PETITIONER:
J.C. YADAV & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1990
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 857 1990 SCR (2) 470
1990 SCC (2) 189 JT 1990 (1) 278
1990 SCALE (1)229
CITATOR INFO :
R 1990 SC1069 (5,6,7)
ACT:
Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public Health
Branch) Rules, 1961: Rule 22--Power of Government to relax
requirement of any of the Rules-Scope and interpretation
of--Meaning of expression "in any particular case"---Whether
power to grant relaxation may be exercised in case of an
:individual to remove hardship caused to him or to a number
of individuals who all may be similarly placed-Relaxation of
requirement of Rule 6(b) granted to a group of individuals
to meet a particular situation--Validity of.
Words and Phrases--'In particular case'--Meaning of.
HEADNOTE:
The appointment and promotion to Class I Engineering
Service in the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana
Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public Health Branch)
Rules, 1961. Rule 5 provides for appointment to Class I
Service, inter alia, by promotion from Class II Service.
Rule 6(b) prescribed that no person shall be promoted unless
he has completed eight years service in Class II and has
passed professional examination to the department. Rule 22
confers power on the Government to relax any of the Rules it
may consider necessary.
The appellants and the contesting respondent were mem-
bers of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II in the
Public Health Branch. In 1971 the appellants were promoted
to the post of Executive Engineers in the cadre of Class I
service on ad hoc basis while the respondent was not consid-
ered for promotion. Later, a Committee constituted under
Rule 8 for selecting suitable candidates for promotion to
Class I post, considered the names of the appellants and the
respondent but did not find the respondent suitable. Hence
it included the appellant's|ant's names only in the select
list. The appellants did not possess the requisite minimum
period of service of 8 years in Class II service but since
no other suitable candidates were available, the Committee
recommended to the Govt. for granting relaxation to the
appellants. The State Public Service Commission approved the
recommendations. The State Government accepted the
recommendations and appointed the appellants to Class I
service by a Notification dated May 3, 1973.
471
The contesting respondent filed a Writ Petition before
the High Court challenging the validity of the appellants'
promotion on the ground that since the appellants did not
possess the requisite qualification for promotion to Class I
Service their promotions were contrary to rules.
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition
holding that since the Government had relaxed Rule 6(b) in
appellants' favour, their promotions were sustainable in
law. On appeal, the Division Bench quashed the appellants'
promotion on the ground that the State Government had no
authority in law to grant relaxation to the appellants under
Rule 22 in a general manner as the power of relaxation could
be exercised only in individual cases to mitigate hardship
caused to an individual. Hence the appeal by special leave.
Allowing the Appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. Power to grant relaxation may be exercised in
case of an individual to remove hardship being caused to him
or to a number of individuals who all may be similarly
placed. This power may also be exercised to meet a particu-
lar situation where on account of the operation of the rules
hardship is being caused to a set of individual officers.
[477G-H]
2. I Rule 22 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I
PWD (Public Health Branch) Rules 1961 confers power on the
Government to dispense with or to relax the requirement of
any of the Rules to the extent and with such conditions as
it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in just
and equitable manner. The object and purpose of conferring
this power on the Government is to mitigate undue hardship
in any particular case. If the Rules cause undue hardship or
operate in an inequitable manner, the State Government has
power to dispense with or to relax the requirement of Rules.
The Rule does not restrict the exercise of power to individ-
ual cases. The Government may in certain circumstances relax
the requirement of Rules to meet a particular situation.
[477A-B]
2.2. The expression "in any particular case" does not
mean that the relaxation should be confined only to an
individual case. One of the meanings of the expression
"particular" means "peculiar or pertaining to a specified
person--thing--time or place--not common or general". The
meaning of the word 'particular' in relation to law means
separate or special, limited or specific. The word 'case' in
ordinary usage means
472
'event', 'happenings', 'situation', 'circumstances'. The
expression 'case' in legal sense means 'a case'. 'suit' or
'proceeding in Court or Tribunal'. Having regard to these
meanings the expression 'in any particular case' would mean
in a particular or pertaining to an event, situation or
circumstance. [477C-D]
2.3. Rule 22 postulates relaxation of Rules to meet a
particular event or situation, if the operation of the Rules
causes hardship. '[he Scope of the said Rule is wide enough
to confer power on the State Government to relax the re-
quirement of Rules in respect of an individual or class of
individuals to the extent it may consider necessary dealing
with the case in a just and equitable manner. [477E-F]
2.4 The power of relaxation is generally contained in
the rules with a view to mitigate undue hardship or to meet
a particular situation. Many a time strict application of
service rules create a situation where a particular individ-
ual or a set of individuals may suffer undue hardship and
further there may be a situation where requisite qualified
persons may not be available for appointment to the service.
