2000 JTR(SC) 704
2000 AIR(SC) 1580 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 1404 ; 2000 2 CLR 1 ; 2000 85 FLR 670 ; 2000 4 JT 333 ; 2000 LIC 1479 ; 2001 3 LLJ 1178 ; 2000 2 LLN 925 ; 2000 3 PLJR(SC) 17 ; 2000 3 Scale 39 ; 2000 4 SCC 30 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 452 ; 2000 2 SCR 943 ; 2000 2 SCT 465 ; 2000 2 SLR 633 ; 2000 3 SLR 442 ; 2000 2 UPLBEC 1482 ; 2000 3 Supreme 248
2000(3) Supreme 248
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Assam High Court)
M. Jagannadha Rao & Ruma Pal, JJ.
A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 920 of 1994
Decided 4-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Arun Jaitley, A. Raghuvir, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Madhoo Moolchandani, Kh. Nobin Singh, M. Veerappa, S. Janani, J.P. Pathak, Vijay Kumar, A.C. Mahimkar, Pankaj Kalra, Vishwajit Singh, B.K. Sharma, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where service rules prescribe minimum educational qualification with prescribed period of experience for promotion to higher post, the experience need not necessarily be after getting the prescribed minimum educational qualification and experience gained prior to obtaining qualification can be taken into account.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory provisions governing recruitment and promotion to the post of Superintending Engineers in the State of Manipur under the Public Health Engineering Department are enshrined in the Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health Engineering (Superintending Engineer (Civil/Superintending Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1977. These rules stipulate that the post is to be filled by promotion from the rank of Executive Engineer and require the candidate to possess a recognized degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent, along with a stipulated period of six years of regular service in the grade. The Central Government recognizes the AMIE Diploma as being on par with a Bachelors Degree of Engineering for recruitment to superior posts, which was accepted by the parties. The core legal question centered on whether the phrase "with 6 years regular service" in the eligibility criteria mandates that the six years of service must be rendered after the acquisition of the educational qualification, or if service rendered prior to obtaining the qualification can be aggregated to meet the threshold.
(B) The court elucidated that the conjunctive word "with" in the eligibility criteria must be given its plain, natural, and literal meaning, which is "accompanied by" or "and," thereby making the educational qualification and the six years of service concurrent and cumulative prerequisites. The court held that it would not be justified to read an implication that the service must follow the qualification, as doing so would undermine the statutory language. Furthermore, the court applied the settled principle of interpretation that where the language of a rule is specific and clear, the period of service required for promotion must be counted from the date of obtaining the requisite educational qualification, and prior service in the grade does not fulfill the statutory criterion. This precedent, while noted, was distinguished on the basis that the rules in the present case were unambiguous on their face.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Manipur, obtained the AMIE Diploma in 1989, which is recognized as equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering. In 1991, a vacancy arose for the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent, who had accumulated 12 years of service in the grade of Executive Engineer, with only a little over 2 years of that service obtained after receiving the diploma, sought promotion to the aforementioned post. The State Respondents opposed the claim, asserting that the six years of regular service required by the 1977 Rules must be completed after obtaining the educational qualification, a condition the respondent had not met. The writ petitioner was successful in the Single Judge's court, which held that the six years of service was independent of the educational qualification and that the eligibility criteria were fulfilled even if the experience was obtained prior to the qualification. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the phrase "with 6 years regular service" in the recruitment rules must be interpreted strictly to mean that the six years of service must accrue after the candidate obtains the prescribed educational qualification. The court determined that the conjunctive "with" links the educational qualification and the service requirement as simultaneous conditions, and it declined to imply the term "subsequent" into the statute. The court further held that, as a matter of principle, there is no qualitative difference between service rendered before or after the acquisition of the qualification that would justify counting prior service, and no such case was substantiated by the appellants. The precedent set in Suresh Nathan's case was distinguished as being specific to the facts of that scenario where the rules were interpreted differently.
Issues:
Whether the period of "6 years regular service" required for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer under the Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health Engineering Recruitment Rules, 1977, must be completed after obtaining the educational qualification, or if service rendered prior to the acquisition of the qualification can be counted toward the six-year threshold.
