I.S. GOEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE true import and width of the governmental power to waive the mandatory prescribed qualifications for appointment of Class I Service, conferred by the proviso to Rule 6(a) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (B and R Branch) Rules, 1960 is the significant common question which has necessitated, the reference of this set of three Civil Writ Petitions to the Full Bench.

(2.) SINCE we propose to limit ourselves primarily to the question aforesaid, the facts directly relevant there to alone call for notice. These may be picked from C.W.P. No. 201B of 1981 I.S. Goel and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. The writ Petitioners therein are graduates in Engineering and were appointed to the Class II Engineering Service of the Haryana Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) on various dates in the year 1970 -71. Their basic claim is that, being Degree -holders they alone are primarily eligible for promotion to Class I Service of Engineers under Rule 6 of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class I, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch), Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). The main grievance presented on their behalf is that Respondents Nos. 3 to 10, who do not possess a B.Sc. Engineering Degree or its equivalent, have/nevertheless been promoted to the Class I Service vide annexure P/1, by a general relaxation of the prescribed qualifications. It is pointed -out that these Respondents are merely Diploma Holders who. were originally, recruited as Sectional Officers/Draftsmen and later promoted to officiate as Sub -Divisional Engineers in 1989 -70. The basic reliance on behalf of the Petitioners is on the provisions if Rule 6 of the Rules though an infraction of Rule 8 thereof has equally been averred. However, as we do not propose to advert to the applicability or infraction of Rule 8, it is unnecessary to (sic) the averments with regard thereto. It has then been averred that out of 15 vacancies of Class I posts, 8 persons, who are Diploma -holders have been promoted to Class I by granting them relaxation in qualifications in a general and routine manner and in. violation of both the letter and spirit of the proviso to Rule 6(a) of the Rules.

(3.) IN the written statement, filed on behalf of the Respondents, the broad factual position is not controverted. It is admitted that Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 are only Diploma -holders, but it is denied that they are ineligible for appointment to Class I Service because of the absence, of B.Sc. Engineering Degree. An emphasis is laid on the government's power of relaxation of qualifications for which according to the Respondents' stand no further reasons are required to be indicated. In paras 5, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 15(i) of the return, what is highlighted that Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 being senior to the Petitioners -are required to be considered first in preference to them and have every right for promotion prior to the Petitioners, if they otherwise are found suitable It has been averred by the Respondent -State that, annexure P/2 has been declined and the case of the Petitioners would only be considered at the time when their turn for promotion Class I Serviced arrives after exhausting the list of all their senior colleagues, apparently irrespective of the fact whether they possess an Engineering Degree or not. It is then averred that the case of Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 was considered along with others holding an Engineering Degree in the order of seniority and since the only hitch in their case a was of Degree qualifications, the same was waived under Rule 6(a) of the Rules. In para 14 of the return it is admitted that as many as 60 officers with Degree qualification having a requisite experience in Class II Service are available, but they are to be promoted in their turn when the list of their senior, colleagues, is exhausted. Finally, it is stated that the Petitioners being junior to Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 would be considered only when their turn comes after the promotion of their seniors.