H. C. SHARMA AND OTHERS. v. .MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VARADARAJAN, J. The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions H fil~d under Article 32 of the Constitution, are Junior Engineers of the first respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. W.P: No. 221 Qf 1979 has been, filed by Diploma-jiolders a1I1on8st the Junior

it.c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 3j7 Engineers for the issue of Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to : A (I) Restrain respondent I from . recruiting Assistant Engineers directly and filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers; B (2) Direct respondent I to give ·effect to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission · regarding the rules and policy of promotion etc;

. (3) Quash the seniority list (Annexure G) prepared by respondent I;

(4) Direct respondent I to reckon the senwnty of the c

petitioners with their length of service; and

(5) Direct respondent 1 not to affect in any manner air D those holding adhoc charge and current duty charge.

W.P. No. 1194 of 1979 has been filed by Graduate Junior Engineers as well as Graduate Junior Engineers selected for appointment directly as Assistant Engineers for the issue of a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ to : E

(1) Direct respondent I to fill up eight posts of Assistant Engineers amongst those in the Select Panel; _ _, (2) Quash Office Order dated 10.4.1978 (Annexure I) F entrusting Junior Engineers with current duty charge of the posts - of Assistant Engineers and the . Office· . Order dated 21.6.1979 (Annexure M) promoting two Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers on current duty charge on their own pay scale; G (3) Direct respondent 1 to fill up the remaining posts of ·Assistant Eµgineers in the direct ·recruitment quota from amongst the empanelled petitioners who are Graduate Junior Engill,l'ers; H

(4) Declare the petitioners-Graduate Junior Engineers . as a separate category and give them equal quota ·

378 s\JpiulMI! COURT REPORTS (19S3j ~ s.c.R. under the departmental promotee quota in the .posts A of Assistant Engineers;

(5) Restrain respondent 1 from giving adhoc promotions to current duty charge holders amongst Junior Engineers; B (6) Declare that the petitioners Graduate Junior Engineers in the service of respondent I are entitled to be put on par with their counter-parts in ·other governinent departments;

c ' (7) Direct respondent 1 to grant revised pay scales . of Rs. 550-900 to the petitioners and other Graduate Junior Engineers as in the 'case of Graduate Engineers in Class III service in other government departments with effect from the date it is made applicable in the Central Public Works Department in view of the D decision in Ram Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India; and

(8) Direct respondent I to revise special pay from Rs. 40 to Rs. 75 per mensem to the petitioners and other li1 Graduate Junior Engineers entitled thereto from 1.1.1979.

The case of the petitioners in W.P. 221· of 1979. (Diploma· holders Junior Engineers) is that they are holding the posts of Junior Engineers in the service of respondent I for 16 to 18 years having F joined service as Junior Engineers during 1967.to 1970. while respon- dents·.3 to 46 are those who have been directly recruited as Assistant Engineers during 1974-78 in contravention of the de.clared policy of . of the Government barring direct recruitment. The next promotional posts to the petitioners are Assistant Engineers. The first respon- . dent has been resorting to direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant G Engineers to the extent of 50 per cent resulting in stagnation of the petitioners in the grade of Junior Engineers. It has been following the pattern of functioning current in the Central Public Works Department, herein.after referred to as 'CPWD' in all matters of recruitment, proinotion and other conditions of service. The CPWD H had decided to suspend direct recn'iitment to the Central Engineering Service because no· promotional chances were available to the Central )3ngineering/Electrical Engineering Service (Class II). That decisiol)

itc. S)IARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 379 taken in Angust 1975 became effective from 1.4.1972 (Annexure 'B'). The first respondent has taken a decision by Resolutions Nos. 416 ·A and 78 dated 27.7.1970 and 21.2.1971 to the effect that all funda- mental rules and supplementary rules including amendments and orders issued by the Central Government shaU be treated as rules etc. of the first respondent Corporation. Similarly, the Central ' Services Conduct Rules. as applicable to Central Government and the B . general fundamental rules including amendments and orders issued by tl•e Central Government have been made applicable to the first respondent Corporation. As soon ·as ·the petitioners learnt that there is suspension of direct recruitment in the CPWD the petitioners invited the attention of the first respondent to that fact in November 1975 and requested for banning of direct recruitment c • of Assistant Engineers and were given an assurance that their rights will not be over-looked. The petitioners made several representations . including _the last one dated 24.1.1979 (Annexure 'E'). The then Commissioner of the first respondent assured the petitioners orally that the practice adopted by the CPWD will be.followed by the first respondent, but he however, wrote to the petitioners saying that the matter was under consideration. The petitioners met the Deputy Commissioner of the first respondent on 23. Li 979 and protested against the advertisement made in the Press to fill up eight posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment, and as he accepted the suggestion of the petitioners they expected ·that the advertisement will be withdrawn. Respondent 1 is, however, bent upon going ·ahead with the direct recruitment though more than 275 out of 400 Junior Engineers aspiring for promotion as Asst!. Engineers are eligible for consideration. The Central Government . has power of general superintendence over the first respondent and it ..has informed the Jl.fsf respondent by letter dated 23.2.1976 F (Al\nexure 'F') that consequent on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission the first respondent may ban direct recruitment as has been done by the CPWD. ·The Director in the Office of the Director-General of Works, Government of India informed the Assistant Commissioner (Establishment) of .the first respondent by G letter dated 16.2. !978 (Annexure 'Fl') that direct recruitment to CES/CEES Group B was still under suspension. Though no specific reference has been made in the Third· Pay Commission's Report to Junior Engineers of the first r~spondent Corporation, its recommendations have been followed _by the first respondent, and its employees are treated in the same manner as employees of the Cen- tral Government are treated by the Government, their pay scales and service conditions being the same. The proposed direct recruitment ·

3~0 SUPRllMB COURT REPORTS (1983) l ~.C.R.

to eight posts. of Assistant Engineers is detrimental to ihe inter- A ests of the petitioners in the light of the Central Government's memorandnm ·of the year 1959 relating to seniority. The first respondent should, therefore, be directed to follow the same policy as is being followed . by .the Engineering Department· of the Central Government. B The details of the appointments of respondents ·3 to 46 who have been directly recruited as Assistant Engineers dutin~ the years 1974-78, given in Annexure A-1, would show that the direct recruits of the year 1974 rank higher and above· the petitioners who are. ·recruited much earlier. Of the 400 Junior Engineers in the service c of respondent I, 36 are holding current duty charge as Assistant Engineers from 1978 and· several others are holding charge as Assis- tant Engineers on adhoc basis. Those Junior Engineers who are offici- ating as.Assistant Engineers ought to be. treated as regularly. appoint- ed Assistant Engineers. However, their names are not shown In the seniority list (Annexure 'G' circulated on 2.9.1978. That seniority list has been prepared on the basis of the memorandum issued by the Central Government in December 1979 which is similar to the seni- ority rules which has been struck down qy this Court in the case of S. B. Patwardhan and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Mahrashtra & Ors.(') Respondent I is drawing the seniority list without any authority of law by putting one promotee and one direct recruit thereafter and so on in accordance with the .instructions of the Central Government; according to which those confirmed earlier would rank senior to those confirmed later. The conferment of artificial seniority by respondent I deprives the petitjoners of their actual seniority and is destructive of the fundamental right to equahty. F The first respondent-Corporation has filed counter-affidavit contenjing that the Corporation has to be guided by its own rules relating to its Engineering Service though the conditions of service under it could not be less attractive than those prevailing in the G CPWD in order that it may attract proper ·engineering talents. All appointments in the Corporation carrying a minimum salary of less than Rs. 700 per mensem could be made by the Commissioner of the Corporation since 10.1.197 5 · in accordance with the recruitment rules which have been framed in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission though prior to· that date consultation with Union Public Service Commission was essential in the matter of

(1) A.l.R. 1977 S.C. 2051.

