# MOHAMMAD SHUJAT ALI & ORS. etc v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. etc. May 3, 1974. 449•

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 449
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-05-03
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 385 of J 9C9 and 218 of 1970
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, H. R. Khanna, K. K. Mathew, A. Alagiri5Wam1, P. N. Bhagwat!
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohammad-shujat-ali-ors-etc-v-union-of-india-ors-etc-may-3-1974-449-6345
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

States Rcor1:anfa(tfion Act. 1956. Proviso to Section 115(7)-Variation of
conditio11.1· of se1-rice appliC'abh: i111n1cdiately before Noven1b\e.r 1, 1956, to the
disad1·a11laf!e of persons
allu1ted to
serve in a
S1ate--"Pre;·ious
approl'al''
111ea,r1i11y of.
Andhra Pradesh ,Engineering Service Rules, 1966-;Von-graduate Supervisors
fro111 Hyderabad State, pron1otion oj-ReductirJn of avaifabfe pro111otion posts
frn111 501/C to
33! o/o, then to 01te in 18 and ultinuuely to 1 in 24-Sec. 115(7).
Proviso to States Reorg1111i.\'a1io11 Act, if attracted.
Co11stit11tio11 of /11dil1, 1950, Articles 14 & 16-Educational qualification i·a!id'
basis .for c!assificaticn-Fixation of quota for promotion of graduate supervisors
and non-graduate supervisors. if discrinlinatory.
Ed11catio11a/ qualificaticns, eq11irale11ce of--Dt'cfsi'on of the Govt., when can
be interfered with.
The petitioner:;/appelJ.ants were holders of Upper Subordinate or Overseers
Civil Ellgineering certificates of Osmania Engineering College and thiy were
all originally recruited to the cadre of Sub-Overseers in the Hyderabad S·~rvice
of E.ngineers in th·! erstwhile State of Hyderabad, and with 1he exception of
one, they were promoted as Supervisors prior to 1st November 1956, when the
reorg'anisation of States took place under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Now on the reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. the postJi of Supervi·_)ors in the erstwhilt: State of Hyderabad were equated with the posts of Junior
Engineer:-i/Supervisors in the State of Andhra· Pradesh in accorda·nce with the
principles for equation of posts laid down at the Conference of Chief Se,::retaries
of varicus States held on 30th April and 1st May, 1956. Certain criteria were
laid down at this Conference for fixa·tion of inter se seniority of officers ho!ding
equivalent posts.
The Sub·Engineers from the erstwhihe State of Hyderabad were
promoted a·s Assistant Engineers wilh eff·!Ct from 31:-,t October, 1956. aflernoon
and thev came to be aliot'.·!d to the State of Andhra Pradesh as Assista-nt
Engineefs. Though the A.ndhra Rules continued to govern the Engineering
Servii:e in the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of exception, the Government
of Andhra Pradesh, in con-sultation with the officer deputed by the Government
of India to advise on problems relating to integration of services. issued an
order dated 7th April, 1960. directing that all employees of the erstwhile Sta!e
of Hyderabad would be governed by the Hyderabad Rules for pron1otion after
ls.t Noven1ber. 1956, to posts one stage above those held by them immediately
prior to 1st November, 1956.
It was, however, made clear in this order tha-t
"Subsequent promotions after one stage promotion would be governed by the
Andhra Rules or the Rules 1nade by the Governm•:!nt of Andhra Pradesh. The
State Board of Technical Education. a high·powerea body comprising of adminis.
trators, educa{ionists and technical experts, at its meeting held on 1st
Jl1n~.
1962, agre·;o:d with the vie\V expressed by the Special Committee that the US
or OCE certificates of the Osmania £.ngineering College could not b·~ equated
V.'ith LCE or IME or LEE diplomas.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh then·
reconsid•;o:red the que·stion in the light of the opinion expressed by the Special
Committee and the S~ate Board of Te::hnica.i Education and took the view
that the contention of the non·gradcate Supervisors from the erstwhile State
of Hyderabad was not tenab~e. The Central Governm·.!nt a-ffirnl·.!d the decision
of the Government of Andhra Pradesh after giving due consideration to the
representations of the.se non·graduate supervisors on the basis of the recommen·
dation-; of the Advisory Board.
~1canwhile, on 22nd February 1967, the Andhra Prade·sh Engineering Rules, .
1966, were made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise Of the powers
conferred under th•e Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. There wa•s a·
substantial change made by the Andhra Pradesh R

## Text

_Characters 0–39,734 of 114,929. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39734 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
H
MOHAMMAD SHUJAT ALI & ORS. etc.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. etc.
May 3, 1974.
449•
[A. N. RAY, CJ., H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRI5WAM1
AND P. N. BHAGWAT!, JJ.]
States Rcor1:anfa(tfion Act. 1956. Proviso to Section 115(7)-Variation of
conditio11.1· of se1-rice appliC'abh: i111n1cdiately before Noven1b\e.r 1, 1956, to the
disad1·a11laf!e of persons
allu1ted to
serve in a
S1ate--"Pre;·ious
approl'al''
111ea,r1i11y of.
Andhra Pradesh ,Engineering Service Rules, 1966-;Von-graduate Supervisors
fro111 Hyderabad State, pron1otion oj-ReductirJn of avaifabfe pro111otion posts
frn111 501/C to
33! o/o, then to 01te in 18 and ultinuuely to 1 in 24-Sec. 115(7).
Proviso to States Reorg1111i.\'a1io11 Act, if attracted.
Co11stit11tio11 of /11dil1, 1950, Articles 14 & 16-Educational qualification i·a!id'
basis .for c!assificaticn-Fixation of quota for promotion of graduate supervisors
and non-graduate supervisors. if discrinlinatory.
Ed11catio11a/ qualificaticns, eq11irale11ce of--Dt'cfsi'on of the Govt., when can
be interfered with.
The petitioner:;/appelJ.ants were holders of Upper Subordinate or Overseers
Civil Ellgineering certificates of Osmania Engineering College and thiy were
all originally recruited to the cadre of Sub-Overseers in the Hyderabad S·~rvice
of E.ngineers in th·! erstwhile State of Hyderabad, and with 1he exception of
one, they were promoted as Supervisors prior to 1st November 1956, when the
reorg'anisation of States took place under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Now on the reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. the postJi of Supervi·_)ors in the erstwhilt: State of Hyderabad were equated with the posts of Junior
Engineer:-i/Supervisors in the State of Andhra· Pradesh in accorda·nce with the
principles for equation of posts laid down at the Conference of Chief Se,::retaries
of varicus States held on 30th April and 1st May, 1956. Certain criteria were
laid down at this Conference for fixa·tion of inter se seniority of officers ho!ding
equivalent posts.
The Sub·Engineers from the erstwhihe State of Hyderabad were
promoted a·s Assistant Engineers wilh eff·!Ct from 31:-,t October, 1956. aflernoon
and thev came to be aliot'.·!d to the State of Andhra Pradesh as Assista-nt
Engineefs. Though the A.ndhra Rules continued to govern the Engineering
Servii:e in the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of exception, the Government
of Andhra Pradesh, in con-sultation with the officer deputed by the Government
of India to advise on problems relating to integration of services. issued an
order dated 7th April, 1960. directing that all employees of the erstwhile Sta!e
of Hyderabad would be governed by the Hyderabad Rules for pron1otion after
ls.t Noven1ber. 1956, to posts one stage above those held by them immediately
prior to 1st November, 1956.
It was, however, made clear in this order tha-t
"Subsequent promotions after one stage promotion would be governed by the
Andhra Rules or the Rules 1nade by the Governm•:!nt of Andhra Pradesh. The
State Board of Technical Education. a high·powerea body comprising of adminis.
trators, educa{ionists and technical experts, at its meeting held on 1st
Jl1n~.
1962, agre·;o:d with the vie\V expressed by the Special Committee that the US
or OCE certificates of the Osmania £.ngineering College could not b·~ equated
V.'ith LCE or IME or LEE diplomas.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh then·
reconsid•;o:red the que·stion in the light of the opinion expressed by the Special
Committee and the S~ate Board of Te::hnica.i Education and took the view
that the contention of the non·gradcate Supervisors from the erstwhile State
of Hyderabad was not tenab~e. The Central Governm·.!nt a-ffirnl·.!d the decision
of the Government of Andhra Pradesh after giving due consideration to the
representations of the.se non·graduate supervisors on the basis of the recommen·
dation-; of the Advisory Board.
~1canwhile, on 22nd February 1967, the Andhra Prade·sh Engineering Rules, .
1966, were made by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise Of the powers
conferred under th•e Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. There wa•s a·
substantial change made by the Andhra Pradesh Rules in the mode of recruit1n~nt to. the posts of Assist8nt Engineers.
By the new clause 2(c)(2) substituted in the place of the old clause on 12th January, 1968, the ratio of
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] ! S.C.R.
"Pro1notion between graduate Supervisors a-nd non-grade.ate Supervisors '\Vas
altered and instead of two out of three vacani.::ies being
filled
by
graduate
Supervisors, three out of four' vacancies were to be filled by graduate Supervisors,
with th; result that the cyclic order of rotation now consisted of twenty-four
instead c( eighteen vacancies. The appellants thereupon preferred writ petitions
in th; High Court of Andhra Pradesh. challepging the validity of the orders
dated 3rd October, 1960, and 14th Febrnary, 1963, as also of the Andhra
Pradesh Rules on various legal and constitutional grounds.
The Full Bench
o~ the High Cburt rejected the ,;ontentions of the· ;}ppellants and dismissed the
writ petitions.
After obtaining certifica!e·s, they preferred these appeals.
Tn
W.P. No. 218 of 1970 filed in this Court under Article 32 of th! Constitution.
the petitioners hold LCE diplomas. Some of th·!m. were <lirectly recruited ~
Supervisors in the State of .A.ndhra prior to 1st November. 1956. and others
were directly recruited as Supervisors in th! State of Andhra Pradesh subsequent
to that date. Their grieva•nce was that the Andhra Pradesh Ru 1es adversely
affected th~m and others directly recruited as non-graduate Supervisors.