In such a situation, the Government has power to relax
requirement of rules.The state Government may in exercise of
its powers issue a general order relaxing any particular
rule with a view to avail the service of requisite officers.
The relaxation even if granted in a general manner would
enure to the benefit of individual officers. [477F-G]
2.5 Rule 22 is a beneficial one. It must be construed in
a liberal manner and should not be interpreted in a manner
to defeat the very object and purpose of such power. A
narrow construction would nullify Government's power of
relaxing rules of meet a particular situation. [480C]
Jit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR
194 differed;
Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC 424 referred to.
In the instant case, the non-availability of Class II
officers in Engineering Department possessing the necessary
and prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class I posed
a problem for the State Government, as on account of the
large scale expansion of Engineering Department a number of
posts in Class I service were lying vacant. A similar situa-
tion prevailed in the Building and Road Branch of Public
Works Department. In the circumstances, the State Government
with a
473
view to meet the particular situation decided to relax the
qualifying length of service to such officers who had com-
pleted four years of service in Class 1I. It, therefore,
relaxed the requirement of Rule (b) to the extent that a
member of Class II service having four years service was
qualified for being considered for promotion in Class I
service. These facts would clearly show that the relaxation
had been granted to particular individuals with a view to
meet the situation which was in public interest. There is no
legal infirmity in the order of' relaxation. [478D-F]
3. I If power of relaxation is exercised on extraneous
consideration for oblique purposes or mala fide, the Court
has power to strike down the same, but bona fide exercise of
power of relaxation to meet a particular situation cannot be
held to be arbitrary or illegal. [479A]
3.2 Since the appellants were found suitable for promo-
tion by the screening committee, the Commission and the
State Government, and as the contesting respondent was not
found suitable even otherwise for promotion, the State
Government granted relaxation of Rule (b) in favour of the
appellants. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the
power of relaxation under Rule 22 was exercised arbitrarily
or that it caused hardship to any one. In the absence of
relaxation, there could be no promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer and the officers who were found suitable
would have suffered great hardship. Therefore, the State
Government with a view to meet the particular situation
exercised its power of relaxation in appellants' favour.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
there is no illegality in the appellants' promotion, pursu-
ant to the relaxation granted by the State Government.
[480D-E; G-H]
Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR 1987 424; Jit Singh &
Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 194 and Ram
Sarup v. State of Punjab, [1979] 1 SCC 168 referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1009 of
1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.1.80 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 592 of 1975.
P.P. Rao and Jitender Sharma for the appellants.
Rajinder Sachhar, Govind Mukhoty, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S.C.
474
Mohanta, Mahabir Singh, T.C. Sharma, P.P. Singh, S.K. Verma,
C.M. Nayyar and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
dated 15th January, 1980 quashing the Notification dated 3rd
May, 1973 issued by the State Government of Haryana promot-
ing the appellants to the Haryana Service of Engineers Class
I post (Public Health Branch).
The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appel-
lants S/Sh. J.C. Yadav, B.R. Batra, O.P. Juneja, S.L. Cho-
pra, M.S. Miglani, C.P. Taneja, Surjit Singh and V.P. Gulati
and respondents Vyas Dev were members of the Haryana Service
of Engineers Class II in the Public Health Branch. Members
of the Class II service are eligible for promotion of Class
I posts in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana
Service of Engineers Class 1 Public Works Department (Public
Health Branch) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Rules’). In 1971 the appellants were promoted to the post of
Executive Engineers in the cadre of Class 1 on ad-hoc basis
while Vyas Dev respondent was not considered for promotion.