H.c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. {Varadarajan, J.) 381

SUPREMll COURT REPORTS (1983J 3S.C.R. to have engineers with better qualifications is by direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers to the extent of 50 per cent. If that avenue of direct recruitment is closed, there will be no source from which better qualified Engineers with higher Degree qualifications will become available. The Corporation considered the question of sus- pending direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers· on several occa- B sions, but it came to the conclusion .that it is neither feasible nor desirable to do so in the ·interests of the Engineering Department. The Writ Petition has net disclosed any violation of any right much less a fundamental right of the petitioners. The petitioners have no right to force the first respondent-Corporation, a statutory body, to exercise its discretion in particular manner which is against the rules. c The Municipal Corporation, Delhi is a statutory authority, which is no doubt controlled bY· the Central Government to the extent mentioned in s. 487 o(the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,

1957. The Recruitment Regulations for the posts of Assistant D Engineers (Civil) were notified in the Official Gazette on 27.6.1970 (Annexure 'Rl'J. They provide for recruitment Df Assistant Engi- neers to the extent of 50 per cent by promotion of Junior Engineers and to the extent of 50 per cent by direct recruitment. The CPWD had decided to .suspend direct recruitment to the Central Engi- neering Service Class II for seven years from 1972. The first res- E pondent has resolved by Resolution No. 50 dated 20.7.1964 to adopt the CPWD patten of work with regard to execution of works alone and not with regard to the mode of recruitment and other service matters. The Central Government rules ar~ made applicable to the employees of respondent- I only on their adoption and approval by F . the Corporation; otherwise its employees are governed by the rules and regulations framed by the Corporation itself under s. 98 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, !957. The representations re· ceived from time to time for suspension of direct recruitment of Assist~nt Engineers were duly considered but it .was found that there is ·no justification to comply with the request, and a decision in that regard was taken by the Council of the Corporation on 19.4.1978 (Annexure 'R2'). Out of 401 Junior Engineers, one is unqualified; 343 are Diploma-holders and only 57 are .Graduates in Civil Engi-· neering. The decision to fill up eight posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruit was taken in view of the short-fall in the direct recruitment quota compared to the promotion quota in accordance with Recruitment Regulations which provide for filling up 50.per

Ii.c. SHARMA v. MUNI~IPAL CORPN. (VaraJarqjan, J.) 383 cent by promotion and 50 per cent by direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers though sufficient number of Junior Engineers amongst A Diploma-holders had become eligible for the posts of Assistant Engineers. The practice of suspending direct recruitment followed by other departments of the Central Government cannot, therefore, be followed 'by respondent I. Section 47 of the Delhi Municipal ' Corporation Act provides for directions being given by the Central Government. But the Central Government's letter dated 23.2.1976. B to the effect that consequent on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, respondent I may !:>an direct recruitment as has been done by the CPWD was not written in a~cordance with power conferred by Section 47 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and it cannot, therefore, be taken as a directive from the Central c Government.

The relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees has been determined in accordance with the instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs' Office Memorandum No, 9/11/55-RPS dated 22.12.1959. Out of 401 Junior Engineers, 36 persons are holding the posts of Assistant Engineers on adhoc · basis in the Junior Engineer's pay scale and they are liable to be reverted as Junior Engineers as and when the posts are filled up on a regular basis in accordance with the Recruitment Regulations. The officers appointed on adhoc basis and current charge basis cannot be treated as regular appointees in the absence of appointments in accordance with the Recruitment Regulations, and, therefore, their names have been rightly not included in the seniority list. The persons con- firmed earlier are ranked as seniors to persons who are officiating in the grade in accordance with para 3 of the Home Ministry's Office Memorandum dated.22.12.1959 and there is no infringement of any fundamental right of the petitioners.

Respondents 3 to JO and 12 to 15 have filed counter-affidavit contending that prayers Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in W.P. No. 221 of 1979 . are in direct violation of the Recruitment Regulations relating to Assistant Engineers. Respondents 3 to 7 appeared before the Union G Public Service Commission and were duly selected as Assistant Engineers on 2.1.1974 as mentioned in the Office order dated 4.6.1975 of the Assistant Commissioner (Establishment) of the first ·respondent (Annexure 'RA-I'). Repondents 8 to 18 of whom respondent 11 I bad died a few years ago also were appointed as Assistant Engineers with effect from 2,J.19.74 in the direct recruitment quota. Respon- dents 19 to 46 also were appointed as Assistani Engineers on various

SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [!98JJ 3 s.c.R. dates after 2. l.1974 in the direct recruitment quota .. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to question the seniority of respondents ' 3 to 4~ fixed long ago in according with statutory rules. Respondents 3 to 10 and I 2 to 17 are working as Executive Engineers on adhoc . basis for over four years.

The promotional policy of respondent l is in accordance with the statutory rules approved in 1970 in consultatiOn with· the Union Public Service Commission and are neither a;bitrary nor without . authority of Jaw. There has been no ban on direct recruitment to. 50 per cent of the posts of Assistant Engineers as.per the Recruitment Regulations. Respondents 3 to 46 are Graduates in Civil Engineering c and more qualified than the petitioners who are only Diploma- holders. The petitioners are eligible to promotion as Assistant Engineers in the 50 per cent promotion quota. The first respondent . ' is not following the pattern of the current functioning of the;:'CPWD in the matter of recruitment and other service conditions but has its own Recruitment Regulations which have been approved by the D Union Public Service Commission and duly notified on 27.6.1970. The CPWD has suspended direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers in Class II temporarily for seven years from 1.4.1972. Direct recruit· ment of Assistant Engineers is resorted to by respondent 1 for having ~ighly qualified and talented Engineers and maintaining E standards and efficiency. The petitioners cannot have any grievance against direct recruits ofT<i74 ranking higher in seniority in accor- dance with Recruitment Regulations. The final seniority list of Assistant Engineers circuiated on 30.1.1975 (Annexurc 'RA III') was finalised after considering the objections and is in accordance with ..\.. the Home Affairs Ministry's Office Memorandum dated 22.12.1959 F which lays down that the relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees shall be determined according to the rotation 'o.f vacan- cies between direct recruits and promoters which shall be based on the quota reserved in the Recruitment Regulations. It cannot be_ challenged after a long period of five years. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief.

The petitioners in W.P. No. 1194 of 1979 are Graduate· Junior Engineers. Their case is that the first respondent has been denying for the last six or seven years to them and other Graduate Junior Engineers their rightful quota of appointment as Assistant Engineers IH in accordance with the Rules while following the pattern of· the CPWD even though a statutory duty is. cast on the first respondent to fill up the posts of Assistant Engineers on 50 : 50 basis,

H.C. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Voradarojan, J.) 385

Consequently, 26 posts of Assistant Engineers in the direct recruit· ment quota are kept unfilled as is evident from the final seniority list of Assistant Engine~rs dated 2.9.1978 (Annexure 'G') though there are 50 Graduate Junior Engineers who are eligible to compete for those posts. Though 26 posts of Assistant Engineers were available for being filled up as an 20.12.1978 only 8 posts were advertised (Annexure 'A') and the names of petitioners 1 to 21 appeared in the duly prepared selection list. The first respondent has not filled up even those 8 posts with the candidates in that selection list but has filled up 6 posts by putting up Junior Engineers with Diploma as respondents 5 to 41 on current duty charge under the order dated 10.4.1978 forming Annexure 'I' in violation of Rules and the petitioners 'right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In all 37 posts of Assistant Engineers includ· c ing some in the quota of direct recruits have been filled up by Junior Engineers holding only Diplomas on current duty charge with the object of favouring Diploma-holders who have got great political influence by the Office order dated 21.6.1979 (Annexure 'M'). The Assistant Commissioner (Engineering) has taken an absolutely new stand in his rc~ly (Annexure 'P') received on 6.9.1979 by saying that implementation of the approved panel was not feasible on account of ban imposed by the Commissioner on 10.8.1979 on new recruitment. The Diploma-holders posted as Assistant Engineers on the current duty charge have been further promoted as adhoc appointees by Office order dated 10.8.1979. (Annexure "R'). The effect of this adhoc appoinment is' that the adhoc appointees draw pay in the higher scale of Assistant Engineers while in the current duty charge they were entitled to draw only ·their pay in the lower grad~ of Junior Engineers. · The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for quashing the orde.rs dated 10.4.1978 and 21.6.1979 (Annexures 'I' & 'M').

The chances of Graduate Junior Engineers becoming Assistant Engineers a:re very bleak. Justice can be done' of both Diploma· holders and Graduates amongst the Jnnior Engineers by ·providing G a reasonable quota for both categories in the 50 per cent quota reserved for promotees in the matter of appointment of Assistant Engineers as is done in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking so that Graduates and Diploma-holders amongst the Junior Engineers may get equal chances of promotion. H The petitioners, who are Graduate Junior Engineers, form a category with distinguishing feuturcs seraiate f1cm Junirr fuginw,

386 SUPREME COURT REJ><?RTS (1983} 3 S.C.R.

who are Diploma-holders. The Supreme Court has held that A separate category within the same category on the basis of educational qualifications is clearly permissible and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But the first respondent is treating the two categories as equal. The Graduate Engineers suggested to the Deputy Cemmissioners (Engine'ering) that a separate · B . cadre of Graduate Junior Engineers in the pay scah; · of Rs. 550·900 may be created and designated as Design Assistants. The Assistant Commissioner (Engineering) has replied by his letter dated 27.3.1979 (Annexure 'K') that the Municipal Chief Accountant has ·not accep· ted the suggestion. Under the Central Civil Service Rules, 1979 and on the basis of the Third Pay Commission's Report the petitioners c who are Graduate Junior Engineers are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 550·90J which is the revised pay scale of Junior Engineers in Class III service in other government departments. The petitiqners are similarly circumstanced with those other Graduate Junior Engi- neers, and there is no Just or valid reason to discriminate the D petitioners qua the other Graduate Junior Engineers in Class III service in other Government departments.

