{"id":49938,"date":"1984-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984"},"modified":"2016-12-29T17:31:29","modified_gmt":"2016-12-29T12:01:29","slug":"a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984","title":{"rendered":"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 643, \t\t 1984 SCR (2) 476<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nA. S. PARMAR & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/01\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR  643\t\t  1984 SCR  (2) 476\n 1984 SCALE  (1)113\n CITATOR INFO :\n E&R\t    1987 SC 415\t (1,2,3,8,9,14,15)\n E&R\t    1987 SC 424\t (11)\n R\t    1989 SC2082\t (3,4,6,11,12,15)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India, Article  311  and\t305  proviso\nthereto-Promotion employees from Class 11 service to class I\nservice in  the P.W.D.\t(Irrigation branch Punjab-Possession\nof a  degree is not a pre-requisite for promotion from class\n11 .  class I  Service-Punjab service  of Engineer  Class 1,\nP.W.D.\t (Irrigation   Branch\tRules,\t 1964\tRule   6(a),\ninterpretation of\n     Promotion of  Assistant Engineers\tin class ll service,\nnot possessing\tdegree to  the cadre  of Executive Engineers\nClass 1,  but satisfying  the requirements  of clause (b) of\nRule 6\tof class  I Rules-Whether in order or whether Rule 6\n(a) will be applicable- Comparison between Punjab Service of\nEngineers class\t 11 P.W.D,  (Buildings\tand)  Roads  Branch)\nRules 1965,  Rules 6  & 7  with Punjab\tService of Engineers\nclass I.P. W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 6 (a) and\n6 (b).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Eight officers  including the  appellants\tentered\t the\nclass II  service in  accordance with  tho Punjab Service of\nEngineers class\t II, P.W.D.  (Buildings\t and  Roads  Branch)\nRules,\t1965.\tThey  are   all\t holders   of  diplomas\t  in\nEngineering. They  were promoted  alongwith nine others from\nthe class  II service  to the  class I\tservice by  an order\ndated May 7, 1981, passed by the Haryana State Government on\na temporary  basis subject to approval of the Haryana Public\nService Commission.  In the  case  of  these  officers,\t the\nGovernment of Haryana passed an order relaxing the condition\nof degree qualification in public interest. The above orders\nof promotion  in so far as these persons were concerned were\nquestioned by  eleven officers\tin the class II service, who\nwere below  them in  the gradation  list  of  the  class  II\nservice having\tentered that  service in  1972 in  the\twrit\npetition out  of which these appeals arise. The officers who\nfiled the  said petition  were all  holders  of\t degrees  in\nEngineering. Their  principal contention was that an officer\nin the class II service could not be promoted to the class I\nservice unless\the possessed  a\t degree\t in  Engineering  as\nprescribed by  Rule 6(a) of the Punjab Service of Engineers,\nclass I,  P.W.D, (Buildings  and Roads\tBranch) Rules,\t1960\nwhich governed the recruitment to the class I service in the\nState of  Haryana and  the relaxation  of  that\t requirement\nalleged to  have been  ordered by  the State  Government  in\nexercise of the power under the tho proviso to Rule 6 (a) in\nthe  case   of\tthe   officers\twhose  promotions  had\tbeen\nchallenged was\tillegal and  void. The Punjab & Haryana High\nCourt  accepted\t  the  said  contention\t and  dismissed\t the\npetition. Hence the appeals after obtaining special leave of\nthe Court,\n     Allowing the appeals the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.1.\t A degree  is not  a pre-requisite for being\npromoted from  the class  II service to the class I service.\n[493 D]\n477\n     1.2. A  comparison between\t the 1956 Rules and the 1964\nRules makes it A clear that there was no insistence upon the\nqualification of a degree in the said 1956 Rules in the case\nof the\tpromotees from\tthe class  II service. When the 1964\nRules of  the Irrigation  Branch, class\t I were promulgated,\nthe pattern of the Rules was changed. While doing so, in the\nnew Rule  6, the word \"directly\" which was in the old Rule 7\nwas no\tdoubt omitted  but the\tnew Rule  6 referred to both\nkinds of appointment namely direct recruitment and promotion\nfrom the  class II  service. It\t was  not  a  case  of\tjust\nreproducing the\t old Rule 7 and omitting one word therefrom,\nbut the\t introduction of  a new\t Rule  6  with\ta  different\nstructure. [493A-B]\n     O.P.  