He made representation but nothing came out in his favour.
Later a Committee was constituted under Rule 8 for selecting
suitable members of Class 12 service promotion to Class I
post. The Committee considered the case of appellants and
Vyas Dev respondent, but it did not find the respondent
suitable for promotion, his name was not included in the
select list prepared by the Committee while the names of the
appellants were included therein. The Selection Committee’s
recommendation was approved by the Public Service Commission
and it was forwarded to the State Government. Since the
appellants did not possess the requisite minimum period of
service of eight years’ in Class II service as required by
Rule 6(b) and as no other suitable candidates were avail-
able, the Selection Committee made recommendation to the
State Government for granting relaxation to the appellants.
The Committee’s recommendation was reiterated by the Public
Service Commission. The State Government accepted the recom-
mendations and appointed the appellants to Class I service
by the Notification dated May 3, 1973.
Vyas Dev, respondent challenged validity of the appel-
lants’ promotion by means for a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana on the ground that the appellants did not possess
requisite qualification for promo-
475
tion to Class I service, therefore their promotions were
contrary to Rules. His further grievance was that he was not
considered along with the appellants for promotion and he
was not afforded opportunity of hearing before he was super-
seded. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed
the petition on the finding that the Selection Committee had
considered the case of Vyas Dev along with the appellants
for promotion but he was not found suitable. As regards the
appellants’ promotions the learned Judge held that since the
State Government had relaxed Rule 6(b) in their favour their
promotions were sustainable in law. The learned Judge fur-
ther held that no personal hearing was necessary to be
afforded to Ved Vyas before his supersession. On appeal by
the respondent a Division Bench of the High Court set aside
the order of the single Judge and quashed the appellants
promotions on the sole ground that the State Government had
no authority in law to grant relaxation to the appellants
under Rule 22 in a general manner, as the power of relaxa-
tion could be exercised only in individual cases to mitigate
hardship caused to an individual. On these findings the
Division Bench set aside the appellants’ promotions.
The appointment and promotion to Class I Engineering
Service in the State of Haryana are regulated by the Haryana
Service of Engineers Class I PWD (Public Health Branch)
Rules 1961. Initially these Rules had been framed by the
Governor of Punjab before the formation of the Haryana
State. There is no dispute that subsequently the State of
Haryana had adopted these Rules and the recruitment to Class
I service of Engineers in PWD (Public Health Branch) is
regulated by the Haryana Service of Engineers Class I PWD
(Public Health Branch) Rules, 1961 as amended from time to
time. Rule 5 provides for appointment to Class I service by
direct appointment, by transfer of an officer already in
service of the State Government or of the Union Government,
or by promotion from Class II Service. Rule 6 prescribes
qualifications for appointment to Class I service. The
relevant provisions of the Rule are as under:
“6. Qualifications: No person shall be appointed to the
service, unless he:
(a) possesses one of the University Degree or other qualifi-
cations prescribed in Appendix 8 of these rules:
Provided that Government may waive this qualification in the
case of particular officer belonging to Class II Service:
476
(b) in the case of an appointment by promotion from Class II
Service, has eight years completed Class II and has passed
the professional examination of the department
Rule 8 provides for constitution of the Committee for making
selection for appointment to Class I service by promotion.
The Committee is required to prepare a list of officers
suitable for promotion on the basis of the criteria of merit
and suitability with due regard to seniority. Rule 9 lays
down, field of eligibility as well as criteria for promotion
to the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer
and Chief Engineer. Rule 15 provides for departmental exami-
nations, according to this Rule the officers appointed to
the Service, Unless they have already done so, shall pass
such departmental examination and within such period as may
be prescribed by the Government. The Rule confers power on
the Government to prescribe for any other test in addition
to the departmental examination for promotion or appointment
to any rank in the service. Rule 22 confers power on the
Government to relax any of the Rules as it may consider
necessary. There is no dispute that none of the appellants
had completed eight years’ service in Class II service as
required by Rule 6(b) and as such they were not eligible for
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. On the recom-
mendation of the Selection Committee and with the approval
of the Public Service Commission the State Government re-
laxed the requirement of eight years’ service so far as the
appellants were concerned. Consequently, the appellants were
promoted and appointed as Executive Engineers under the
Notification dated 3rd May, 1973.
The sole question for consideration is whether the
relaxation granted by the State Government in favour of the
appellants is valid. Rule 22 which confers power on the
Government to relax requirement of Rules, is as under:
“Rule 22. Power to relax ………… Where Government is
satisfied that the operation of any of these Rules causes
undue hardship to any particular case, it may by order
dispense with or relax the requirements of that Rule to such
extent, and subject to such conditions, as it may consider
necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable
manner.
477
The Rule confers power on the Government to dispense
with or to relax the requirement of any of the Rules to the
extent and with such conditions as it may consider necessary
for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.
The object and purpose of conferring this power on the
Government is to mitigate undue hardship in any particular
case, and to deal with a case in a just and equitable man-
ner. If the Rules cause undue hardship or Rules operate in
an inequitable manner in that event the State Government has
power to dispense with or to relax the requirement of Rules.
The Rule does not restrict the exercise of power to individ-
ual cases. The Government may in certain circumstances relax
the requirement of Rules to meet a particular situation. The
expression “in any particular case” does not mean that the
relaxation should be confined only to an individual case.
One of the meanings of the expression “particular” means
“peculiar or pertaining to a specified person–thing–time
or place–not common or general”. The meaning of the word
particular in relation to law means separate or special,
limited or specific. The word ‘case’ in ordinary usage means
‘event’, ‘happening’, ‘situation’, ‘circumstances’. The
expression ‘case’ in legal sense means ‘a case’, ‘suit’ or
‘proceeding in Court or Tribunal’. Having regard to these
meanings the expression ‘in any particular case’ would mean;
in a particular or pertaining to an event, situation or
circumstance. Rule 22 postulates relaxation of Rules to meet
a particular event or situation, if the operation of the
Rules causes hardship. The relaxation of the Rules may be to
the extent the State Government may consider necessary for
dealing with a particular situation in a just and equitable
manner. The scope of Rule is wide enough to confer power on
the State Government to relax the requirement of Rules in
respect of an individual or class of individuals to the
extent it may consider necessary for dealing with the case
in a just and equitable manner. The power of relaxation is
generally contained in the Rules with a view to mitigate
undue hardship or to meet a particular situation. Many a
times strict application of service rules create a situation
where a particular individual or a set of individuals may
suffer undue hardship and further there may be a situation
where requisite qualified persons may not be available for
appointment to the service. In such a situation the Govern-
ment has power to relax requirement of Rules. The State
Government may in exercise of its powers issue a general
order relaxing any particular Rule with a view to avail the
services of requisite officers. The relaxation even if
granted in a general manner would enure to the benefit of
individual officers.
The State of Haryana was formed in March, 1966 prior to
that it was part of the State of Punjab. The service rules
relating to Public
478
Works Department as applicable to the State of Punjab were
made applicable to Haryana. Rule 6(b) which prescribed
qualification for appointment to Class I service lays down
that no person shall be appointed to the service by promo-
tion from Class II service unless he has completed eight
years’ service in Class II and has passed departmental
examination prescribed under Rule 15. None of the appellants
had completed eight years’ service in Class II. In fact no
other member of Class II service possessing the requisite
qualifications was available for selection to Class I post.
The respondent no doubt possessed the requisite qualifica-
tion with regard to the eight years length of service in
Class II but he did not possess requisite educational quali-
fication. Thus no qualified officer of Class II service was
available for promotion to Class I service although a number
of vacancies were existing in Class I service. Having regard
to these facts the Selection Committee made recommendation
for the relaxation of Rule 6(b) in favour of the appellants,
who were found otherwise suitable. The Public Service Com-
mission also agreed with the recommendation made by the
Selection Committee. The non-availability of suitable Class
II officers in Engineering Department possessing the neces-
sary and prescribed qualifications for promotion to Class I
posed a problem for the State Government, as on account of
the large scale expansion of Engineering Department a number
of posts in Class I service were lying vacant. A similar
situation prevailed in the Building and Road Branch of
Public Works Department. In the circumstances, the State
Government with a view to meet the particular situation
decided to relax the qualifying length of service to such
officers who had completed four years of service in Class
II, it therefore relaxed the requirement of Rule 6(b) to the
extent that a member of Class II service having four years’
service was qualified for being considered for promotion to
Class I service. These facts would clearly show that the
relaxation had been granted to particular individuals with a
view to meet the situation, which was in public interest. We
find no legal infirmity in the order of relaxation.