The first respondent-Corporation has not revised the special pay (planning allowance) from the date from ·which the petitioners as Graduate Junior Engineers are legally entitled thereto; The E planning allowance has been revised in the CPWD from Rs. 40 to is per mensem.with effect from 1.1.1979 by the order dated 1.1.1979 (Annexure 'ZA'). The Corporation has by Resolution No. 184 dated 21.6.1971 sanctioned special pay to Section Officers now 11nown as Junior Engineers working in the Planning Circle at Rs. 40 per F · mensem in the case of Graduates and Rs. 25 pet mensem in the case of Diploma-holders with effect from 1.4.1971 on the pattern of the CPWD. The Planning allo.wance has been increased from Rs. 40 to Rs.75 per mensem in the CPWD with effect. from 1.1.1979 by Jetter No. 28017 (17). 78 EW-1 dated 1.1.1979 (An~exurc 'ZA') of the Ministry of Works and Housing. Government of India. Though the G Commissioner has recommended revision from Rs. 40 ·to Rs. 75 in his letter, the revision. has not been effected on the ground that the approval of the Municipal Council is not forthcoming. The Delhi Administration's Notificatien dated 19.9.1972 circulated by respon- H. dent 1 on 30.9.1972 (Annexure 'ZC'J shows that the General Financial Rules including amendments and .orders issued by the Central Government are.applicable to respondent 1 in every manner, be it pa~ or general allowance. Therefore, the stand of the first respondent

H.c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL coRPN. (Voradarajan, J.) 387

that revision of the planning allowance will be effective only from the date of approval by the Municipal Council is baseless, mala-fide and illegal. '

The petitioners' have prayed for the aforesaid reliefs in these circumstances.

The firs.I respondent has filed a counter-affidavit contending that the qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Regulations notified on 27.6. 1970 is Diploma in Civil Engineering or any higher qualification, and since all the Junior Engineers either with Degree or with Diploma are performing the same duties, no separate category can be allowed to Graduate Junior Engineers. Those Recruitment Regulations provide for 50 per cent of posts of Assistant Engineers c being filled by promotion amongst Junior Engineers and 50 per cent by direct recruitments. For direct recruitment a Degree in Civil Engineering and two years of professional experience are the mini- mum qualifications required while for promotees five years of pro- fessional experience as Junior Engineers iri the case of Diploma- D- holders and.three years of professional experience in the case of Graduate Junior Engineers are the minimum qualifications required. The suggestion of the petitioner to treat the Graduate Junior Engi- neers as a separate category is not acceptable to the first respondent

The select list for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant E Engineers out of Graduate Junior Engineers was approved by the competent authority on 2.5.1979 and the matter of aprointment being still under. consideration only two appointments on current duty basis were made out of the senior-most Junior Engineers by the order dated 21.6.1979 (Annexure 'M'). After the notification of the F Recruitment Regulations in 1970, 36 Graduate Engineers in the direct recruitment quota and 10 promotees from amongst Graduates were appointed as Assistant Engineers. The criteria for promotion of Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers is s~lection·cum-senlority. The rules for promotion applicable to the first respondent-Corpora- G tion are quite different from those of the CPWD and it is not incum· bent on the first respondent to follow the CPWD rules. The eligibi· y !ity of the petitioners and their selection to the posts of Assistant Engineers are no!_ denied by the first respondent. The petitioners' names appear in the select list which has been approved by the H Competent Authority on 2.5.1979 and is pending final decision about the appointment of the direct recruits selected for the 8 posts adver· tised ·in December 1978. The current duty char~e arran11ement

I 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.i\..

mentioned in Annexure 'M' had to be made as a stop gap arrange· A ment to meet the immediate requirements of the Department and not to favour any Diploma-l:iolders, and it does not amount to any. violation of Article 16 of the Constitution, of India. it is not admitted that 26 vacancies of Assistant Engineers still exisi for being fi!Jed by direct recruitment. The appointment under the pro· motion quota is no doubt in excess of the prescribed percentage B as some of the promotecs had been adjusted against short-term vacancies.

The demand of the Graduate Junior Engineers' Uniony for the creation of a separate cadre in the, pay scale of Rs. 550~900 for c Graduate Engineers was objected to by the, Finance Department of the first respondent-Corporation and found to be not feasible in view of the financial implications involved. ·

The matter of revising planning allowance of Rs. 40 and Rs. 25 D paid to Graduate Junior Engineers and Junior Engineers holding Diplonrn is under consideration. ' l

The 27th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in the Petition for Stay filed in W.P. 1J94 of 1979. Though he has sought leave in that counder-a.ffidavit to file a detailed counter-affidavit in the main Writ Petition, no such counter-affidavit has been filed. In the course of arguments before us reference was made by the learned counsel for the partie' to what is stated in the above counter-affidavit. Therefore, we woulo like to mention briefly the contentions put forward .by the- 27th respondent in that counter-affidavit.

The seniority list published on 11.10.1979 shows' that the . quota of the promotee Assistant Engineers is deficient, in that 2i posts out of t]Je quota for promotees are st\11 unfilled whereas the entire quota for direct recruits ha.s been filled up already. That seniority list has been issued with the approval of the Commissioner, vide Office • A __ Order No. 2(90)/ECI/ENGG/ESTT/ 1574 'dated 11.10.J 979, and shows that no post is available for being filled .up by direct recruitment.

H The Selection Board was not constituted as per the proper procednre. A minimum of two Deputy Commissioners are required to be on the Selection Board whereas in the case of the selection of Graduate Junior Engineers _for appointment as Asci>tant Engineers

H. c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL COR.PN. (Varadarajan J.) 389

there was not even: a sing!~ Deputy Commissioner on the Selection Board. When ·this illegality in the constitution of the Selection Board. was realised, the Corporation ·authorities, at the behest of interested persons, bad interpolated the name of the Deputy 'com- missioner (E) and obtained his signature sometime after. the deliber- ations of the Selection Board had been completed and the minutes had already been signed by the members. Page ! 80C of the pro- . B ceedings of the S.election Board {Annexure Rl!I to· this counter- affidavii) shows that Har Mohinder Singh (sl. No. 15) was absent for the interview. Yet he has been awarded a total of 34 marks, including four marks at the interview and his. name is sought to be placed at No. 14 in the Select Panel. The order communicating the constitution of the Selection Board shows that there were only four c members including the Municipal Engineer ·who was designated as· the Cl:iairman. But the.final minutes are signed by 5 members includ- ing the Deputy Commissioner (E).

The Corporation was formed on 7.4.1958. Since then a total , of 95 Assistant Engineers have been appainted by . direct recruitment D whereas amongst the_ Junior Engineers and lower categories on.ly 78 have been ap.Pointed as Assistant Engineers. Thirty-six respondents who are holding Current Charge as Assistant Engineers since various dates falling between 10.4.1978.and ·21.6.1979 had joined service as Junior Engineers about 18 to 20 years ago, i.e., between 14.10.1959 E and 24.8.1961. and they have' become eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers on a regular basis according to the rules of the Corpoi:ation long ago. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in pro- moting them on Current Charge basis as Assistant Engineers ..

The Recruitment Regulations deal with and apply expressly to only 63 posts of Assistant Engineers. The direct recruits are, there- fore, entitled to only 30 posts on 50 _: 50 basis, but they have been admittedly given 36 posts. Therefore, there is no further post of Assistant Engineer to be given to them on any of the respondents

l holding Current Charge being reverted as Jliuior Engineers. Accor- ding to the procedure and rules of the Corporation, Current Duty Charge holders ·are to be given adhoc appointments as soon as possible, and as per the preamble to the Commissioner's letter No . G

.34 Cl<cC dated 119.1979 adhoc. status· is required to be conferred with effect fiom the date of commencement of Current Duty Charge. H I The panel prepared by the Selection Board, which has yet not been ismed, is supposed to contain 37 names. Though under the

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.R

Ru\es for the 8 posts of Assistant Engineers advertised to be filled. A by direct recruitment only 8 plus 20% thereof have to be selected it is i.nteresting to note that the number of Junior Engineers holding Current Duty Charge is also 37.