Bhatia  &  Anr.  v.\tState  of  Haryana  &  Ors.,\nILR[1980]1 Punjab & Haryana 470. Overruled.\n     1.3. In  these cases, the State Government having first\nconsumed Rule  6 of  the  class\t I  Rules  required  that  a\npromotee should\t also have  a degree,  tried to\t relax\tthat\ncondition by  making orders  relaxing as  it found  that its\nconstruction had  led to injust results. In view of the fact\nthat the  question of  interpretation of  New Rule  6 of the\nclass I\t Rules was  raised, and\t service Rule  6 (a)  of the\nclass I Rules is not applicable to the class II officers who\nare to\tbe promoted  to the  class I  service, the  question\nwhether\t the  order  of\t relaxation  made  in  the  case  of\npromotees is  validly passed or not becomes non-est. [493 E;\n494B]\n     2.1. It  is indisputable  that if the Government wishes\nto appoint  only holders  or degrees to the class I service,\nit may\tdo so  by promulgating appropriate rules. That power\nis beyond  question, and  classification  on  the  basis  of\neducational qualifications  of officers belonging to a cadre\nfor purposes  of promotion to a higher cadre is permissible.\nBut, the  class I  Rules as  they now exist do not debar the\npromotion of  an Assistant  Engineer in the class II service\nwho does  not possess  a degree\t to the\t cadre of  Executive\nEngineers even\twhen he satisfies the requirements of clause\n(b) of\tRule 6\tof the\tclass I Rules and is selected by the\nPublic Service Commission. [493 G-H]\n     2.2. Rule\t6 of the class I Rules treats the possession\nof  a\tdegree\tplus   the  selection\tat  the\t competitive\nexamination and\t the passing of the departmental examination\naf ter\tappointment as sufficient for getting into the cadre\nof  Assistant\tExecutive  Engineers  or  to  the  cadre  of\nExecutive Engineers when direct recruitment is made to those\nposts and  the experience  in the  class II  Service  for  a\nminimum period\tof eight  years\t plus  the  passing  of\t the\ndepartmental examinations  before promotion  of an Assistant\nEngineer in the Class II Service as sufficient qualification\nfor promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers. [487 E-F]\n     2.3 The  distinction between the two methods of filling\nthe posts  of Executive\t Engineer by  promotion is clear. If\nthat post  is to  be filled  up by  promoting  an  Assistant\nExecutive  Engineer,   the  Assistant\tExecutive  Engineer,\nconcerned should  possess five\tyears experience  and should\nhave passed  the Departmental Examination prescribed by Rule\n15 of  the Class I Rules. If that post is to be filled up by\npromotion of  an Assistant Engineer in the class II Service,\nthe Assistant  Engineer to  be promoted should possess eight\nyears experience  in the  Class II  Service and\t should have\npassed the  Departmental Examination  prescribed by Rule 15.\nThat means  that whereas an Assistant Executive Engineer who\nis a  holder  of  a  degree  needs  have  only\tfive  years'\nexperience in  the Public  Works  Department,  an  Assistant\nEngineer in the Class [ [ Service who may or may not possess\na degree  should have  eight years' experience in the Public\nWorks Department for being promoted to the cadre of\n478\nExecutive Engineers.  