Ratio Decidendi:
The statutory requirement of "with 6 years regular service" is a conjunctive condition that links the educational qualification and the service period, mandating that the six years of service must be rendered after the candidate obtains the requisite degree or its equivalent diploma. The court rejected the argument for counting ante-diploma service, upholding the plain meaning of the rules and the principle that specific language governs over extrinsic precedents.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the writ petition is ultimately unsuccessful. The respondent is not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer based on the interpretation of the recruitment rules.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions governing recruitment and promotion to the post of Superintending Engineers in the State of Manipur under the Public Health Engineering Department are enshrined in the Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health Engineering (Superintending Engineer (Civil/Superintending Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1977. These rules stipulate that the post is to be filled by promotion from the rank of Executive Engineer and require the candidate to possess a recognized degree in Civil Engineering or its equivalent, along with a stipulated period of six years of regular service in the grade. The Central Government recognizes the AMIE Diploma as being on par with a Bachelors Degree of Engineering for recruitment to superior posts, which was accepted by the parties. The core legal question centered on whether the phrase "with 6 years regular service" in the eligibility criteria mandates that the six years of service must be rendered after the acquisition of the educational qualification, or if service rendered prior to obtaining the qualification can be aggregated to meet the threshold.
(B) The court elucidated that the conjunctive word "with" in the eligibility criteria must be given its plain, natural, and literal meaning, which is "accompanied by" or "and," thereby making the educational qualification and the six years of service concurrent and cumulative prerequisites. The court held that it would not be justified to read an implication that the service must follow the qualification, as doing so would undermine the statutory language. Furthermore, the court applied the settled principle of interpretation that where the language of a rule is specific and clear, the period of service required for promotion must be counted from the date of obtaining the requisite educational qualification, and prior service in the grade does not fulfill the statutory criterion. This precedent, while noted, was distinguished on the basis that the rules in the present case were unambiguous on their face.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, an Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Manipur, obtained the AMIE Diploma in 1989, which is recognized as equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering. In 1991, a vacancy arose for the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent, who had accumulated 12 years of service in the grade of Executive Engineer, with only a little over 2 years of that service obtained after receiving the diploma, sought promotion to the aforementioned post. The State Respondents opposed the claim, asserting that the six years of regular service required by the 1977 Rules must be completed after obtaining the educational qualification, a condition the respondent had not met. The writ petitioner was successful in the Single Judge's court, which held that the six years of service was independent of the educational qualification and that the eligibility criteria were fulfilled even if the experience was obtained prior to the qualification. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the phrase "with 6 years regular service" in the recruitment rules must be interpreted strictly to mean that the six years of service must accrue after the candidate obtains the prescribed educational qualification. The court determined that the conjunctive "with" links the educational qualification and the service requirement as simultaneous conditions, and it declined to imply the term "subsequent" into the statute. The court further held that, as a matter of principle, there is no qualitative difference between service rendered before or after the acquisition of the qualification that would justify counting prior service, and no such case was substantiated by the appellants. The precedent set in Suresh Nathan's case was distinguished as being specific to the facts of that scenario where the rules were interpreted differently.
Issues:
Whether the period of "6 years regular service" required for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer under the Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health Engineering Recruitment Rules, 1977, must be completed after obtaining the educational qualification, or if service rendered prior to the acquisition of the qualification can be counted toward the six-year threshold.
Ratio Decidendi:
The statutory requirement of "with 6 years regular service" is a conjunctive condition that links the educational qualification and the service period, mandating that the six years of service must be rendered after the candidate obtains the requisite degree or its equivalent diploma. The court rejected the argument for counting ante-diploma service, upholding the plain meaning of the rules and the principle that specific language governs over extrinsic precedents.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the writ petition is ultimately unsuccessful. The respondent is not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer based on the interpretation of the recruitment rules.
JUDGMENT
Ruma Pal, J.-The appellants and the respondent No. 1 are all Executive Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Manipur. All the appellants had Degrees in Engineering before they joined service. The respondent No. 1 obtained a Diploma in 1989 having duly qualified in both sections of the Associate Membership Examination of the Institution of Engineers (AMIE). It is not in dispute that the AMIE Diploma is recognised by the Central Government as being on par with a Bachelor s Degree of Engineering for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts under the Central Government. The question is whether the respondent No. 1 was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in 1991.