The petitioners/appellants contended that (i) the decision of the Government
<Jf Andhra Pradesh (whii::h \Vas confirmed by the GovcTnment of India) treating
US &nd OCE. certificates of the Osn1ania Engineering College as inferior to
US and. LCE diplomas of the College of Engineering, GuinJy and LCE, L~fE
-or LE.E, diplomas of any oth~r recognised institution and equating them \Vith
US or OCE certificates of the College-of Engineering_ Guindy, was erroneous
and should be set aside; (ii) The non-graduate Supervisors from the erstwhiJ.i
Hyderabad St~te who were, prior to 1st November, 1956, entitled to have 50%
<Jf thi vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineers available to them for
p;orno!ion, are· now entitled to have only one out of twenty-four vacancies in
the posts of As3istant Engineers availa·ble to them for promotion. In as much
as the Andhra and Andhra Pradesh Rules varied to their disadvantage the condi1ions of service applicable to them
in1mec.lia~ely prior to 1st November. 1956.
1hey were ineffectua·I and void by reason of contravention of the
mandatory
requirefilent of the p_roviso to Sec. 115, sub-sec_tion (7) of the States ReorganiSa1ion Act, 1956; (iii) The promotions nlade from and after 1st Novemhir. 1956.
upto- 22nd February 1967. •3hould be reviewed on the basis that the Hyderabad
Rules governed the promotion of non-graduate Sμpcrvisors from the erstwhile
Hyderabad Sta·te, because the promotion from the posts: of Supervisors to the
posts of Assistant Engineers from and after 1st Novemb'!r 1966, being one
stage pron1otion. the pron1otion was governed by the Hyderabad Rule-; uoto
22nd February~ 1967, when they were superseded by the Andhra Pradesh Rules;
and (iv) The Andhra. Pradesh Rules in so far as they discriminate between
graduate Supervisors and non-graduate Sui)ervisors by fixing initially the ratio
'Of three to one between graduate and non-graduate Supervisors for the purpose
of promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers are violative of Article 14 of
the Conslitution of India and hence void.
.Dismissing the· appeals and the writ petitions,
HELD: ( 1) The question in regard to equivalence of educational qualificatio_n? is a technical question ba·sed on propet assessment and evaluation of the
relevant a:;;ademic standards and practical attair..ments of such qualifications. It
is only where the decision of the Government is shown to be based 0111 extraneous
oi: irrelevant considerations or actuated by mala fides or irrational and perverse
or manifestly wrong that the Court would reach out its lethal arm ~nd strike
down the decision of the Government.
It cannot be said in the present case -
that the view taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh suffered from any
of these infirmities.
Nothing could be alleged on bcha·lf of the petitioners/
appellants against those constituting the High-powered expert body. It may
also be noted that even in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad itself, US and OCE
certificates of Osmania Engineering College were not treated on a par v,1ith
LCE, LME or LEE diplomas.
[466B-E]
(ii) The limitation impa;;ed by th~ proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115
of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, is that the S!ate ,-;:annot vary the conditions of service applicable in1mediately before 1st November, 1956. to thi dis~
advantage of persons allotted to serve in connection with the affairs of the
State, except ;vith the previous approval of the Central .Government. Now
the only right in regard to promotion which the condition of service immediately
A
B
'
c
D
E
F
G
"'
~
(
H
,
A
B
c
Sl!UJAT ALI V. UNION
45?
prior to 1st November, 1956, gave the non-graduate
Supervisors
from
th(!'
erstwhile Hyderabad Stat·~ was the right to b~ con:1idered for promotion to 50%
of the posts of Sub-Engineers.
A rule which confers a right of actual promotion
or a right to be considered for promotion is a rule pres.:ribing a condition of
service.
This proposition can no longer be dispu:ed
in
view
of
several
pronouncements of this Court.
[468C-E; Hj
lvfoiu11nn1ed Bhakar v.
Krishna Reddy, 1970 Service La\V
Report~r 768,
State of Myso:·e
v.
G .. B. Purohit, C.A. No. 2281 of 1965, decided on 25th
January, 1967. and
Ramcliandra Sha1cka1 Det1dhar & Ors.
v.
The State of
1\1aharashtra, W.P. No. 299 of 1969, decided on 12th Noven1ber, 1973, referred
lo and reli·~d on.
No\V. here in the preser,t case, all that happened as a resu!t of the applic&tion
of the Andhra Rult::s and the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Rules was that
the number of posts of P.ssista·nt Engineers available to non-graduate Supervisors
from the erstwhil~ Hyderabad State for promotion. \Vas reduced from 50% to
33-1/3~c. then to one in eighteen and ultitnately to one in twenty four.
The·
right to be considered for promotion was not affected but the chances of promo--
tion \Vere severely reduced.
This did not constitute variation in the conJition
of service applicabie immediah:ly prior to 1st November, 1956, ;}Ild the proviso·
to Section 115, sub-section (7) was not attra-ct·!d.