In B.S. Bansal v. State of Punjab and Ors., [1978] 2 SLR
553 a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that
if the power of relaxation could be exercised in order to
meet a general situation, then the whole purpose of the Rule
would be frustrated and the Government would be armed with
an arbitrary power which could cause great hardship to some
officers. We have already referred to the relevant facts
which show that in the instant case, power of relaxation was
exercised by the State Government to meet a particular
situation, it did not result into any injustice or cause
hardship to any one. If power of
479
relaxation is exercised on extraneous consideration for
oblique purposes or mala fide, the court has power to strike
down the same but exercise of power of relaxation to meet a
particular situation cannot be held to be arbitrary or
illegal. In B.S. Jain v. State of Haryana, [1981] 1 SLR 233
the High Court set aside the promotions made in pursuance of
the relaxation granted under Rule 22 placing reliance on the
decision of the Division Bench in B.S. Bansal’s case. On
appeal, this Court in Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC
424 observed that the findings of the High Court that the
State Government could not have relaxed the condition of
passing the departmental professional examination by taking
recourse to Rule 22 which conferred power of relaxation on
the State Government could hardly be sustained.
In Jit Singh & Ors. v. State of Pubjab & Ors., [1979] 3
SCR 194 the State Government’s order granting relaxation
under Rule 14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 in
respect of the period of service, was questioned. Rule 14
was almost identical in terms as Rule 22 of the instant
case. In Jit Singh’s case (supra) promotion of Inspectors to
the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was involved.
Under the Police Service Rules 1959 a Police Inspector
having six years’ continuous service was eligible for promo-
tion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The
State Government in exercise of its power under Rule 14
granting relaxation to Inspectors who had been found fit for
promotion, as a large number of vacancies had occurred in
the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police and no suitable
persons having the requisite period of service were avail-
able. Promotions made pursuant to the relaxation were chal-
lenged before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the
writ petition on the ground that the petitioners before it
were not qualified for promotion. On appeal before this
Court, the High Court’s judgment was upheld. This Court took
the view that since the appellants before it were not eligi-
ble for promotion as their names were not included in the
Select List prepared by the Public Service Commission and
further as they had not completed six years’ of continuous
service prior to the respondents, they were not entitled to
any relief. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by this
Court. While considering the question of validity of relaxa-
tion, the Court made observation that Rule 14 did not permit
any general relaxation of the nature ordered by the State
Government. The Court, however, did not examine the matter
in detail as it was of the view that since the appellants in
that case were not eligible for promotion they could not
question the validity of the appointment of those who had
been promoted on the basis of relaxation being granted by
the State Government. The Court upheld the promotions in
view of the extra
480
ordinary situation in which the State Government made ap-
pointments iv derogation of requirement of Rules.
On a careful scrutiny of the Rules in its various as-
pects we do not agree with the observations made in Jit
Singh’s case (supra). Though Rule 22 is not happily worded,
as apparently it gives an impression that no general relaxa-
tion can be granted by the State Government, out on a close
scrutiny of the scope of the power we find that a narrow
construction of the Rules would nullify the Government’s
power of relaxing Rules to meet a particular situation. Rule
22 is beneficial in nature it must be construed in a liberal
manner and it should not be interpreted in a manner to
defeat the very object and purpose of such power. Power to
grant relaxation may be exercised in case of an individual
to remove hardship being caused to him or to a number of
individuals who all may be similarly placed. This power may
also be exercised to meet a particular situation where on
account of the operation of the Rules hardship is being
caused to a set of individual officers. In the instant case
the appellants were found suitable for promotion by the
screening committee, the Commission and the State Govern-
ment, and the contesting respondent Yvas Dev was not found
suitable even otherwise for promotion, the State Government
granted relaxation of Rule 6(b) in favour of the appellants.