We have re-arranged the order of the prayers in the Writ ')'.'. I B Petitions filed for the issue of Writs of .Mandamus or other appro· ~ priate Writs and would mention them here once again for the sake of convenient reference. Th~y are :

Writ Petition No. 221 of 1979 :

c (I) to restrain respondent 1 from recruiting Assistant Engineers directly and filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers;

(2) to direct respondent 1 to give effect to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission D regar~ing the rules and policy of promotion etc;

( 3) tci quash the seniority list (Annexure G) prepared by · ~ respondent 1;

E (4) to direct respondent I to reckon the seniority of the petitioners with the length of their service; and

(5) to direct respondent I not to affect in any manner all Junior Engineers holdiiig current duty charge and adhoc appointments as Assistant Engineers. F ' Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1979 : (!) to direct respondent 1 to fill up the 8 posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment from

J amongst the Graduate Junior Engineers in the select panel;

(2) to quash· the Office Order dated 10.4.1978 (Annexure I) entrusting Junior Engineers with current duty charge of the posts of Assistant Engineers and the Office Order dated 21.6; 1979 (Annexure M) promoting Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers QI\ current duty cbar~e;

H. c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Varadarajan J.) ' 391

(3) to direct respondent 1 to fill up the remaining posts of Assistant Engineers in the dirct recruitment quota fr-Om amongst 'the empanelled petitioners who are Graduate Junior Engineers; ·

(4} to declare the petitioneers Graduate Junior Engineers as a separate category amongst Junior Engine.ers and give them equal quota like the Diploma holders Junior Engineers out of the departmental quota in the posts of Assistant Engineers;

(5) to restrain respondent I from g1vmg · adhoc promotions to current duty charge holders amongst c Junior Engineers;

(6) to declare that the petitioners Graduate Junior Engineers in the service of respondent I are entitled to be put on par with their counterparts in other D Government _departments;

(7) to direct respondent I to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 550-900 to the petitioners and other Graduate Junior Engineers as in the case of Graduate Junior . Engineers in c,tass (III) service in other Government E departments with effect from the date on which it is made applicable in the CPWD; and

(8) to <lirect respondent I to revise the special pay from Rs. 40 to Rs. 7 5 per mensem to the petitioners and F other Graduate Junior Engineers entitled thereto from I.1.1979.

We shall consider prayers 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 221 of 1979 and prayer I in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1979 all of which relate to direct recruitment to 8 posts of Assistant Engineers. G Accmding to the counter-affidavit.filed on behalf of respondent I, apart from Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Municipal Engineer .who is at the top, the Engineering Service (Civil) of respondent I consists of: H (I) 450 Junior Engineers in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 of which 80% is filled by direct recruitment with the

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.R.

minimum qulification of Diploma in Civil Engineer- A ing and 20% is filled by promotion from amongst Works Assistants already in the service of respondent 1 with Diploma in Civil Engineering ' and minimum- experience of 2 years; -

B (2) · 13 Selection Grade Junior Engineers in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 to be filled by promotion of Junior Engineers 'on completion of 12 years of service-on the basis of seniority; and

c (3) 99 Assistant Engineers in the pay scale of Rs. 650- - 1200 of which 50% is to be filled by promotion of Junior Engineers and 50% is .to be filled by direct recruitment. A Degree in Civil Engineering_ and 2 years of professional experience are essential for direct recruitment as Assistant Engineers while for D promotion as~Assistant Engineers from the cadre of Junior Engineers a minimum of 3' years of service for Degree holders ang S years of service for Diploma holders in the Grade of Junior Engineers are essential. All other higher posts of Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Municipal E Engineers - are primarily filled by -promotion· of Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and - Superintending Engineers respectively. All the appointments in the respondent 1 - Corporation carrying a minimum salary of less than. Rs. 700 per mensem could be made by the Commissioner of the Corporation since 10.1.1975 in accordance with the recruitment rules which are framed in consultation with the UniOn Public Service Commission though prior to that date consultation with the Union Public Service Commission was essential in the matter of appointment to posts carrying a minim~m salary of Rs. - 350 per mensem and above. Direct recruitment is to be made on the recommendation of the Selection Board to be constituted for the purpose from time to time. Similarly, promotions are to be made on .the recommendation of the Departni.entai'. Promotion Committee to be constituted for the _ purpose from time to time. The quota of 50% for

ii. c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL°CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 393

' promotees amongst Junior Engineers and 50% for direct recruitment from amongst outsiders as well <tS Graduate Junior Engineers for appointment to posts of Assistant Engineers which are selection posts was· fixed by the Recruitment Regulation dated· 27.6.1970 ' made by the first respondent under S. 98 of the Delhi A

Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, .vide resolution No. 97 dated 4 5.1970 in connection with the recruitment B for the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) and approved by the Lt. Governor, Delhi under section 480 (2) of the said Act read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs' Notification datei:l 19.10.1966. The cause oftheGraduate Junior c Engineers is espoused by the Graduate Junior Engineers Union while the cause of the Diploma holders Junior Eng[neers is espoused by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Assistant Engineers (ORG) (Regd.). There is no dispute about these facts except in regard. to the quota ·of 50% for promotee Junior Engineers and 50% for directly recruited Graduate Engineers including Graduate Junior Engineers.

. According to the p'etitioners in Writ Petition 221 of 1979 who are Diploma .holders Junior Engineers respondent 1 has been follow- ing the pattern of functioning current.in the. CPWD in all . matters of recruitment, promotion and other condition~ of service. The CPWD has decided to suspend · direct recruitment in the Central Engineering Service because no promotional F ' chances .were available to the Central ·Engineering Service/ Electrical Engine_ering Service Class (II). The said decision taken in .August 1975 became effective from 1.4.1972. The first respondent has taken a decision by Resolution Nos. 416 and 78 dated 27.10.1970 and 21.2.1971 respectively to the effect that all fundamental rules and supplementary rules including amendments G and orders issued by the Central Government shall be treated as rules etc. by re~pondent I. The Central Services Conduct Rules and General Fundamental Rules including amendments and orders issued by the Central Government have been made applicable to respondent J. As soon as the petitioners learnt that there is suspension of · H direct recruitment in the CPWD they invited the attention of respondent 1 to that fact in November 1975 and requested

. ' 394 SUPllRMll COURT REPORTS (i983) 3s.c.F.. for banning direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers and _ A were given an assurance that their rights will · not be ove~­ looked. 'fhe petitioners made several representations including the last one dated 24.1.1979. The then Commissioner of respondent I gave an oral assurance to the petitioners that the practice adopted_. by the CPWD will be followed by respondent 1, and later wrote to B the petitioners saying that the matter was under consideration. The petitioners met the Deputy Commissioner of respondent I on 23.1.1979 and protested against the notification made in the. press on 30.12.1978 for filling up 8 posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment and they expected that the notification would be with- drawn as the Deputy Commissioner accepted their suggestion. But c respondent 1 is, however, bent upon going ahead with the direct recruitment though .more than 275 Junior Engineers out of 40-0 ' Junior Engineers aspiring for promotion as Assistaht Engineers are eligible for considesation. The Central Government has power of general superintendence over the first respondent and it has informed the first respondent by letter dated 22.3.1976 that consequent on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission ·direct recruitment may be banned by respondent 1 as has been done by the CPWD. The Director in th.e Office of the Director· General of Works, Govern- ment of India ·has informed the first respondent's ·Assistant ' Commissioner (Establishment) by letter dated 16.2.1978 that direct recruitment to the Central Engineering · Service and ,central Electrical Engineering Service (Group B) was still under suspension. Though no specific reference has been made in the' Third Pay Commission's Report to JUnior Engineers of the first respondent its recommendations have beeri ·followed by the first respondent and its employees are treated in the same manner as the employees of the Central Govern_ment. The pay scales and service. conditions of the employees of the first respondent and the Central Government are the same. The proposed direct recruitment to 8 posts of Assistant Engineers is detrimental to the interest of the. petitioners. The. first respondent should, therefore, be asked to follow the same policy as the one.adopted by the CPWD and be restrained from appointing 8 Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. This is how the petitioners in Writ Petition 221 of 1979 seek the relief covered by the first prayer. This is also the stand as defence in regard tO the first prayer in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 which is for a direction being given to respondent 1 to fill up the 8 posts of Assistant Engineers by · direct recruitment from amongst those in the select list.