[469D1
Even if the application of the Andhra Rules and th! enactment of Andhra
Pradesh Rules constituted vari&tion in the condition of servi:e in regard t0>
promotion applicab'.e iminediately prior to 1st Nov. 1956. _to the di·sadvantage
of non-graduate
Sup~rvi~or~ from the erstwhile Hyderabad State,
there
was;
'- previous approval of the Cen!ral Government to such variation and the requireD
ment of the proviso to section 115, sub-section (7) was satisfied, lt will be
evident from th·.! 1nt!morandum dated 11th May, 1957. and particularly
para~
graph 6 read with paragraph 3 that. so far as departmental promotion is con~
cerned, the' Central Government told the State Governments that they might,
if they so desire, change the conditions of service and for this perpose they·
might assume the previous approval of the Central Govt.
as
required
by
the proviso to Sec. 115
sub-'~ection (7). The .:onditions of s·~rvice specificallydealt with in paragraph 3 of the memorandum included
those
relating
to
E
G
H
departmental p:omotion and under paragraph 6 of the memorandum, the Central
Government gave i!s previous approval to any alteration which the State m;ght
wish to make in
th~ conditions of service relating to departmental promotion,
because in the opinion of the Central Governn1ent. they did not need to be
protected.
The argument against ·such construction is not valid.
In the setting
in which the proviso to section 115 (7) is placed. the expression
"previous
approval" would in:lude general a·pproval to the variation in the conditions of
service within certain limits, indicated by the Union Govl.!rn1nent.
[469G; 470EF1
,V. Raghavend,-a Rua v. Deputy Com1nissio11er, South Canara. Man~aFore,
(1964] 4 S.C.R .. 549, and N. Subba Rao v. U11fr:n of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C.
69. fo'lowed View contra~ expressed· in ."'ifohanuned Bhaker's case, G D Vaill'
v. State of Punjab [1972] 1 S.C.R. 896 and S:atc of Han'ana v. S. J. B~hadur
[1973] l S.C.R. 249 not followed.
·
(iii) lt ca·n hardly be dispu~ed that und·~r the Hvderabac1 Rules. the post
on~ stage above !hat of Surervtsor was the post of Sub-Engineer and it was
only from tlie post Sub-Engineer that prornotivn lay to the post of Assistant
Engineer.
Now the cadre of Sub-Engineers having been abolished by the Govetn~
ffi·!nt of Andhra Pradesh fron1 1st November. 1956 with a view to absorb and·
w"~imilate officers holding the post of Sub-Engineer immediately orior to tst
Novemb!r 1956, in the Engineering service of the State of Aiidhra Pradesh
the Government promoted the~e officers ~5 Assistant Engineers and they wer~
pla~ed ~fl hh:c .below the .~ss1stant Engineers of the Telangana and Andhra
regions tn senionty.
But th1s does not mean that the post of Sub-Engineer was
equa~ed with that of Assistant Engineer in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The
p~st of Sub-Enf!ir..eer. was aboli_~hed a·nd there was no auestion of equ11ting it
with the post of Assistant. Engineer.
The post of
Assistant
Engin•.!er
was,
the!"efore,
not a post of one stage pron1oti'on from the post of
Supervisor.
Contention based on ru1e 42(h)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules has-also to
be rejected. because, in the first place, the Hyderabad Rules did not provide·
for pron1otion directly fron1 the post of Supervisor to the post of
Assistant·
452
SUPREME, COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 s.c.R.
:.Engineer, and secondly, under the Hyderabad Rules, a non-graduate Supervisor
A
·would not have been qualified for promo!ion to the post of A-;·sistant Engineer.
l474H; 475A-D; 476E-F]
(iv) This. Court has held that cduca·tional qualification could form a valid
basi~ for classification.
r479Cl
State of Mysore v. Narasing Rao [1968] 1, S.C.R. 407. [!11ior1J of India v.
Dr. (,\,frs.) S. B. Kohli, [1973] 3 S.C.C. 592, and State of Janunu and Kas/unir
v. Triloki Nath Khosa. [1974] 1 S.C,C. 19, relied on.
Morey v, Dnurl, :\54
U.S. 457, 473 referred to.
But, where graduates and non-graduates are both regarded as fit and, therefore, eligible for promotion, it is difficult to see, how consistently with the claim
for equal opportunity, any differentiation can be n1ade between them by laying
·down a quota of pron1otion for each and giving
preferential
treatn1ent
to
,graduates over non-graduates in th~ fixation of su:;h quota.
The result of fixa·tion
of qv.ota of promotion for each of the two categories of Supervisors would be
.that when a vacancy arises in the post of A·3sistant Engineer, which. according
to the quota• is reserved for graduate Supervisors, a non-graduate Supervisor
.cannot be promoted to that vacancy. even if he is senior to all other graduate
Supervisors and more suitable than they.
His opportunity for promotioil \Vould
be limited to vacancies available for non-gradu<l!te Supervisors.
That \Vould
-clearly amount Jo denial of equal opportunity to him.
But even so-, this Cou.rt
cannot be per3uaded to strike down the Andhra Pradesh Rules in so far as
they m~ke differentiation between graduate and non-graduate Supervisors. This
differentiation is not something brought about for the first time by the Andhra
Pradesh Rules.
It has always been there in the Engineering Servi::es of th..::
Hyderabad and the Andhra States. The graduate Supervisors have ahva.ys been
treated as a distinct and separate class from non-gradua{e Supervisors both·
under the Hyderabad Rules as well as under the Andhra Rules and they have
never been integrated into one
cl~ss. In fact, under the Andhra Rules, a
different nom•inclature of Junior Engineers was given to graduate Supervisors.
"The same differentiation into two classes also persisted in the reorga-nised State
of Andhra Pradesh with regard to the pay scale ~nd also in the common gradation
list of Supervisors finally approved by the Government of India. The two
·categories 'Of Supervisors were thus never fused into one class· and no qu~stion
of unconstitutionality could arise by reason of differential treatment being
:given to them.
[480C-D; 481C-D; F-G]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 385 of J 9C9 and
218 of 1970.
Petition~ under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. Civil Appeals
Nos. 601 to 605 and 954, 955 of 1972.
From the judgment and order dated the 21st/29th January 1972
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W. Ps. Nos.
169 / 68, 1721.
3407 /69, 3784 & 5677 /70, and 626 and 4 7 of 1970 respectively.
H. S. Gumraja, S. Markandeya and P. K. Pillai, for the petitioners/
appellants.
M. K. Ra111am11rthy
and
B. Parthasarathy, for the petitioners./
respondents.
S. F. Nayar and P. C. Kapur, for respondents.
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents.
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondents.
M. S. K. Sasthi and R. Parthasarthy, for respondents.
Y. S. Chitale, M. !. Rao, P. L. N. Sharma and G. N. Rao, for the
intervener/respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.-These writ petitions and appeals are broadly divisible into two groups, one group consisting of Writ Petition No. 385 of
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
1'
,;
. 1
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHUJAT ALI v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.)
453
1969 and Civil Appeals Nos. 601-605 and 954-955 of 1972 and the
other consisting o! Writ Petition No. 218 of 1970. We shall first state
the facts in regard to Writ Petition No. 385 of ! 969 and Civil Appeals
Nos. 601-605 and 954-955 of 1972 and then proceed to deal with Writ
Petition No. 218 of 1970 which raises a slighlly different dispute.
Writ Petition No. 385 of 1969 and Civil Appeals Nos. 601-605 and
954-955 of 1972 concern a dispute which has been going on since the
last over fifteen years in regard to absorption and integration of Supervisors of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the Engineering Service ol
the reorganised State of Andhra Pradesh. It would be convenient to
start the narration of facts with a description of the organisation and .
structure of the Engineering Service in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, for the petitioners/appellants were Supervisors belonging to that
Service immediately prior to the reorganization of the States on !st
November, 1956 and it is their contention that on absorption and integration into the Engineering Service of the newly formed ·state· of
Andhra Pradesh, equality of opportunity has been denied to them by
the State of Andhra Pradesh and their conditions of service have been
altered to their disadvantage without complying with the requirement
of law. The Hyderabad Service of Engineers consisted of two sections,
one called State Service and the other called Subordinate Service. The
State Service comprised of two classes, namely, Class I and Class II.
Class I consisted of superior posts of Chief Engineer, Superintending
Engineer and Executive Engineer and Junior Scale posts of Assistant
Engineers, while Class II consisted of posts of Sub-Engineers. The
Subordinate Service consisted, inter alia, of posts of Supervisors, SubOverseers, Tracers, Stores Managers etc. in descending order of rank.
The posts in the State Service were gazetted posts, while those in the
Subordinate Service were non-gazetted.
The rules of recruitment to
the posts in State Service as well as Subordinate Service were made by
the Rajpramukh of the Hyderabad State by a notification dated 28th
May, 1954 in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to article
309 of the Constitution. The posts of Sub-Overseers, according to
these rules, which may for the sake of convenience be described as the
Hyderabad Rules, were to be filled by direct recruitment from amongst
persons who possessed LCE, LME or LEE or equivalent diploma or
certificate of any recognized institution. There was a certificate course
called the Upper Subordinate (hereinafter referred to as US) Course
which was conducted by the Osmania Engineering College upto 1951
and thereafter from 1952. it was replaced by another course called the
Overseers Civil Eng_inecring (hereinafter briefly referred to as OCE)
Course which was also a certificate course conducted by the Osmania
Engineering College. The US and OCE certificates awarded by the
Osmania Engineering College were regarded as sufficient qualifications
for direct recruitment to the posts of Sub-Overseers.
The posts next
ahove those of Sub-Overseers in the hierarchy were those of Supervisors.
