- (1.) These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution assail the constitutional validity of a notification issued by the State Government of Haryana in the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) dated June 22,1984 purporting to amend R. 6(b), Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 964 (for short 'the Class I Rules') with retrospective effect from July 10, 1964 as violative of Arts. 14 and 16(l) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the State Government by reason of the proviso to S. 82(6), Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The purport and effect of the impugned notification is to nullify the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana, (1984) 2 SCR 476 : (AIR 1984 SC 643) holding that a degree in Engineering was not essential for such promotion. By the impugned notification, a degree in Engineering is made an essential qualification for promotion of Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Branch, a Class II service under R. 6(b) of the Class I Rules and thereby the petitioners have been rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service.
(2.) The circumstances which led to the issuance of the impugned notification are these. A controversy had arisen on the construction of R. 6 of the Class I Rules as to whether a degree in Engineering was necessary when the post of Executive Engineer, which is a post in Class I service, was to be filled by promotion by members of Class II service and this was settled by the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar's case, (supra). The Court on a consideration of the relevant rules came to the conclusion that a member of Class II service, namely, Assistant Engineer or Sub-Divisional Officer did not require to have a Universtiy degree for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service. On February 24, 1984, the Additional Solicitor General gave an undertaking on behalf of the State Government that it would consider the cases of all eligible persons including the petitioners for regular appointment to the Class I service in accordance with the rules and complete the process within four months from that day. The Court, accordingly, in Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1981 (reported in AIR 1987 SC 424) (Ashok Gulati v. State of Haryana) and the connected matters as also in these petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution passed an order to the effect : "Mr. K.G. Bhagat, learned Additional Solicitor General says that the State Government will consider the cases of all the eligible persons including the appellants/ petitioners and respondents for regular appointments to Class I service in accordance with the law and complete the process of appointments within 4 months today. The Government is permitted to do so. But all appointments made pursuant to this order will be subject to the final result of these cases. In the meanwhile the appellants will continue in the posts held by them. These matters will stand adjourned for a period of 6 months from today." Just two days before the expiry of the period within which promotion of eligible persons including the petitioners was to be completed, the State Government purported to effect an amendment of R. 6(b) retrospectively with effect from July 10, 1964. The impugned notification was in these terms : HARYANA GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (IRRIGATION) NOTIFICATION The 22nd June, 1984. No. G.S.R. 47/Cons./Art. 309/ Amend. (1)84- In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Haryana, hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964, namely :- 1. (1) These rules may be called the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch), Haryana, (Second Amendment) Rules, 1984. (2) These rules shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 10th July, 1964. 2. In the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964, in rule 6, in clause (b), after the words "eight years service", the words, "in addition to the qualifications prescribed in Clause (a)" shall be inserted."
(3.) Presumably, the State Government adopted this unfortunate course of action taking cue of the observations made by this Court in the concluding part of the judgment in A.S. Parmar's case, (AIR 1984 SC 643) saying that if the Government wish to appoint only persons having a degree in Engineering to Class I service, it was free to do so by promulgating appropriate rules and that the power to frame such a rule was beyond question. But the Court never laid down that such a rule may be framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution with retrospective effect so as to render ineligible Class II officers like the petitioners who were Diploma-holders for further promotion as Executive Engineers in Class I service. In view of the clear formulation of law interpreting R. 6(b) of the Class I Rules holding that a degree in Engineering was not an essential qualification for promotion of Class II officers to the cadre of Executive Engineers in Class I service, there was no occasion for the State Government to issue the impugned notification unless it was with the object of nullifying the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar's case.;