ii. c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Tiaradarajan, J.) 395

' The 27th respondent has contended in his counter-affidavit that since the formation of the first respondent-Corporation on 7.4.1958 as many as 95 Assistant Engineers have been appointed by direct recruitmen(whereas amongst Junior Engineers only 78 have been appointed as Assistant EngineerS' \Jy way of promotion. There were only 60 posts of Civil Engineers when the Recruitment Regulati,ons A

dated 27.6.1970 were made and those Regulations could apply only B to 60 posts of Assistant Engineers and direct recruits would be entitled to only 30 posts and they are not entitled to further posts by direct recruitment now as they have already been given 36 posts. The 27th respondent has attacked the selection of the panel of 37 persons by the Selection Board constituted pursuant to the decision to fill up 8 posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment on the ground c that the Selection Board had not been properly constituted and there are certain other irregularities. This is how the 27th respondent is challenging the decision to appoint 8 Assistant Engineers by direct.• recruitment and the validity of the sekct panel prepared by the Selection Board. D

· The first respondent's contention is that the Delhi Municipal Corporation is a statutory authority which is no. doubt controlled by the Central Government bnt only to the extent mentioned in S, 48 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation .Act, 1957. Tlie Corporation E has resolved by Resolution No. 50 dated 20. 7.1964 to adopt the CPWD pattern with regard to the execution of works alone an~ not with regard to the mode of recruitment and other service . matters. The Central Government Rules are made applicable ·to the employees of respondent 1 only on their adoption and· approval by the Corporation, and otherwise its employees are governed by the F Rules. and Regulations framed by the Corporation itself under section 98 of the said Act. The representations made from time to time for suspension of direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers were duly considered, but it was found that there was no justification to comply __ ,.._ with that request and a ·decision to that eff~ct was taken by the Council of the Corporation on 19.4.1978 in the interest of the Corporation. Section 47 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act provides for directions being given to the Ctirporation by the Central Government, but the Central Government's letter dated 23.2.1976 to the effect that consequent on the Thrid Pay Commission's recom• mendations respondent l may ban direct recruitment as has been H done by' the CPWD is not a direction given under that section and is, therefore, not binding on respondent I. The Recruitment

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19S3) 3s.C.R..

A .Regulations dated 27.6.1970 framed under .section 98 ··of. the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act provide for 50% of the posts of Assistant 1 Engineers being.filled by direct recruitment and ,50% by promotion of Junior Engineers. The decision to fill up 8 posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment was taken in view of the shortfall in

B . . the direct recruitment quota compared to the ·promotion quota.

_ Respondei:its 3 to 10 and 12 to 15 in Writ Petition 221 of 1979 have contended in their counter-affidavit that the prayers J,2 ·and 4 · in that Writ Petition are in the direct violaiion of the Recruitment Regulation dated 27.6.1970. .They have further contended that respondent 1 is not following the pattern of the current. functioning c· of the CPWD in the matter of recruitment and other service condi- tions but is followjng its own Recruitment Regulations which have been approved by the Union Public Service Commission and dnly notified on 27.6.1970. The direct· recruitment is resorted to by respondent I for having highly qualified and talented Engi- neers and maintaining standards and efficiency. D The petitioners in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 contend that a statutory duty is cast on respondent I to fill up the posts of Assis- tant Engineers on 50:50 basis. Though there were 26 posts of Assistant Engineers to be filled on that basis by direct recruitment, E only 8 posts were notified on 30.12.1978 to be filled by direct tecruitment. The first respondent ha's however not filled up even those 8 posts but has filled up some posts of Assistant Engineers thereafter on adhoc. basis with Junior Engineers even though the

F select list has been approved on 2.5.1979 pursuant to the interviews held on the 6th and 7th March, 1979 in connection with the decision to fill up 8 posts of Assistant Engineers by_direct recruitment. - The first respondent has contended in. its counter-affidavit ·in Writ petition 1194 of 1979 that the select list for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineers out of Graduate rJunior Engineers was approved by th« competent authority on 2.5.1979 and the matter of appointment of 8 Assistant Engineers is under consideration. The . petitioners' names are in the select list and their eligibility and • selection to ·the posts of'Assistant Engineers is not denied and their appointment as Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment is under . -'-i consideration. H We may state here that Mr. U. R~ Lalit; Senior Advocate, appearing for respondents I and 2 has stated before us on 29.7.1981 ~ -

ii. C."SHARMA ii. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 397 I that the total number of vacancies. of Assistant Engineers would be ascertained within 2-1/2 months and thereafter in another 2-1/2 A months orders of appointment of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment will be issued by respondent I.

Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Senior Advocate appearing for tbe. petitioners in Writ petition 221 of 1979 drew our attention to certain documents and submitted that direct recruitment of Assista.nt Engi- B neers should have been suspended by respondent 1 following the decision taken by the CPWD to suspend direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers for 7 years from 1.4.1972. She also submitted that the 50:5J quota rule in the Recruitment Regulations approved on 27.6.1970 should not be followed. If her submission is that the c quota rule should not be followed altogether it is not consistent with the stand taken by the 27th respondent in his counter-aflidavi( and also by Mr. S. _C. Gupta, learned counsel appea·ring for respon- dents 13, 25 and 27 in Writ petition 1194 of 1979: The contention of the 27th respondent referred to above is that the quota rule can apply only to 60 posts of Assistant Engineers which were in existence D on the date on which the Recruitment Regulations were approved, viz. 27.6.1970 and since there. were 36 directly recruited Assistant ,Engineers when Writ petition 1194 of 1979 was filed which was more than 50?1. of the 60 posts there arc no more posts of Assistant Engi- neers to be filled by direct recruitment. There can be no difficulty 0 E in holding that this contention of the .27th respondent is totally unacceptable. It is true th~t when the Recruitment Regulations were approved on 27.6.1970 there were only 60 posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in respondent I - Corporation The number was 99 when Writ petition 1194 of 197.9 was filed and 115 when it was heard in this Court. The contention that the 50:50 quota rule can apply only to 60 posts which were in existence when the Recruitment · Regulations were approved and will not apply to posts which are in excess of that number is totally unreasonable and unsustainable and consequently rejected.

We will now refer to the documents relied upon by Mrs. G Shyamla Pappu. The Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, drew- the attention of the Com- missioner of respondent 1 by his letter dated 23.2.1976 to the CPWD banning recruitment of· Class II Engineers for 7 years from 1972 H consequent on the recommendations of ·the Third pay Commission in order to avoid stagnation in.respec.t of promotion of Junior Engi- neers and stated that it will be appreciated if the Commissioner could

398 SUPREME COURT REPOR 'I'S t1983l 3s.c.R.. consider the possibility of following that policy in the Corporation A which will go a long way in reducing the stagnqtion in respect of promotion of Junior Engineers in the Corporation. Admittedly, there is no direct reference to Junior Engineers oL respondent I - Corporation in the Third pay Commission's Report. The decision ·of the CPWD to suspend direct recruitment to CEC Class II for 7 years w.e.f. 1.4.J 972 is found at pages 20 and 21 of the CPvVD B Manual Volume I 1975 Edition .. The Delhi Municipal Corporation is a statutory authority governed by the Delhi Municipal Corpora- tion Act; 19.57. The Central Government can give directions to the Corporation only under Section/487 of that Act. According to that section the Central Government may direct the Corporation or the c Municipal Authority concerned to make arrangements to its satis- faction for the proper performance of the duty or as the case may be to make fina11cial provision to its satisfaction for the performance of the duty if, whether on receipt of any information or report obtained under Section 485 or Section 486 or otherwise the Central Government is of the opinion : D (a) that any duty imposed on the .c.orporation or any Municipal Authority by or tinner that Act has not been performed or has been performed in an imper- fect, insufficient or unsuitable manner; or E (b) that adequate financial provision has not been made for the performance of any such duty,