Fifty percent of the posts of Supervisors were to be filled by
direct recruitment from amongst persons who were either graduates in
. civil or mechanical engineering of a recognized university or possessed
"a diploma or a certificate from an institution recognized hv the Institute of Engineers (India) as exempting from Parts A and B of its As-
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 s.c.R.
sociated Membership Examination", while the remaining fifty percent
were to be filled by promotion of Sub-Overseers subject to the condition that Sub-Overseers who held only US or OCE certificates should
have put in at least six years service. It was common ground between
the parties that US and OCE certificates of Osmania Engineering College w~re not regarded as sufficient to qualify a person for direct recruitment as Supervisor, while LCE, LME and LEE diplomas were accepted as sufficient. There was only one exception to this rule and that was
made by a notification dated 18th November, 1955 which provided that
during the years ·1954 and 1955 the student who stands first in !he US
Course of Osmania Engineering College shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Supervisor. It might appear that even earlier there
was such a rule providing that a student who obtained first class first
in OCE Examination could be directly recruited as Super.-isor and sup·
port for existence of such rule was sought from the fact that petitioners
Nos. 1 and 2 in petition No. 385 of 1969 who stood first class first in
OCE Examination held in 1943 and 1944 respectively were directly recruited as Supervisors. But it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that petitioners Nos. l and 2 were
not directly recruited as Supervisors, but their initial recruitment was
as Sub-Overseers and having regard to the fact that they stood first class
first in OCE Examination, they were immediatelv promoted as Supervisors and these two solitary instances were, therefore, not symptomatic
of any exception to the rule that US and OCE certificates did not qualify
a person for direct recruitment as Supervisor. The posts of Sub-Engineers constituted the next higher stage in the hierarchy of the Engineering Service. They were Class II posts carrying a paycscale of Rs. 250400. The recruitment to the posts of Sub-Engineers was to be wholly
by promotion from Supervisors. Fifty percent of the posts of Sub-Engineers were to be filled by promotion of Supervisors who wer.~ graduates in engineering and fifty percent by promotion of Supervisors who
held LCE. LME or LEE or any other equivalent diploma or certificate
or US or OCE certificate of Osmania Engineering College. There were
two conditions which were required to he satisfied before a Supervisor
could be eligible for pron10tion : one was that if he was a graduate. he
should have put in at least six years' service as Supervisor and if he was
not a graduate. he <l10uld have put in at least fifteen years' service as
Supervisor, and the other was that he should have passed (he departmental examination for Assistant Engineers.
So far as the post< of
Assistant Engineers next above those of Sub-Engineers wer~ concerned,
seventy-five percent were to be filled by direct recruitment and only the
remaining twenty-five percent by promotion of Sub-Engineers. - But all
Sub-Engineers were not e1i!!ible for promotion as Assistant En2in'eers :
only those Sub-Engineer who were graduates and who were below 1he
age of f'lrty-five years were qualified to be promoted.
The net cesult
of these 'provisions wa< that those who merely held US or OCE certificate of Osmania Engineering College were, barring the limited
and
exceptional cases already referred to, not eligible for direct recruitment
to the posts of Supervisors; they were eligible for initial apoointment
only in the cadre of Sub-Overseers; they could be promoted to fifty percent of the vacancies in the posts of Supervisors only after they had put
in a minimum service of six years and then also they had to put in a
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
>
"
"'
E'
Ir
~
*
~
I
A
..
I
'
B.,
c
D
E
F
i
G
H
SHUJAT ALI v. UNION (Bhagwati, !.)
455
minimum service of fifteen years as Supervisors before they could be
eligible for being promoted as Sub-Engineers and there the chances of
promotion available to them came to an end, for they could not go
further and be promoted as Assistant Engineers.
The petitioners/appellants were holders of US or OCE certificates of Osmania Engineering Colkge and they were all originally recruited to the cadre of SubOverseers,
and, with the exception of one, they were
promoted as
Supervisors prior to !st November, 1956 when the reorganization of the
States took place under the States Reorganization Act, 1956.
The
effect of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 was that the Tciengana
territories of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad were added to the State
of Andhra and with the added territories, the State of Andhra came to
be known as the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners/appellants
who were immediately before I st November. 1956, serving as Supervisors in the Telcngana area of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, were
allotte;:l foJ service in the State of Andhra Pradesh and they became
Supervisors in the State of Andhra Pradesh as from 1st November,
1956.
The position in regard to the Engineering Service which obtained
in the State of Andhra prior to !st November, 1956 was different. The
territories of the State of Andhra at one time formed part of \he State
of Madras and, therefore, the Special Rules for the Madras Eugineering Service issued under the notification dated 28th September, 1953
and the Special Rules for the Madras Engineering Subordinate Service
issued undgr the notification dated 30th September, 1953-both under
the Proviso to article 309 of the Constitution-governed the constitution and recruitment to the Engineering Service in the State of Andhra.
The Engineering Service in the State of Andhra was divided into State
Service and Sub-ordinate Service.
The State Service comprised the
posts of Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers
(Special Grade), Executive Engineers (Ordinary Grade) and Assistant
Engi ncers, while the Subordinate Service comprised inter alia the posts
of Supervisors, Overseers, Head Draftsmen and Civil Draftsmen. It
will be seen that there were no posts of Sub-Overseers in the State of
Andhra but instead there were posts of Overseers. The qualifications
prescribed for appointment to the posts of Overseers were any one of
the following :
( 1) degree in engineering, civil or mechanical, of
Madras, Andhra or Anamalai University, to which the name of Osmania
University was added after the addition to the Telengana area to the
State of Andhra or B.Sc. (Eng.) degree of Banaras Hindu University,
(2) diploma in engineering of the College of Engineering. Cuindy,
which was regarded as equivalent to degree in engineering. (3) US or
LCE diploma of the College of Engineerin~. Guindv or LCE or LME
diploma awarded by the Technological Diploma Examination Board,
Madras or Andhra, ( 4) certificate of having passed sections A and D
of AMIE (Ind.) Examination and (5) Lower Subordinate (hereinafter referred to as LS) or OCE certificate of the College of Enirlneering, Guindy. The next above in the hierarchy were the posts of Supervisors.
The appointments to the posts of Supervisors could be made
either by direct recruitment or bv promotion of Overseers or Civil
Draftsmen I, II and III Grades.
The necessary qualifications for elil1-L177Sup.Cl/75
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 s.c.R.
gibility for appointment as Supervisor were the same as those for appomtment as Overseer with this difference that LS or OCE certificate
A
of the College of Engineering, Guindy was not regarded as sufficient
...
for direct recruitment as Supervisor. It will thus be seen that according t~ Andhra Rules, the minimum qualification necessary for direct
'Ii
recrmtment to the posts of Supervisors was US or OCE diploma of the
F
College of Engineering, Guindy or LCE or LME diploma of the Tech-
•
nological Diploma Examination Board, Madras or Andhra. The SuperB
visors who possessed University degree in engineering or diploma of
the College. of Engineering, Guindy, which, as stated above, was regar"
ded. as eqmvalent to degree m engineering, were designated as Junior
"'\
Engineers. So far as the posts of Assistant Engineers were concerned,
there were two modes of recruitment; one by direct recruitment and the
other by promotion. The promotions were to be made from the categories of Junior Engineers, Supervisors and Draftsmen.
Two out of c
every three vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineers were to be filled by promotion of Junior Engineers while the third was to be filled by
promotion from amongst (i) directly recruited Supervisors possessing
US or LCE diploma of the College of Engin·~ering, Guindy or certificate
of having passed sections A and B of AMIE (Ind.) Examination and
having put in not less than five years' service as Supervisors which was
later increased to ten years' service with effect from 12th February,
D
1966, (ii) Supervisors promoted from the rank of Overseers and either
(a) possessing US or LCE diploma of the College of Engineering,
Guindy or certificate of having passed sections A and B of AMIE
(Ind.) Examination and having put in not less than fifteen years' service, or (b) possessing LS or OCE certificate of the College of Engineering, Guindy and having put in not less than twenty years' service
as Supervisors and (iii) Draftsmen First Grade and Head Draftsmen
E
4,
possessing the same qualifications as those mentioned in clause (ii)
above. It may be noted that in the State of Andhra there were no
posts of Sub-Engineers and the promotion was direct from the posts or
Supervisors to the posts of Assistant Engineers. But the posts of Assistant Engineers were Class II posts carrying a pay-scale of Rs. 250-400
unlike the posts of Assistant Engineers in the Hyderabad State which
were Class I posts carrying a pay-scale of Rs. 300-600. Since on the
F
reorgauization of the States, the State of Andhra did not cease to exist
but continued as such with the territories of th& Telengana area added
to it and the State of Andhra Pradesh was merely a new name given to
it, the Engineering Service of the State of Andhra continued as the En-
•
gineering Service of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Madras Engineering Service Rules dated 28th September, 1953 and the Madras
..j
~
Engineering Subordinate Service Rules
dated 30th September, 1953
G
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the Andhra Rules) continued to
,.......
govern the Engineering Service in the State of Andhra Pradesh from
•
and after 1st November, 1956.
Now on the reorganization of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the
posts of Supervisors in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad were equated
with the posts of Junior i;;ngineers/~ui;ervisors in the _State of Andh~a H
Pradesh in accordance with the prmc1ples for equation of posts laid
down at the conference of Chief Secretaries of various States he!<) on ·
30th April and 1st May, 1956. Certain criteria were also laid down
A
B
c
D
E
iF
G
H
SHUJAT ALI v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.)
457
at this conference for fixation of inter se seniority of officers holding
equivalent posts and on the basis of these criteria a provisional common
gradation list of Junior Engineers/Supervisors from TcJengana and
Andhra regions was approved by an order dated 20th April, 1963 made
by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. This provisional common
gradation list was communicated to tl)e Junior Engineers/Supervisors
after the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was approached for necessary
orders in that behalf. The petitioners/appellants did not object to the
positions assigned to them in the provisional common gradation list but
the principal representation made by them was. that promotions which
had been made provi~ionally pending the preparation of the provisional
common gradation l'ist should be reviewed so as to bring them in conformity with the ranking in the provisional common gradation list, as
stated categorically by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in its memorandum dated 26th November, 1956 and directed by the Government of
India by its letter dated 1 lth March, 1959. The provisional common
gradation list was thereafter finalised by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh in accordance with the decision of the Government of India
under section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the
final gradation list was published under an order dated 23rd November,
1967 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
The final gradation
list consisted of two parts, one part showing the inter se seniority of
Junior Engineers and the other showing the inter se seniority of
non-graduate Supervisors and it was directed that the final gradation
list shall come into force retrospectively from 1st November, 1956.
