1987 (6) TMI 393 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of seniority lists prepared in 1980.
2. Determination of seniority of Assistant Engineers.
3. Validity of the 1969 and 1971 amendments to the U.P. Service of Engineers Rules.
4. Impact of retrospective amendments on vested rights.
5. Validity of the Office Memorandum dated December 7, 1961.

Summary:

1. Validity of Seniority Lists Prepared in 1980:
The appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 14.1.1982 which quashed the seniority lists in the cadre of Assistant Engineers in the United Provinces (Buildings & Roads Branch) Class II prepared on 29.7.1980 and 18.12.1980. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to quash these seniority lists and directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list.

2. Determination of Seniority of Assistant Engineers:
The core issue was the determination of seniority within the meaning of Rule 3(b) of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II (Amendment) Rules. The Court held that temporary Assistant Engineers appointed substantively with the approval of the Public Service Commission should have their seniority reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment, even if they were appointed to temporary posts. The Court emphasized that the long years of service rendered by an Assistant Engineer should not be arbitrarily excluded in determining seniority.

3. Validity of the 1969 and 1971 Amendments to the U.P. Service of Engineers Rules:
The amendments to the rules in 1969 and 1971 were challenged on the grounds of being arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court found that these amendments adversely affected the rights of temporary Assistant Engineers by excluding their long service from seniority calculations. The amendments were quashed for being arbitrary and infringing on constitutional rights.

4. Impact of Retrospective Amendments on Vested Rights:
The Court acknowledged that while the government has the power to make rules with retrospective effect, such rules cannot take away vested rights or be arbitrary and discriminatory. The retrospective amendments in the 1969 and 1971 rules were found to be unreasonable as they deprived temporary Assistant Engineers of their seniority based on long years of service.

5. Validity of the Office Memorandum Dated December 7, 1961:
The Office Memorandum introduced quotas for filling vacancies and was incorporated into the amended rules of 1969. The Court held that this memorandum could not override statutory rules and that temporary Assistant Engineers who had become members of the service were entitled to have their seniority reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment. The memorandum and subsequent amendments were found to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirmed the High Court's judgment, quashed the 1969 and 1971 rules, and directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list based on the length of service from the date of becoming members of the service. The decision emphasized fairness and non-arbitrariness in determining seniority and upheld the rights of temporary Assistant Engineers.