This extra  experience of\t three years\nappears to  have been  treated as  being sufficient  to make\ngood the deficiency, if any, that may arise by reason of the\nAssistant Engineer  in the  Class II Service possessing only\na. diploma and nota degree. [487 H; 488 A-C]\n     2.4. In  the circumstances\t it could  not have been the\nintention of  the  rule\t making\t authority  that  no  person\nwithout a  degree should  be allowed  to enter\tthe Class  I\nService. If  the construction  placed by  the petitioners in\nthe writ  petition and\tthe  Government\t is  accepted  every\ndiploma holder\twho is\tan Assistant  Engineer would have to\nretire only  as a Class II officer and cannot hope to become\nan Executive  Engineer till  his retirement. If that was the\nintention, Rule\t 6 (b)\tof the\tClass  I  Rules\t would\thave\ncontained necessary words conveying that meaning. Clause (b)\nof Rule\t 6 appears to be exhaustive of the qualifications of\nthe Assistant  Engineers who  can seek\tpromotion  from\t the\nClass II  Service to  the Class\t I Service  So Rule 6 of the\nClass I\t Rules will  read in  so far  as the  promotees\t are\nconcerned as  'no person  shall be  appointed to the Service\nunless in  the case of an appointment by promotion has eight\nyears completed\t service in  Class II  and  has\t passed\t the\nprofessional Examination  of the  department as\t provided in\nRule 1\tS\" and\tclause (a) of Rule 6 should be read as being\napplicable to the other mode of recruitment. [490 B-D]\n     3.\t In  such  a  case,  it\t cannot\t be  said  that\t the\nexpertness of  the Class I Service would very much suffer if\npersons without\t degrees but  with only diplomas are allowed\nto get\tinto it. In administrative and professional services\na combination  of high\teducational qualifications  and long\nexperience is  always preferred\t so that the services may be\nefficient  by\teach  of   them\t supplementing\t the  other.\nExperienced administrators  have opined\t that in  the higher\ncadres of  services high educational qualifications alone or\nlong experience\t alone would  not be in the interests of the\npublic. In order to see that there is no lack of proficiency\nin the\thigher post in the Class I Service, Rule S(2) of the\nClass I\t Rules expressly  provides that\t recruitment to\t the\nService shall  be so  regulated that  the  number  of  posts\nfilled by  promotion from  the Class  IT Service  shall\t not\nexceed fifty  per cent of the number of posts in the Class I\nService\t excluding   the  posts\t  of   Assistant   Executive\nEngineers. It  provides for  a\thealthy\t blend\tof  the\t two\nclasses. The effect of Rule S(2) is that more than fifty per\ncent of\t the Class  I Service  posts would always be held by\ndirect recruits\t because the  strength of promotees from the\nClass II  Service cannot  be more than fifty per cent of the\ntotal strength\tof the\tclass I\t Service minus the number of\nAssistant Executive  Engineers. The promotees from the Class\nII Service  will, therefore,  always be\t less than fifty per\ncent of\t the total  strength of\t the Class  I Service.\tEven\namongst them 26 out of 40 are graduates because of Rule 6 of\nthe Class  II Rules  which prescribes  the quota  of  direct\nrecruits who  should always  be the  holders of\t degrees. So\ndiploma holders\t who may  get into  the Class  I Service  by\npromotion will\tbe only 14 out of 40 promotees. Therefore it\ncannot be  said that the 28 diploma holders with the minimum\nlength of  experience prescribed  by clause (b) of Rule 6 of\nthe Class  I Rules  who are  selected by  the Public Service\ncommission on the basis of merit and suitability (see Rule 8\n(43  of\t  the  Class  I\t Rules)\t and  with  the\t educational\nqualifications they  may possess  as prescribed by the Class\nII Rules  would dilute\tthe Class I Service so much that the\nefficiency of  the Class  I Service would go down to such an\nextent that  the Class\tI Service will become unequal to the\ntasks to  be performed\tcollectively by\t the entire service.\nFurther, if a Class II officer is found wanting in merit and\nis otherwise  unsuitable, he  would not\t be selected  by the\nPublic Service\tCommission. This  is not  like a nurse in an\noperation the  atre carrying  out surgery.  Nor is it like a\nlaboratory assistant  teaching stro-physics.  [488D-H; 489A-\nB;F-G]\n479\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10585 &
\n10586 of 1983
\n     Appeals by\t Special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and order
\ndated the 3rd March, 1983 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
\nin Writ Petition No. 2018 of 1981
\n     F.S. Nariman  and P.C.  Bhartari for  the Appellant  in
\nCA.10585\/83
\n     P.P.  Rao\tand  Prem  Malhotra  for  the  Appellant  in