It may be pointed out that the Junior Engineers shown in the first part
of the final gradation list included not only Junior Engineers from
Andhra region but also graduate Supervisors from Telengana region.
The petitioners/appellants being merely holders of US or LCE certificate of Osmania Engine.ering College were naturally in the second part
of the final gradation list relating to non-graduate Supervisors.
So far as the posts of Sub-Engineers in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad were concerned, there was difficulty in assimilating these posts in
the set up of the Engineering Service in the State of Andhra Pradesh
as there were no posts in the Andhra region corresponding to the posts
of Sub-Engineers. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, by
an order dated 24th May, 1957, directed that fresh recruitment to the
posts of Sub-Engineers should be stopped with a view to doing away
with this category of posts. No fresh recruitment to the posts of SubEngineers was accordingly made from and after 1st Novermber, 1956.
But the question was as to what should be done with regard to the
officers holding the posts of Sub-Engineers immediately prior to 1st
Novermber 1956 and how they should be intergrated in the Engineering Service of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Pending the determination
of this question, the G.overnment of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated
23rd March, 1959 promoted the Sub-Engineers to act temporarily as
Assistant Engineers.
Thereafter the question was considered by !he
Advisory Committee and on the basis of the recommendations made
by the Advisory Committee, an order dated 22nd December, 1960 was
issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh laying down certain
principles to be followed in regard to absorption and integration of the
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 197 5] 1 S.C.R.
Sub-Engineers. These principles were that the Sub-Engineers workA
ing as such immediately prior to 1st November, 1956 should be promoted as Assistant Engineers with effect from 31st October, 1956 afternoon and included in the list of Assistant Engineers of both the regions
as on !st November, 1956 and assigned ranks after the Assistant Engineers in the combined list, and out of these Sub-Engineers, those who
were eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers under the Hyderabad
Rules should be given the Telengana scale of pay of Assistant Engineers
&
and those who were not so eligible should be given the Andhra scale
of pay of Assistant Engineers. The necessary directions in implementation of these principles were given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 31st August, 1961. The result was that the
Sub-Engineers from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad were promoted
as Assistant Engineers with effect from 31st October, 1956 afternoon
and they came to be allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh as AssisC
tan! Engineers, the pay scale of graduates being the Telengana scale
of pay of Assistant Engineers and the pay scale of non-graduates 'Jeing
the Andhra scale of pay of Assistant Engineers.
This action of the
Government of Andhra Pradesh was indirectly confirmed by the Government of India by its letter dated 24th December, 1965 which directed that the following equation of posts should be adopted for drawing
up the final gradation list :-
I>
CATEGORY IV
'
Assistant Engineer
( H ydcrabad)
Assistant Engineer
(Hyderabad)
Sub-Engineer
(Hyderabad)
Sub-Engineer
(Andhra)
Note I :
The Sub-Engineers of Hyderabad should be placed en
E:
bloc below the Assistant Engineers from both the
regions.
Note II : The Sub-Divisional Officers of Hyderabad should be
placed en bloc at the bottom of the category.
The Sub-Engineers who were promoted as Assistant Engineers with retrospective effect from 31st October, 1956 afternoon were thus directed
to be placed en bloc below the Assistant Engineers from both the reF.
gions in the common gradation list.
The Andhra Rules, as we have already seen, continued to govern
the Engineering Service in the State of Andhra Pradesh and, therefore,
it would seem that promotions in the Engineering Service !rem and
after !st November, 1956 would have been required to be made in
accordance with the Andhra Rules.
But the Government of Andhra
G
v(
Pradesh, in consultation with the officer deputed by the Government
,,->-
of India to advise on problems relating to integration of services, issued
an order dated 7th April, 1960 directing, by way of exception, that all
~
employees of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad would be governed by
the Hyderabad Rules for promotion after !st November, 1956 to posts
one stage above those held by them immediately prior to ,_1st November, 1956. It was, however, made clear in this order that subsequent
H
promotions after one stage promotion would be governed by the Andhra
Rules or the Rules made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. There
was considerable controversy before us as to what would be one stage
B
c
E
F
G
H
SHUJAT ALI v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.)
459
promotion in case of Supervisors from Telengana region; whether it
would mclude promotion from the posts of Supervisors to the posts of
Assistant Engineers.
The petitioners/appellants contended that the
posts of Sub-Engineers having been equated to the posts of Assistant
Engineers, promotion from ihe posts of Supervisors to the posts of
Assistant Engineers was one stage promotion governed by the Hyderabad Rules, while, according to the respondents, it \Vas not one stage
promotion and in any event it was governed by the Andhra Rules and
not by the Hyderabad Rules. We shall presently examine this controversy but before we do so we may complete the narration o( facts relevant to this issue. The next event was that the Andhra Pradesh State
and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 were made by the Governor of
Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 7th March, 1962.