Sub-section (2) of Section 487 relates to directions to Municipal F Authorities in relation to the Del]J.i Electric Supply Undertakil)g or the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking with which we are not concerned in these two Writ Petitions. As rightly contended by Mr. V.M. Tarkunde, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979,..the letter dated 23.2.1976 referred to above does not contain any direction which could be issued by the Central Government under Section 487 of the Act and is not binding on respondent 1. ·1 The President of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Assistant Engineers (ORG) (Regd.) has stated in his letter dated 13.4.1978 H addressed to the Commissioner of re_spondent I that respondent I has agreed to adopt the practice of the CPWD for filling up posts of Assistant Engineers. No record has been produced to show what

ii. c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL coRPN. {Varadarajan, J.) M9 exactly are the terms of that agreement. It is not possible for us to infer from this letter that the Commissioner has agreed to suspend direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers. The Secretary of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Assistant Engineers (ORG) (Regd.) has by his letter dated 24.1.1979 requested the Deputy Commissioner of respon:dent t to cancel the Notification published on 30.12.1978 for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers. The Commissioner of respondent I has stated in his letter No. 5504. C&C dated 20.8.1979 that the Corporation generally follows the pattern prevailing in the CPWD. · The St~nding Committee of the Corporation had resolved to recommend to the Corporation that "in· view of the widespread stagnation amongst Junior Engineers (fivil) direct recruitment to posts of Assitant Engineers (Civil) may be banned/suspended for a c period of 7 years under the civil body also. in conformity with the' recommendations of the Third Pay Commission as adopted by the civil body" and that ''as recruitment to the posts of Assistant- Engineers (Civil) has already been made by the Corporation in violation of the aforesaid ban of the Government of India 'during the D _period 1.4.1972 to 31.12.1978 the proposed suspension of recruitment to the said posts may be operative for 7 yeaFs from the !st January, 1979". But in his note dated 19.4.1978 against stopping direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers·the Commissioner has stated that it would.not be in the larger interests of the Corporation to stop .direct recruitment and uot to induct fresh Engineers with higher qualifications. In that note the Com~sioner had directed the formation of panels for the promotional and direct recruitment quotas and the issue of notification in the press for direct recruit- ment of Assistant Engineers. Regarding the proceedings of the Appointment, Promotion, Disciplinary and Allied Matters Committee dated 5.4.1978 in respect of a Municipal Councillor's notice of resolution about amendment of the existing recruitment and promotional rules for the posts of Assistant Engineers the Commissioner of respondent I has stated thus in bis note : ·

"'In the Municipal Corporation of Delhi it is only at the level of Assistant Engineers that direct recruitment of Degree holders in provided which too i.s limited ·to 50% posts only. Since sufficient number of highly qualified Engineers are not presently available with the Corporation and whereas all the higher posts right upto the posts of Municipal Engineer have to ·be filled up from the cadre of Assistant Engineers the cadre must

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS jl iJ83j 3s.c.R; have sufficient number of officers of high calibre. It A is, therefore, not considered in the interests of the Corporation to stop direct recruitment to the posts of the Assistant Engineers. . Moreover, the amended Recruitment Regulations fof the posts 6f Assistant Engi- neers (Civil/Elect.) have since been approved by the B Corporaticin recently, vide their Resolution No. 348 dated J0.7.1978 wherein there is no change in the existing mode of recruitment, i.e., 50% by direc( recruitment. Obviously, there is no justifiation to stop direct recruitnent against the allocation of 50% posts e1rmarked for direct recruit- ment as per approved Recruitment Regulations framed m c consultation with the UPSC".

It would appear from what has been stated above that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which is a statutory authority i.s not automatically bound by any decision that may be taken by the CPWD D in regard to direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers and that it is open to the Corporation to adopt any policy of the CPWD by a resolution when alone that policy will become binding. on the Corporation. No provision in the Third Pay Commission's Report has been brought to our notice. Mrs. ~hyami'a Pappu has, on the other hand, admitted that there is no resolUtion of the Delhi Munici- E pal Corporation banning or suspending direct recruitment of Assis~ tant Engineers for 7 years or any period from any date whatsoever. The 50:50 quota fixed in the Recruitment Regulations approveo on 27.6.1970 has not been altered but has been approved by the Corporation in its Resolution No. 348 ··dated 10.7.1978. Therefore, F there is no su_bstance in the contention of the petitioners in Writ Petition 22.1 of 1979 or the contesting private respondents in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 that respondent I should have suspended the direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers and that the quota rule laid down in the Recruitment Regulations shouJd not be followed;

G· Coming now to the contention urged by Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents I 3, is and 27 in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979, regarding the quota fixed in the Recruitment Regulations we have alerady held that it cannot be restricted to only H 60 posts of Assistant Engineers which were in existence on the date of their approval.. The Recruitment Regulations themselves do not say that they are retrospective in operation from 1958. Prime facie. those Regulations would apply to all future recruitments and

H. c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. IVcrcdcrojan, J.) 401

promotions. That is how they have been understood by the authori- ties of respondent 1- Corporation when they decided to have 8 posts of Assistant Engineers filled up by direct recruitment though at that time there were 36 directly recruited Assistant Engineers holding · more than 50% of 60 such posts.

·Mr. S~C. Gupta invited out attention to the counter-affidavit of the 27th respondent where it is stated that the seniority list dated 11.10.1979 pucporting to have been issued with the approval of the Commissioner of respondent 1 subject to the final decision of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions 327 of 1971 and 1631 of 1976 shows a large. deficiency in the quota of promotees in the category of Assistant Engineers. But he admitted that that seniority \ist · was c withdrawn soon afterwards and that a subsequent seniority list prepared by respondent 1 was quashed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition 742 of 1971 on 11.2.1981 and the matter is pending in this Court in a special leave petition. The seniority list dated 2.9.1978 (Annexure Gin Writ Petition 1194 of 1979) which was prepared after hearing all concerned does not appear to have been objected to before or after it was finalised except in Writ Petition ·221 of 1979. In that seniority'list 130 posts of Assistant Engineers are mentioned by placing one promotee and one direct recruit alternatively according to their seniority. Thus we find that there is no merit in the conten- tion of respondents 13, 25 and 27 in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 as regards the:decsion to fill up 8 posts of Assistant Engineers by .direct recruitment and the quota fixed in the Recruitment' Regulations, 1970.

Mr: S.C. Gupta did not advance any a~f"ment in regard to. the plea of the 27th re.spondent about the const1tut10n of the Selection Board and the alleged irregularity in the preparation of the select list for appointment of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. Our attention has not been drawn to any rule or provision ·requiring two Deputy Commissioners of respondent 1 to be present on the Selection Board. The 27th respondent has n~t produced any· record to show .that the name of the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment) has been interpolated in the records of the Selection Board at a later stage or that Mohinder Singh who is stated to have been marked as absent for the interview was really absent and the ·award of 34 marks to him including 4 marks at the interview is irregular., The 27th H respondent has not substantiated any of the disputed questions of fact urged by him in his counier.-affidavit in regar<l to the selection

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983} 3 s.c.R.

of the· persons who are now in the ·select panel of Assistant A Engineers. Mr. V.M. Tarkunde submitted that in spite of the Commissioner having ·approved the selection made on 6th and 7th March, 1979 by the Selection Board constituted for direct recruitment' of Assistant Engineers the petitioners in Writ petition 1194 of 1979 who have B been selected for appointment as Assistant Engineers have not been appointed and that on the other hand on 21.6.1979 under orders.of the Deputy Commissioner dated 19.6.1979 two Junior Engineers have. been posted as Assistant Engineers (Civil) on Current Charge basis with immediate effect and that by the order dated 5.6.1979 pursuant to the Commissioner's order dated ~.6.1979 Sukhbir Singh, one of the c petitioners, against whom some 'departmental ·proceedings appear to have been pending, had been promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 2.1.1975 and ordered to continue in the post in which he was working on adhoc basis though the final seniority list dated 2.9.1979 (Annexure G) shows that 26 posts of Assistant Engineers to be filled by direct recruitment are kept vacant right from 1971. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the me~ting of the Commissioner and other officers of respondent 1 on the one hand.and the General Secretary of the Graduate Junior Engineers Union on the other, held on 12.3.1979 it was decided that the appointment(promotion to posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) should be made stri~tiy and truly as per the Recruitment Regulations and no Diploma holder should be promoted till the direct recruitment quota is filled up and that the Deputy Commissioner stated in that meeting that ap~oint­ ments/promotions to the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) were being made only accordmg to the Recruitment Rules. It was pointed out rightly by Mr. V. M. Tarkunde that the following particulars given in paragraph 14 ?f Writ petition 1194 of 1979 showing that 33 appointments of Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers have been made between 1972 and 1978 irregularly is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents I and 2. Appointments made after the Recruitment Regulations, G 1970 fixed 50% for promotees and '50% for direct recruits : Promotees Direct Recruits , 1972 Regular - 47 1974 - Regular 18 1975 Regular - 13 ,1976 - Regular 3 1979 Regular - 1 1977-78- Regular 13 Adhoc - 3 1978 - Regular 2 H. Current Duty Charge - 39 Total 36

Total 103.