\nCA.10586\/83.\n<\/p>\n
     K.G. Bhagat,  Addl. Solicitor  General and R. N. Poddar
\nfor the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
     S.K. Mehta,  P.N. Puri,  M.K.  Dua\t and  EMS  Anam\t for
\nRespondents in Both the Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J.\tThese appeals  are filed against the
\njudgment dated March 3, 1983 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2018
\nof 1981\t on the\t file of  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court
\nquashing the  promotion of  eight officers  of the  Class II
\nEngineering Service  of the  Haryana Public Works Department
\n(Buildings and\tRoads Branch)  (hereinafter referred  to  as
\n‘the Class  II\tService’)  as  Executive  Engineers  in\t the
\nHaryana\t Service   of  Engineers,   Class  I,  Public  Works
\nDepartment  (Buildings\t and  Roads   Branch)\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Class I Service’). The said officers are
\nS.L. Gupta,  I.C. Dewan, S.K. Chopra, Bodh Raj, A.S. Parmar,
\nO.P. Gupta,  Sumair Chand Jain and G.L. Sharma. They entered
\nthe Class  II Service  in accordance with the Punjab Service
\nof Engineers,  Class II, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch)
\nRules, 1965  (hereinafter  referred  to\t as  ‘the  Class  II
\nRules’) on  the dates  mentioned against  their names in the
\nfollowing table:\n<\/p>\n
…………………………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
     Name\t    Date of entry\t   S. No. in the\n\t\t    into Class II\t   gradation list of\n\t\t    Service\t\t   Class II Service\n<\/pre>\n
……………………………………………………\n<\/p>\n
1. S.L. Gupta\t      19.8.1969\t\t\t  54\n2. I.C. Dewan\t      29.1.1970\t\t\t  68\n3. S.K. Chopra\t      29.1.1970\t\t\t  63\n4. Bodh Raj\t      14.8.1969\t\t\t  65\n480<\/span>\n5 A S Parmar\t      20.2.1970\t\t\t  66\n6 O.P. Gupta\t      14.8.1969\t\t\t  70\n7. Sumair Chand Jain  10.4.1970\t\t\t  71\n8. G.L. Sharma\t      9.4. 1970\t\t\t  72\n<\/pre>\n
     They are  all holders of diplomats in Engineering. They
\ndo not\tpossess a  degree in Engineering. They were promoted
\nalongwith nine others from the Class II Service to the Class
\nI Service  by an  order dated  May 7,  1981  passed  by\t the
\nHaryana State  Government on  a temporary  basis subject  to
\napproval of  the Haryana  Public Service  Commission. In the
\ncase of\t these officers, the Government of Haryana passed an
\norder relaxing\tthe condition  of  degree  qualification  in
\npublic ‘C interest The above order of promotion in so far as
\nthese  persons\twere  concerned\t was  questioned  by  eleven
\nofficers in  the Class\tII. Service,  who were below them in
\nthe gradation  list of the Class. II Service, having entered
\nthat service in 1972 in the writ petition out of which these
\nappeals arise. The officers who filed the said petition were
\nall holders  of\t degrees  in  Engineering.  Their  principal
\ncontention was that an officer in the Class II Service could
\nnot be promoted to the Class I Service unless he possessed a
\ndegree in  Engineering as  prescribed by  Rule 6(a)  of\t the
\nPunjab Service\tof Engineers, Class 1, P.W.D. (Buildings and
\nRoads Branch)  Rules, 1960  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nClass [\t Rules’) which govern the recruitment to the Class I
\nService in  the State  of Haryana and the relaxation of that
\nrequirement alleged  to\t have  been  ordered  by  the  State
\nGovernment in  exercise of  the power  under the  proviso to
\nRule 6(a)  of the Class I Rules in the cases of the officers
\nwhose promotion had been challenged was illegal and void. It
\nwas, therefore,\t urged\tthat  the  promotions  of  the\tsaid
\npersons should\tbe quashed.  The State\tGovernment and-\t the
\nofficers whose\tpromotions had\tbeen challenged\t stated that
\nthe order  of relaxation  was justified in the circumstances
\nof the\tcase and  the  promotions  were\t not  liable  to  be
\nannulled. The question whether the qualification of a degree
\nin Engineering\twas necessary or not in the case of officers
\nin the\tClass II  Service for  promoting them to the Class I
\nService was,  however, not  raised before  the\tHigh  Court.
\nAfter hearing  the parties,  the High  Court held  that\t the
\norder of  relaxation passed  by\t the  State  Government\t was
\nunsustainable and  hence the impugned promotions were liable
\nto be  set aside.  Accordingly the writ petition was allowed
\nquashing the  impugned promotions. Aggrieved by the judgment
\nof the\tHigh Court, these appeals have been filed by special
\nleave of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Civil Appeal No. 10585 of 1983 is filed by A.S. Parmar,
\nI.C.\n<\/p>\n
481<\/span><\/p>\n
Dewan and  S.K. Chopra.\t Civil Appeal  No. 10586  of 1983 is
\nfiled  by S.L. Gupta, O.P. Gupta and Sumair Chand Jain. Bodh
\nRaj and\t G.L. Sharma  have  already  retired  from  service.
\nSumair Chand  Jain is stated to have died in May, 1983 after
\nthe special Leave Petition was filed. When the Special Leave
\nPetitions out  of which\t these appeals\tarise  came  up\t for
\norders on  March 23,  1983, a Bench of this Court consisting
\nof three  learned Judges  (A.P. Sen,  Venkataramiah and R.B.
\nMisra, JJ)  felt that  Rule 6(1)  of the  Class 1  Rules was
\nprima facie not applicable to promotions made from the Class
\nII  Service   to  the\tClass  I   Service  and,  therefore,
\nspecifically raised  the  said\tquestion  and  directed\t the
\nparties including  the State Government to address the Court
\non it.\tThen on\t November 25,  1983, a\tBench of  two Judges
\n(A.P. Sen  and Venkataramiah,  JJ)  after  hearing  all\t the
\nparties granted\t special  leave\t to  appeal  to\t this  Court
\nlimited to  the question  whether this\twas a case of direct
\nrecruitment to\tthe Class  I Service  and therefore, whether
\nRule 6(a)  of the  Class I  Rules  was\tapplicable,  on\t the
\nassumption that\t if it\twas a  promotion from  the Class  II
\nService to  the Class  I Service,  Rule 6(a)  would  not  be
\napplicable It  should be  mentioned here  that this question
\nwas not\t argued before\tthe High Court apparently because of
\nthe decision  in O.P.  Bhatia &\t Anr. v.  state of Haryana &
\nors.(1) in  which a  similar question  had arisen  under the
\nrules applicable  to the  Irrigation Branch  of the  Haryana
\nPublic Works Department. The only point now argued before us
\nrelates to  the applicability  of Rule\t6(a) of\t the Class I
\nRules to  the promotions  referred to  above.  In  older  to
\ndetermine the said question it is necessary to refer briefly
\nto some\t of the\t provisions of the Class II Rules and of the
\nClass I Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 6  of the Class II Rules provides that recruitment
\nto the\tClass II Service for cadre and ex-cadre posts should
\nbe  made  against  a  lot  of  40  posts  in  the  following
\nproportions: (i) direct recruitment-26 posts, (ii) promotion
\nfrom the members of Punjab P.W D. (B & R) Sectional officers
\n(Engineering)  Service-8   posts,   (iii)   promotion\tfrom
\ndraftsmen members  of the  Draftsmen and  Tracers  Service-2
\nposts, (iv) promotion from members of the Punjab P.W.D. (B &
\nR) Sectional  officers Engineering Service and the Draftsmen
\nmembers of  the Draftsmen and Tracers Service and possessing
\nqualifications prescribed  in Appendix\t‘B’ of\tthe Class II
\nRules-4 posts.\tRule 7\tof the Class II Rules prescribes the
\nqualifications for entry into Class II Service. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
482<\/span><\/p>\n
     “(7) Qualifications:  No person  shall be\tappointed to
\n     the service unless he:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1) in  the case  of person  appointed  by  direct
\n\t  appointment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) possesses\t one of\t the degrees of a recognised
\n     university\t or   other  qualification   prescribed\t  in
\n     Appendix ‘B’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) obtains  from the\t Standing  Medical  Board  a
\n     certificate of  mental and physical fitness after being
\n     examined in  accordance with the regulations prescribed
\n     in Appendix  ‘C’  and  is\tconsidered  by\tthe  Medical
\n     Authority to  be fit in all respects for active outdoor
\n     duties;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) is  a person with a satisfactory character and
\n     antecedents, verification\tin respect of which shall be
\n     arranged through  appropriate Government  agency except
\n     in case  where such  verification may have already been
\n     made at the time of his entry into Government Service.
\n\t  (2) In  the case  of appointment by promotion from
\n     sources 2\tand 3  under rule  6(1) is  a member  of the
\n     Punjab PWD\t (B &  R) Sectional  officers  (Engineering)
\n     Service, or  a Draftsman  member of  the B\t & R  Branch
\n     Draftsmen and  Tracers Service and has put in a service
\n     of ten years;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3)(i) In  case of  the appointment  by  promotion
\n     from source 4 under rule 6(1) is a member of the Punjab
\n     PWD. (B  & R)  Branch Draftsmen  &\t Tracers’  Sectional
\n     officers Engineering  Service or  a Draftsman member of
\n     the B & R Branch Draftsmen and Tracers Service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) Possesses  any of the qualifications included
\n     in Appendix  ‘B’ and  has put  in five years service in
\n     case he possesses A.M.I.S. qualifications and two years
\n     service in case he is a degree holder.
\n\t  (4) In  case of appointment by transfer, possesses
\n     the qualifications\t prescribed for\t the members  of the
\n     service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (5) Has  not more  than one  wife living or in the
\n     case of  woman, is\t not married  to  a  person  already
\n     having a wife living.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
483<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  Provided that the Government may if satisfied that
\n     there   are special  grounds for  doing so,  exempt any
\n     person from the operation of this clause.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  thus seen that in the Class II Service 26 out of
\n40 vacancies  are filled  up  by  direct  recruits  who\t are
\nholders of degrees in Engineering of recognised universities
\nor other  equivalent qualifications. 10 vacancies are filled
\nup by promotion from sources (2) and (3) of Rule 6(1) of the
\nClass II  Rules of  members who\t have put  in ten  years  of
\nservice and the remaining 4 vacancies are to be filled up by
\npromotions from\t the fourth  source referred to in Rule 6(1)
\nof the\tClass II Rules of persons who possess the prescribed
\nqualifications and  have put  in five  years  or  two  years
\nservice, as  the case may be. The direct recruitment is made
\non the\tbasis of a competitive examination held by the State
\nPublic Service\tcommission and\tpromotions are\tmade on\t the
\nbasis of  recommendations  made\t by  a\tSelection  Committee
\npresided over  by the  Chairman or  a Member  of the  Public
\nService Commission  on the  basis of  merit and\t suitability
\nwith due  regard to  seniority. The  members of the Class II
\nService are designated as Assistant Engineers (See Rule 4 of
\nthe Class  II Rules)  and they\tare officers incharge of sub
\ndivisions or  incharge of  posts of  equal responsibility in
\nthe Public  Works Department  (Building and  Roads  Branch).
\nThey are Gazetted Officers.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  now proceed  to deal  with the Class I Rules.