In such a situation, it is beyond comprehension that the
power of relaxation under Rule 22 was exercised arbitrarily
or that it caused hardship or injustice to any one. On the
formation of the new State of Haryana no promotion from
Class II officers could be made to Class I service without
granting any relaxation since 1966 to 1978. In 1971-72
eleven vacancies in the post of Executive Engineers were
filled by promotion from Class II officers although none of
them had completed requisite period of service prescribed by
the Rules for promotion. In 1976-77 and 1977-78 sixteen and
nine vacancies respectively in the post of Executive Engi-
neers were filled by promotion by granting relaxation as no
officer of Class II service possessing requisite number of
years of service was available for promotion. In 1978-79
seven officers of Class II service were promoted to the post
of Executive Engineer but only one of them possessed the
requisite period of service and all others were granted
relaxation. These facts clearly show that in the absence of
relaxation there could be no promotion to the post of Execu-
tive Engineer and the officers who were found suitable would
have suffered great hardship. In 1973 also the State Govern-
ment with a view to meet the particular situation exercised
its power of relaxation in appellants’ favour. Having regard
to these facts and circumstances, we find no illegality in
the appellants’ promotions, pursuant to the relaxation
granted by the State Government.
481
In Bansal’s case (supra) the High Court, and even in Jit
Singh’s case (supra) this Court did not set aside the promo-
tions made by the Government pursuant to relaxation of Rules
on the ground that the petitioner who challenged the promo-
tions was himself not qualified, and he had no legal right
to hold the post in dispute, although in both these cases
Government’s order granting general relaxation was held to
be outside the scope of Rule 22 and Rule 14 of the Punjab
Police Service Rules 1959. In the instant case the High
Court has set aside the appellants’ promotions following
Bansal’s case interpreting Rule 22 but it failed to notice
that in that case the High Court did not set aside the
promotions instead it dismissed the petition on the ground
that the petitioner therein was not qualified and none of
his rights were affected. The High Court failed to notice
that Vyas Dev respondent was considered for promotion but he
was not found suitable, therefore he was not entitled to any
relief. Since no legal right of the respondent was adversely
affected the High Court should not have quashed the appel-
lants’ promotions.
On behalf of the appellants an alternative submission
was made that since the appellants had already completed
eight years’ of service in Class H service during the pend-
ency of the writ petition their appointment stood regula-
rised. To support this submission reliance was placed on the
decision of this Court in Ram Sarup v. State of Punjab,
[1979] 1 SCC 168. In that case appointment to the post of
Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer was made in breach of Rule 4
Clause (I) of the Punjab Labour Service Class I and II Rules
1955 as Ram Sarup did not possess five years’ experience,
required by sub-clause (I) of Rule 4, In spite of that he
had been appointed to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation
Officer. Subsequently, Ram Sarup was reverted on the ground
that he was not qualified to be appointed as a Labour-cum-
Conciliation Officer as he did not possess the minimum
qualification of length of service. This Court held that the
appointment of Ram Sarup made in breach of Rules was irregu-
lar, but not wholly void and since Ram Sarup had completed
five years of experience of working of labour laws before
his reversion, his appointment to the post of Labour-cum-
Conciliation Officer stood regularised with effect from the
date he completed five years of service. On these findings
order of reversion was set aside by this Court. Undisputa-
bly, the appellants completed eight years of service before
January 15, 1980, the date on which the Division Bench of
the High Court set aside their promotions. In view of the
principles laid down in Ram Sarup’s case (supra) the appel-
lants’ appointment, even if irregular, stood regularised on
the
482
date they completed eight years of their service and there-
after their promotions could not be set aside.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment
and order of the Division Bench dated 15.1.1980 and restore
the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the re-
spondents’ writ petition. There will be no order as to
costs.
N.P.V. Appeal al-
lowed.
483