H,c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Vara.darajan, J.) 403

In the counter-affidavit pf respondents 1 and. 2 it is·stated that appointment of Assistant Engineers in the promotion quota is of A course in excess of the prescribed limit and that the question of direct recruitment to posts ·of Kssistant Engineers (Civil) is under \ consideration. and the eligibility of the petiti'oners in Writ petition ll 94 of 1979 and their selection to the posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment are not denied by re~pondents 1 and 2. B This Court has observed in A. K. Subbaraman & Ors. v. Union of India(l) thus :

"When recruitment is from two or several sources it should be observed that there is no inherent invalidity in c introduction of quota system and to work it out by the rule of rotation. The existence of a quota and rota- tional rule by it>elf will not violate Art. 14 or Art. 16 of the Constitution." D For all the reasons stated above we find that there is nothing wrong in the respondent I-Corporation proceeding to appoint Assistant Engineers (Civil) by direct recruitment as per the Recruit· ment Regulations or in fixing the 50:50 quota and working it out or in the selection of the petitioners in Writ petition 1194 of 1979 as Assistant Engineer~ pursuant to the decisions to appoint 8 Assistant E Engineers (Civil) by direct recruitment in the interviews held for that purpose on 6th and 7th March, I 979 and that respondent I and 2 should issue orders of appointment to those posts to 8 of the peti- tioners in Writ petition 1194 of 1979 who are in the select list within six weeks from this date if not already issued as undertaken by F Mr. UR. Lalit on ;?.9.7.1981 within five months from that date.

Prayer No. 3 in Writ petition 1194 of 1979 is'to direct res- ponden~ I to fill up the remaining posts of Assistant Engineers in the direct recruitment quota from amongst the empanelled petitioners G who are Graduate Junior Engineers. No further discussion is necess- ary to record a finding on this question after what has. been stated ·above in regard to prayers 1 and 2 in Writ petiiion 221 of 1979 and prayer 1 in Writ petition ll94 of 1979. Respondent I is admittedly bound by the Recruitment Regulations made with the approval of the Central Governl]lent as required by ·section 480(2) of the Act H

(tl -11975) 2 sc.R. 919.

404 SUPREME-COURT REPORTS 11983] 3 S,C.R,

and it shall fill the remaining posts of Assistant Engineers in the A - direct recruitment quota which are kept vacant in the seniority list dated 2.9.1978 (Annexure G.in Writ petition 1194of1979) and any further posts whfoh might have become available thereafter or become available in view of our decisions In these two Writ petitions or otherwise in accordance with . those Recruitment Regulations. within six months from ioday or from the date on which further. B vacancy to the posts of Assistant Engineers in the direct recruitment quota arises as the case may be, if permissible from out of the select list approved on 2 5.1979.'

Next we will consider prayers Nos. 2 and 5 in Writ petition c 221 of 1979 and Prayer No. 2 in Writ petition 1194 of ll79 which relate to Current Duty Charge appointment and Adhoc appointment ' of Junior Engineers' as Assistant Engineers. As stated earlier. the allegation in paragraph 14 of Writ petition 1194 of 1979 that there are 39 Junior Engineers working as Assistant Engineers on Current Duty Charge and 3 Junior Engineers working as Assistant Engineers D on Adhoc basis is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents I and 2. The 27th respondent has admitted in his · counter-affidavit that there are ·37 ) unior . Engineers holding Current Duty Charge as Assistant Engineers. In another. portion of Writ petition 1194 of 1979 it is alleged that in all 37 posts of Assistant Engineers including some in tli:e quota of drrect recruits have been filled up by Junior Engineers holding only Diplomas on Current Duty Charge including 2 appointed by the Office Order dated 21.6.1979 (Annexure M) with the object . of favouring Diploma holders without appointing 8 Graduate Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers though their selection has been approved by the competent authority on 2.5.1979 and that earlier 6 posts of Assistant Engineers have been filled up by putting Junior Engineers with ·Diplomas on Current Duty Charge by the Office Order dated 10.4.19 71 ( Annexure I) in violation of the rules and, the petitioners' rights guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. It is further alleged in the Writ petition that the effect of Adhoc a_ppointments is that the Adhoc: G appointees draw the higher scale of pay of Assistant Engineers ' though when they hold Current Duty Charge they are entitled to draw only 'their own pay in the Jo.wer grade of Junior Engineers. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for quashing those two Office Orders dated 10.4.1978 and 2l.6.i979. H The defence of respondent 1 in the counter-affidavit is that \he Current Duty Cbarge arrangement made in the Office Order

H.C. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 405

dated 21.6.1979 had to be made 'as a stop gap arrangement in order to meet the minimum requirements of the department and not to favour any Diploma holder and that it does not amount to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. T!J.e 27th respondeni has con· tended that according to the procedure and rules of the Corporation Current Duty Charge holders are to be given Adhoc appointments as soon as possible and that according to the preamble to the Com· B missioner's letter No. 346/C&C dated 11.9.1979 Adhoc status is required to be conferred with effect from the date of commencement of th;_e Curre(lt Duty Charge.. The petitioners in Writ Petition 2_21 of J979 contend that 26 Junior Engineers out of the total number of Junior Engineers in the service of respondent 1 are holding Current Duty Charge from 1978 and several others are holding c charge as Assistant Engineers on adhoc basis and that all those Junior Engineers who are officiating as Assistant Engineers are to be treated as regularly appointed Assistant Engineers. In thy counter· affidavit filed in Writ Petition 221 of 1979 respondent 1 has con· tended that all posts to be filled by direct recruitment have to be advertised and the candidates have to be called for interview and the selection made has to be approved by the Corporation and that even for promotion a Departmental Promotion Committee with a member of the Union Public Service Commission on it has to be constituted and a list of eligible candidates has to be prepared and they have to be screened before the selection is made: It is further contended that all these procedures take time and the work of the Corporation cannot remain unattended and, therefore, senior per- sonnel from the immediate lower category of efficers are drafted to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Engineets on adhoc basis without any right to those posts which have to be filled by either promotion or d!rect recruitment as per the rules. · ., Mrs. Shyamla Pappu appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition 221 of 1979, Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 20, 38 and 44 and Mr. R. P. Sharma, G Advocate appearing for respondents 9 to 13 and 28 in that petition and Mr. S. C. Gupta appearing for respondents 13, 25 and 27 in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 did not advance any argument regarding the Current Duty Charge and Adhoc appointment of Junior Engi- neers as Assistant Engineers which is impugned in Writ Petition B 1194 of 1979. Mr. V. M. Tarkunde submitted that there is no specific provision for respondent 1 making adhoc appointments as ·Assistant Engineers and he pointed out that the!revised seniority

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1983] 3 S.C.R.

list dated 2.9.1978 (Annexure Gin Writ Petition 1194of1979) shows A that adhoc appointments are being made from 22.6.1962 though according to the Office Memorandum No. 22011/6/75 Estt. (D) dated 30.12~1976 of the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariate, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms in exceptional· circumstances and under exigencies of publir service it may be necessary to make adhoc appointments without following the pres- B cribed procedure and such appointments should be s_ubject t<;> the following instructions, viz :

(a) Purely short-term vacancies caused by leave, short- term deputation, training etc. may be filled by adhoc c appointments i( the posting of the person next in the panel .will be administratively difficult or if he is not interested in such short-term promotion~ Such appointment can be made also when the panel is exhausted or has expired and if there is no time to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee D meeting and prepare a fresh panel. Adhoc appoint- ments made to fill in short-term vacancies should be only by promotion of departmental candidates and not by direct recruitment.

E (b) In the case of regular vacancies due to death, retire- ment, resignation, promotion and deputation for period exceeding one year the vacancies should be fiJled by regular mcthocl and not by adhoc appoint- ments. However, if the panel is exhausted and delay is ·anticipated in preparing a fesh panel and F if the exigencies of pubiic interest required the filling of the vacancy immediately adhoc appointments can be made without following .the ·prescribed procedure. G But regarding Current Duty Charge appointments there is a Circular dated 14.12.1973 of respondent I and it Jays down the · following norms for making Current Duty Charge appointments for higher posts viz : · , H - ('!) Current Duty Charge appointments should be made only in the order of seniority subject to the condition that the (officer is otherwise fit with reference to

H.C•.SHARUA v. MUNICIPVL CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 407

service, character rolls and clearance reports froni the DOV/DOI; A

(2) Current Charge arrangements should not be made if otherwise suitable person senior to the incumbent is 11vailable except where- the Current Charge. arrangement is for such a short period that it will B not be in administrative interest to disturb the eligible person from his existing assignment;

(3) Current Charge arrangement should cease forthwith when an officer becomes eligible for adhoc/regular appointment to the post. Cases of adhoc/regular. C appointments arc to be initiated simultaneously with making Current Charge arrangements.