\nThe Class  1  Service  comprises  of  four  cadres-Assistant
\nExecutive  Engineers,  Executive  Engineers,  Superintending
\nEngineers and Chief Engineers (Rule 3). A member of service’
\nmeans an officer appointed substantively to a cadre post and
\nincludes (a) in the case of direct appointment an officer on
\nprobation  cr\tsuch  an  officer  who\thaving\tsuccessfully
\ncompleted his  probation awaits\t appointment to a cadre post
\nand in the case of appointment by transfer an officer who is
\non  probation  or  who\thaving\tsuccessfully  completed\t his
\nprobation awaits  appointment to  a cadre post provided such
\nofficer does  not have\ta lien\ton a substantive post in any
\nGovernment  Department\t(Rule  2(12)).\tAssistant  Executive
\nEngineer’ means\t a member of the service in the junior scale
\nof pay.\t (Rule 2(2)).  All others in the Class I Service are
\nin the\tsenior scale  or in  a higher  scale. Rule  5 of the
\nClass 1\t Rules provides\t that the  recruitment\tto  Class  I
\nService shall  be made\tby the Government in any one or more
\nof the\tfollowing methods (i) by direct appointment, (ii) by
\ntransfer of  an officer\t already in  the service  of a State
\nGovernment or  of he  Union or (iii) by promotion from Class
\n11 Service.  All first\tdirect appointments  to the  Class I
\nService can  be only  to the  posts of\tAssistant  Executive
\nEngineer (Rule 5(4)). An
\n484<\/span>
\nofficer promoted  from\tthe  Class  II\tService\t has  to  be
\nrecruited to  the cadre\t of Executive Engineers (Rule 5(5)).
\nThe posts  of  Executive  Engineers  can  be  filled  up  by
\npromotion of  Assistant Executive  Engineers also  (Rule 9).
\n‘Direct\t appointment’\tmeans\tan   appointment   by\topen
\ncompetition but\t does not  include  (a)\t an  appointment  by
\npromotion and  (b) an  appointment by transfer of an officer
\nalready in the service of a State Government or of the Union
\n(Rule 2(7)).  The Explanation  to Rule\t2(7) provides that a
\nClass II  officer who  enters the  Class l  Service by\topen
\ncompetitive selection  shall, for  the purposes\t of Class  I
\nRules, he  deemed to  have entered  the Class  I Service  by
\ndirect appointment. This means that a member of the Class II
\nService can  either be\trecruited directly  to the  cadre of
\nAssistant Executive  Engineers (vide  Rule 5(4)) or promoted
\nto the\tcadre or  Executive Engineers. (vide Rule S(S)). Now
\nwe set out below Rule 6 of the Class T Rules which lays down
\nthe qualifications  for entering the Class I Service. Rule 6
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “6. Qualifications-No person shall be appointed to
\n     the Service, unless he-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) possesses\t one of\t the University\t Degrees  or
\n     other qualifications  prescribed in Appendix B of these
\n     rules:  Provided\tthat  Government   may\twaive\tthis
\n     qualification in  the  case  of  a\t particular  officer
\n     belonging to Class 11 Service,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) in  the case  of an  appointment by  promotion
\n     from Class II Service has eight years completed service
\n     in\t Class\t IT;  and   has\t passed\t  the\tProfessional
\n     Examination of  the Department  as provided  in rule 15
\n     infra\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) being  a person to be appointed to the service
\n     by\t direct\t  recruitment,\tobtains\t from  the  Standing
\n     Medical Board  a certification  of mental\tand physical
\n     fitness after  being examined  in accordance  with\t the
\n     regulations prescribed in Appendix and is considered by
\n     the Medical  Authority to\tbe lit in all respects r.. ,
\n     active outdoor duties:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d) is  a person with a satisfactory character and
\n     antecedents, verification\tin respect of which shall be
\n     arranged through  appropriate Government  Agency except
\n     in cases where such  verification may have already been
\n     made at the time of his entry into Government service;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
485<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (e) has  not more  than one wife living or, in the
\n     case of  a woman  is not  married to  a person  already
\n     having a wife living;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t Government may,  if satisfied\tthat
\n     there are\tspecial grounds\t for doing  so,\t exempt\t any
