Skip to content


G.N. Bhargava Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2935 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)31
AppellantG.N. Bhargava
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
rajasthan service of engineers (irrigation on branch) rules, 1954 - ex. engineer (mechanical) possessing degree of b.sc. (hons) agricultural engineering--held, he is not eligible for appointment as ex. engineer (mechanical) and he be ousted. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age..........by the order of the state government dated january 18, 1971 and he continues to hold the aforesaid post of executive engineer (mechanical) even now, although in a temporary capacity. the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 does not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of executive engineer (mechanical), by the rajasthan service of engineers (irrigation branch) rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'),3. the respondent state has contested the writ petition and it has been submitted on its behalf that the respondent no. 2 is a bachelor to engineering and that the selection committee constituted for making selection for appointment to the posts of assistant engineers in the r.c.p. considered the qualification of the respondent no. 2 as.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed that a writ of quo- warranto be issued declaring that the respondent No 2, Shri Birsain Jain, is an usurper of the office of the Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project and that he should be ousted from the aforesaid office.

2. The facts which give rise to this writ petition lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project and was appointed on that post after selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The respondent No. 2, Shri Birsain Jain, holds a degree of B. Tech. (Hons) in Agricultural Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.C.P.') in the year 1964. He was then promoted as an Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the R.C.P. in a temporary or ad-hoc capacity by the order of the State Government dated January 18, 1971 and he continues to hold the aforesaid post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) even now, although in a temporary capacity. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 does not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical), by the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'),

3. The respondent State has contested the writ petition and it has been submitted on its behalf that the respondent No. 2 is a Bachelor to Engineering and that the Selection Committee constituted for making selection for appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineers in the R.C.P. considered the qualification of the respondent No. 2 as equivalent to a Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering and thus the said respondent was entitled to hold the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical).

4. It is not in dispute that the Rules have been made applicable to the employees of the Rajasthan Canal Project with effect from May 20, 1975. It is also admitted at all hands that the respondent No. 2 holds the degree of B. Tech. (Hons) in Agricultural Engineering of the India Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Rule 27 of the Rules provides that temporary vacancy in the service may be filled in by appointing in an officiating capacity thereto an officer eligible for appointment to the said post by promotion or by appointing temporarily there to a person eligible for direct recruitment to the service, where such direct recruitment; has been provided under the provisions of the Rules, The post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical), which it included in the Service constituted under the Rules, is to be filled in 100% by promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) as provided in Schedule I, annexed to the Rules. Thus a temporary appointment could only be made on the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) by appointing thereto; an officer m an officiating capacity who may be eligible for promotion to the aforesaid pest The minimum qualifications and experience prescribed for appointment by promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical), as prescribed in the aforesaid Schedule are:

B.E. (Tech.) or qualifications declared equivalent by Government with 5 years' experience as Assistant Engineer (Tech.) or if diploma holder from recognised institution 15 years' service an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical).

5. It has not been brought on record that the State Government ever declared the qualifications possessed by the respondent No. 2 as equivalent to the degree of B.E. (Mechanical) however, the respondent State has placed reliance upon a letter of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur dated September 17, 1975 wherein it has been stated that the B. Tech. (Hons), degree in Agricultural Engineering of the Institute, is like ether B Tech. (Hons) degrees in Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engg. Civil Engg. etc. awarded by that Institute It was argued on the basis of the aforesaid letter by Mr. Mathur, learned Additional Government Advocate that the degree possetsed by the respondent No. 2, namely B Tech. (Hons) in Agricultural Engineering was equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering. However, the aforesaid letter does not support the contention advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The Institute has merely stated tha' it awarded B. Tech. (Hons) degrees in various blanches of Engineering, like Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Agricultural Engineering and that the degree awarded by it in Agricultural Engine-ring was like the degrees awarded by that Institution in other branches of Engineering. On the basis of these facts, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the respondent No. 2 does not possess a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering and as such he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) even in a temporary or officiating capacity under Rule 27 of the Rules.

6. It was also argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Rules did not apply in terms to the employees of the Rajasthan Canal Project prior to May 20,1975. That may or may not be so, but it is the agreed position that the Rules have been expressly made applicable to the employees of the Rajasthan Canal Project with effect from May 20, 1975. Thus in any view of the matter, the respondent No 2 could not have continued to occupy the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project after May 20, 1975. It may be noted here that the appointment of the respondent No 2 on the post of Assistant Engineer in the R.C.P. has not been expressly challenged by the petitioner in be this writ petition and the validity of the same, therefore, need not cons id red by this Court.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent No. 2 is directed to be ousted from the office of the Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Rajasthan Canal Project. The respondent No. 1 is directed to refrain from continuing the respondent No. 2 on the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the aforesaid Project. The parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //