifying the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar's case.