2. The Rules regulating the recruitment to the post of Superintending Engineers of the State of Manipur were notified on 18th October 1977. The Rules called The Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health Engineering (Superintending Engineer (Civil/Superintending Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1977 provide that the post of Superintending Engineer shall be filled up by promotion from "Executive Engineer (Civil)/ (Mech) and Surveyor of Works possessing Degree in Civil/Mechanical Engineering or its equivalent from a recognised institution with 6 years regular service in the grade."
3. The vacancy in the post of Superintending Engineer arose in 1991. In the same year the respondent No. 1 filed a writ application seeking directions on the State Government to consider him name for promotion to the post as he had put in 12 years service in the grade and possessed the necessary educational qualifications.
4. The writ application was opposed by the State Respondents. They contended that the eligibility criteria required six years regular service after the educational qualification was obtained. In the writ petitioner s case, his period of service after he obtained the AMIE diploma was far short of the requirement and as such, according to the respondents, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The writ application was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 17th March 1993. It was held that the requirement of six years was independent of the requirement of educational qualifications and the eligibility criteria was fulfilled even if the requisite experience had been obtained before obtaining the educational qualifications.
5. The appellants herein moved an application for review of the order before the Learned Single Judge. This was rejected. The appellants then filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld.
6. There is no dispute that as on 1991 the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had put in more than 6 years regular service in the grade. Of that period only a little over 2 years was after he was granted the AMIE Diploma. The controversy hinges on the interpretation of the word with used in the eligibility criteria.
7. The word with has been defined in the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993), diversely the meaning depending on the context in which it is used. But when it is used to connect two nouns it means "Accompanied by; having as an addition or accompaniment. Frequently used to connect two nouns, in the sense and - as well ."
8. Applying the definition to the eligibility criteria it is clear that it requires the prescribed educational qualification and 6 years experience as well. Given the plain meaning of the phrase, the Court would not be justified in reading a qualification into the conjunctive word and imply the word subsequent after the word with .
9. Even on a point of principle it would be unreasonable to distinguish between the nature of the regular service required, as if the service in the grade subsequent to the obtaining of the necessary educational qualification were qualitatively different from the service in the grade prior thereto. In fact no such case has been made out.
10. The appellants contention appears to have been based on the decision of this Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.1. In that case, the qualification for promotion prescribed was as under :
1. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with three years service in the grade failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineer with six years service in the grade - 50 per cent.
2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade - 50 per cent.
11. The Court held that the Rules would have to be read in keeping with the practice followed in the Department for a long time and that the period of service in the grade for eligibility for promotion commenced from the date of obtaining the degree and the earlier period of service prior to the obtaining the degree was not counted. Since this practice had been consistently followed and was understood as such by all concerned, the Court held that it would not be justified in taking the contrary view and unsettling the settled practice in the Department.
12. The decision in Suresh Nathan s case has been explained in M.B. Joshi & Ors. v. Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors.2; D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India & Ors.3 and finally in Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi4 as being limited to the facts of that case.
13. In M.B. Joshi s case "the decision in Suresh Nathan case was distinguished in the facts of that case and it was indicated that when the language of the rule is quite specific that if a particular length of service in the feeder post together with educational qualification enables a candidate to be considered for promotion, it will not be proper to count the experience only from the date of acquisition of superior educational qualification because such interpretation will violate the very purpose to give incentive to the employee to acquire higher education." (See D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India at page 755).
14. The Court in D. Stephen Joseph s case was also of the view that the decision in Suresh Nathan was an exception to the accepted principle of interpretation of the rule on the plain language.
15. In the last mentioned case, namely, Anil Kumar Gupta s case, the essential qualifications for appointment were (a) Degree in Civil Engineering and (b) two years professional experience. The Court interpreted the language to mean that the two years professional experience need not entirely be experience gained after obtaining the Degree .
16. Given the meaning of the words, the principle involved and the weight of precedents, the view of the High Court must be upheld.
17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
**************