The Commissioner of respondent 1 has issued an Office Order dated 10.8.1979 approving the adhoc arrangement to the post of D Assistant Engineers (Elect.) in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1200 .plus the usual allowances in respect of 5 Assistant ·Engineers (Elect.) who were presently working on Current Duty Charge from the dates of their taking over charge or entrustment of Current Duty Charge as noted against their names for the period ending 29.2.1980 E or until the posts are filled on a regular basis. Out of these 5 persons one each was on Current Duty Charge from 1974 and 1976 and 3 were on Current Duty Charge from .1978. _Thus it is seen that on the electriCal side respondent .1 has been keeping persons on Current Duty Charge from 1974, 1976 and 1978 until 29.2.1980 though as per the Circular dated 14.12.1973 mentioned above cases for adhoc/ F regular appointments should be initiated simultaneously while making Current Charge arrangements.

Mr. V. M. Tarkunde pointed out that in all 55 Current Charge .. ~ appointments have been made from 15.6.1970 inclusive of 2 made on 15.6.1970 . 22 made ill 1978, 15. made in 1979, 6 made in 1980 and 10 made in 1981 and that they were all contiquing even on 22.7.1981. It is not disputed that Junior Engineers working on Current Duty Charge receive emolum~nts based only on their own pay scale as Junior Engineers and that on their adhoc appointment as Assistant Engineers they receive emoluments on the basis of the higher pay scale of Assistant Engineers right from the date on which they were put on Current Duty Charge. lt is nid<nt that J11niQr

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 3 s.c.ll.

Engineers would be anxious to be put on Current Duty Charge as they are sure that if they are subsequently appointed· on adhoc basis. they would become entitled to emoluments on the higher pay· scale right from the date on which they were put on Current Duty Charge.

B 'An that Mr. U. R. Lalit did before us in connection with this question was to invite our aitention to the aforesaid Circular dated 14.12.1973 and to a Memorandum presented to respondent I by the Graduate Junior Engineers Union where the following decision taken bY the Establishment Board on 17.8.1974 is extracted, viz: · c "In the meeting of the Establishment Board held on ... 17.8.1974 it is explained and recommended by the M.E. (Municipal Engineer) that under the direct recruitment quota only qualified persons having Degree in Engineer-· ing ate eligible. It was, therefore, decided Jhat selection D . be made out of the departmental Junior Engineers having · Degrees in Engineering after looking into their CRs and after assessing their merits by the Establishment Board. They will be appointed on Current Dutyi_Charge/Adhoc basis in the first instance and will be replaced as soon as the persons selected by the.UPSC are available." E Mr. U. R. Lalit_ did not dispute the facts mentioned by Mr. V. M. Tarkunde about the Current . Duty Charge appointments having been made from 1974 to 1981 of which 2 were Jn~de by the impugn- ed order dated 21.6.1979 even after the select list of-37 persons F prepared for appointment to ·8 posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment was approved by the competent authority on 2.5.1979 . Mr. U.R. Lalit did not dispute the factual statement made by Mr. Tarkunde that only Junior Engineers holding Diplomas have been put on Current Duty Charge and appointed on adhoc basis as Assistant Engineers and that not even a single Degree holder Junior G Engineer has been chosen for such appointment notwithstanding the

H above decision taken by the . Establishment Board in the meeting held on 17.8.1974 to choose only suitable Junior Engineers with Degree qualification for such appointments. Continuing Current Duty Charge and Adhoc appointments for such a long period exceeding the period of one year mentioned in the said Memorandum dated 30.12.1976 ... .... -

of the Government of"India ·is irregular though that Memorandum c<:>uld not be state<! to be a11tomatically 1)indin$ on respondent I,

11.c. sitARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 4o9 What is totally wrong is that appointment of Junior Engineers on Current Duty Charge as Assistant Engineers has been made by the impugned order dated 21.6.1979 even after the approval of the select list prepared for the -l!PPOintment of 8 Assistant Engineers without issuing orders for appointment even to 8 out of those persons who are in the select list. In these circumstances we hold that the appointment of 6 Diploma holders Junior Engineers by the order dated 10.4.1978 (Annexure I) and of 2 §Uch Jnnior Engineers by the order dated 21.6.1979 (Annexure M) as Jnnior Engineers on Current Duty Charge ·for periods which are proved to be too long is irregular and we quash the same..

Respondent 1 shall issue orders of appointment to 8 Degree c holders Junior Engineers out of those in the select list approved on 2.5.1979 within one month from this date and complete the appoint' ment of AS'istant Engineers for the remaining posts on regular basis in accordance with the quota fixed in the Recruitment Regulations within six months from this date ·unt.il which time the Current Duty · Charge holders and Adhoc appointees according to seniority will D continue to man the remaining posts. Respondent 1 shall not make Current Duty Charge/ Adhoc appointments and promotions except strictly and truly in accordance wi.th the .instructions and Regulations referred to above and other instructions, if any, issued in that regard. E

The only other prayer about which Mr. V.M. Tarkunde advanced argument is Prayer No. 8 in Writ Petition 1194of 1979 which is to revise the special pay or planning allowance of Rs. 40 per mensem to Rs. '15 per mensem from 1.1.1979 to Graduate Junior Engineers F working in the planning circle. The planning allowance has been • revised in the CPWD from Rs. 40 to 75 per mensem in the case of . Graduate Junior Engineers w.e.f. J.1.1979 pursuant to the letter No. 28017 (17) :-- EWI dated J.1.1979 of the Ministry of Works and Housing (Works Divison) addressed to the Director-General of Works, CPWD (Anncxure ZA). The Commissioner of respondent G 1 has stated in his letter dated 20.8.1979 (Annexur~· ZB) that the Corporation has resolved on 21.6.1971 to sanction special pay to Junior Engiueers working in the planning circle at Rs. 40 per mensem ' in the case of Degree holders and Rs. 25 per mensem in ·the case of Diploma holders w.e.f. 1.4.1971 and that he had recommended it H may be.increased from Rs: 40 to Rs. 75 per mensem as had been done by the CPWD w.e.f. Ll.1979, observing that the Corporation·

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f19SJ) J S.C.R. generally follows the pattern prevailing in the CPWD and the A· original· planning allowance itself was sanctioned following that pattern. In Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 it is alleged that arbitrary and illegal treatment is meted out to Gradua~.Junior Engineers by respondent I as borne out by the fact that the planning allownnce is not revised from the date from which the Graduate Junior Engi- B neers are entitled to enhancement. In the counter-affidavit respondent I has stated that· the issue regarding revision of the planning allowance to Junior ·Engiheers is still under consideration. Mr. V,.M. Tarkunde admitted before us that the revision has since \ been effected w.e.f. 19.5.1980 whereas the claim of the petitioners in. Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 is that it should be revised w.e.f. J.J.1979. Cl The petitioners in Writ Petition 1194 of 1979 cannot be allowed to .blow hot and cold. In regard to the policy of susrensiotl of direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers for 7 years. w.e.f. 1.4.1972 their contention is that the policy of the CPWD cannot apply auto- matically to the Corporation until it is adopted by a resofotion. Now in regard to the planning allowance they cannot be ·heard to say that D the revision should be made automatically from 1.1.1979 following the CPWD pattern. Evidently, the Corporation· has resolved to grant the upward revision only from 19.5.1980. The petitioners are not entitled to claim the revision from 1. l.l 979 itself a,nd they have to be satisfied with the revision effected from 19.5.1980, E We shall next consider prayers 3 and4 in Writ Petition 221 of 1979 which are to quash the seniority list dated 2.9.1978 (Annexure Gin Writ Petition l!94of1979) and to direct respondent 1 to reckon the seniority of the petitioners with the length of their services. F Mrs. Shyamla Pappu stated that the names of the petitioners in Writ Petition 221 of 1979 are not found in that seniority list and that the question of their seniority may be •left open. This request was ·opposed by Mr. G.L. Sanghi who stated that the question itself does not arise for consideration in Writ Petition 221 of 1979. The contention of respondent 1 in its counter-affidavit is that the names of Junior Engineers working as Assistant Engineers on Current Duty Charge and Adhoc basis are not mentioned in that seniority list as A

they are only Junior Engineers who have not been regularly appoint- ed as Assistant Engineers. This contention is correct and has to be upheld; The petitioners in Writ Petition 221 of 1~79 are only Junior Engineers whereas the seniority list dated 2.9.1978 relates to Assistant -~· Engineers. It i~ not the case of the petitioners in writ Petition 221 _of 1979 that their senority as Junior Engineers has no\ been fixed

Ii.c. SHARMA v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (Varadarajan, J.) 411 properly. They are only Junior Engineers and consequently they cannot question the correctness of the seniority list dated 2.9.1978 A relating to Assistant Engineers. As they have not yet been regularly appointed or promoted as Assistant Engineers they cannot have any grievance about their names not being mentioned in that senioriity list. Therefore, there is no need to quash the senority list dated 2.9.1978. or to give any direction to respondent 1 as prayed B for by the petitioners· in Writ Petition 221 of 1979 in regard to seniority.