Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the promotions of certain Assistant Engineers in the Haryana Public Works Department. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were appointed as Temporary Engineers on an ad-hoc basis, challenged the promotions of other engineers, claiming that their prior service should count towards seniority and eligibility for promotion to Executive Engineer. The appointments of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were made de hors the rules, and their service was explicitly stated to not confer any seniority or benefits. The State Government promoted 62 Assistant Engineers, including the appellants, on an ad-hoc basis, which was contested by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through a writ petition under Article 226. The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the promotions, ruling that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to have their ad-hoc service counted for seniority. The appellants appealed this decision, arguing that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the rules. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, as the promotions were temporary and subject to the rights of other officers. The Court emphasized that the service rendered on an ad-hoc basis could not be counted for seniority or promotion eligibility. The Court also clarified that the relaxation of eligibility criteria must be specific and not general, thus invalidating the State Government's actions in this regard. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, reinstating the promotions of the appellants and directing the State Government to consider eligible officers for future promotions without considering their ad-hoc service as a factor.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ Petition under Article 226 - High Court improperly entertained the writ petition of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 regarding ad-hoc promotions - The Court held that the High Court should have directed the State Government to consider eligible officers for promotion instead of quashing the promotions - Held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted (Paras 613G-H; 614A-C). B) Service Law - Seniority and Promotion - Counting of ad-hoc service - The Court ruled that service rendered on an ad-hoc basis cannot be counted for seniority or eligibility for promotion under the Haryana Service of Engineers Rules - The period of service as Temporary Engineers was not recognized for promotion eligibility (Paras 625F-G; 624B-D). C) Service Law - Relaxation of Rules - The Court clarified that the relaxation of eligibility criteria for promotion must be specific and not general - The State Government's relaxation for certain officers was invalid as it violated the principles of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 (Paras 613C-E).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of service rendered by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as Temporary Engineers on an ad-hoc basis could be counted for seniority and eligibility for promotion to Executive Engineer.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the promotions of the appellants and directing the State Government to consider eligible officers for future promotions without considering their ad-hoc service as a factor.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Article 226
- Temporary service
- Seniority
- Promotion eligibility
- Relaxation of rules
- Discrimination under Articles 14 and 16
