Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Interview-Based Direct Recruitment to Military Engineer Service Class I. Emergency Recruitment in Consultation with UPSC Was Valid Under Rule 3 and Confirmation Quotas Between Promotees and Direct Recruits Were Balanced.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from appointments and confirmations in the Military Engineer Service Class I under the Military Engineer Service Class I (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1951. Two appellants, departmental promotees, were promoted to Class I Service in 1958 and 1959 respectively. Several respondents were appointed to the same Class I Service in 1962, 1963 and 1964, some through competitive examination and others through direct recruitment by interview after selection by the Union Public Service Commission. The respondents were confirmed in permanent posts before the appellants, prompting the appellants to file writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed them on 23 August 1971. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate. The material facts showed that the Class I Service Rules, which came into force on 1 April 1951, provided in Rule 3 for recruitment only by competitive examination and by promotion. However, in 1961, the competitive examination yielded no candidates for allotment to temporary posts, and in 1962 the country was under a state of emergency requiring immediate recruitment of engineers. The Union Government, in consultation with the UPSC, decided to recruit candidates by advertisement and selection through viva-voce interviews. Candidates so recruited were put on two-year probation and later declared quasi-permanent under the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules. The rules were originally administrative in character, and the Government relaxed them both as to method of recruitment and quotas. In 1967, Rule 20 was amended to reserve 50 per cent of permanent vacancies for graduate engineers commissioned in the Armed Forces, and Rule 24 was introduced to permit the Central Government to relax any rule after consultation with UPSC. In 1969, the rules were amended under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, making the entire body of rules statutory and regularizing earlier ad hoc recruitments and relaxations. The appellants raised two legal issues. First, they contended that respondents appointed by interview were not within the purview of recruitment by competitive examination under Rule 3 and thus were not validly appointed. Second, they argued that because they were promoted earlier in 1958 and 1959, they were senior to the respondents recruited later and therefore should have been confirmed in priority. The Union and respondent officers argued that the emergency and failure of competitive examination justified recruitment by interview, that the rules were administrative and relaxable, and that subsequent statutory amendments regularized the appointments. They further maintained that confirmation followed fixed quotas and that both departmental promotees and direct recruits had been confirmed within their respective quotas in order of seniority. The Supreme Court, speaking through Ray J., rejected both contentions. It found that the competitive examination had proved fruitless and the country was in a state of emergency, making selection by interview the only feasible course. The Government acted in consultation with the UPSC, and the candidates underwent probation and departmental tests. The 1967 amendments recognized the reality of interview appointments by reserving quota for direct recruits, and the 1969 amendments under Article 309 made the rules statutory, thereby regularizing both recruitment by interview and the relaxations. Consequently, respondents appointed by interview fell within the class of direct recruits. On confirmation, the Court held that departmental promotees were confirmed against permanent posts within their quota in order of seniority, and direct recruits whether through competitive examination or interview were confirmed within their separate quota. The quota for departmental promotees was increased from 10% to 50% between 1959 and 1963, ensuring a balance. Thus, the appellants had no grievance because confirmation was quota-based and not based on overall seniority between the two streams. Accordingly, the appeal failed and the High Court's dismissal was affirmed.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that direct recruits appointed by interview in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission during emergency, after competitive examination failed, were validly within the class of direct recruits, especially after the 1967 and 1969 rule amendments made under Article 309, which regularized such recruitment and relaxation. It further held that confirmation of departmental promotees and direct recruits was balanced within their respective quotas; the appellants could not claim priority of confirmation over later direct recruits based on earlier promotion to temporary posts. The High Court's dismissal was affirmed.

Law Points