\n     person from the operation of this condition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Clause (a)\t of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules says that no
\nperson shall be appointed to the Service unless he possesses
\none  of\t the  University  degrees  or  other  qualifications
\nprescribed in  Appendix ‘B’  of the  Class I  Rules.  It  is
\nfurther provided  therein that\tGovernment  may\t waive\tthis
\nqualification in  the case of a particular officer belonging
\nto the\tClass II  Service Clause  (a) of  Rule\t6  no  doubt
\napplies to  all direct\trecruitments. If  a Class II officer
\nseeks-to enter\tthe Class  T Service  by direct\t recruitment
\ni.e. by\t recruitment by\t open competition as provided by the
\nExplanation to\tRule 2(7),  he should  possess a  degree  as
\nprovided in  Rule 6(a) unless under the proviso to Rule 6(a)
\nGovernment waives  the said  qualification in  his  case.  A
\ndirect recruit\thas also  to satisfy the condition in clause\n<\/p>\n
(c) of\tRule 6\twhich deals with the production of a medical
\ncertificate as\tprovided therein and the condition in clause\n<\/p>\n
(d) of\tRule 6\twhich provides\tfor the\t verification of his
\ncharacter and antecedents except where such verification may
\nhave already  been made\t at  the  time\tof  his\t entry\tinto
\nGovernment service.  He should\talso  not  suffer  from\t the
\ndisqualification mentioned in clause (e) of Rule 6. A direct
\nrecruit shall  also have to comply with Rule 15 of the Class
\nI Rules\t which provides\t that unless he has not already done
\nso, he\tshould pass such departmental examination and within
\nsuch period as may be prescribed by the Government
\n     Rule 6(b)\tof the\tClass I Rules provides that ”in the
\ncase of\t an appointment\t by promotion  from Class II Service
\n(the officer)  has eight years completed service in Class II
\nand  has   passed  the\t professional  examination   of\t the
\nDepartment as  provided in Rule 15″. The question is whether
\nan officer  in the  Class II Service should satisfy both the
\nqualification mentioned in clause (a) and the qualifications
\nmentioned in clause (b) of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules or he
\nshould satisfy\tonly the qualifications under clause (b) for
\npurposes of  promotion to the Class I Service. If clause (b)
\nof Rule\t 6 had\tcontained the words ‘also’ or in addition to
\nwhat is\t contained in  clause (a) or any other word cr words
\nconveying that\tmeaning, there would have been no difficulty
\nin construing  that clause  as then  it would  have  clearly
\nmeant that  an officer\tin the\tClass II  Service who  seeks
\npromotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers should possess
\na degree as provided in
\n486<\/span>
\nclause (a)  unless it  has been waived by the Government and
\nshould also  satisfy the conditions mentioned in clause (b).
\nBut we do not find any such words in clause (b) of Rule 6 of
\nthe Class I Rules. Clause (b) of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules
\nopens with  the words  ‘in the\tcase of\t an  appointment  by
\npromotion from\tClass II  Service’. It deals with a separate
\nand distinct  class of\tpersons who  are to  be recruited by
\npromotion  from\t the  Class  II\t Service  to  the  cadre  of
\nExecutive Engineers. The question whether all the clauses in
\nRule 6\tshould be  read cumulatively  or separately  depends
\nupon the  structure of the sentences and the contents of the
\ndifferent clauses.  In Rule 6, we do not have the word ‘and’
\nused at the end of any of the clauses (a) to (d), clause (e)
\nbeing the  last one.  Clause (c) of Rule 6 deals with only .
\ndirect recruits\t and does not apply to promotees and that is
\nclear by  its language. Clause (d) of Rule 6 applies only to
\ndirect recruits who enter the service for the first time and
\nthose persons  who are\talready in Government service and in
\nwhose case the verification of character and antecedents has
\nnot already  been done.\t Clause (e) of Rule 6 can apply only
\nto those who enter the service for the first time and cannot
\napply to  those who  are already  in the  Class\t II  Service
\nbefore appointment to the Class I Service because there is a
\ncorresponding provision\t even in the Class II Rules creating
\na  similar  disqualification  for  being  appointed  to\t the
\nGovernment service  in Rule  7(5) of the Class II Rules. Now
\nwe are\tleft with clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 6 of the Class
\nI Rules. In Rule 7 of the Class II Rules (which is extracted
\nin the\tearlier part  of this  judgment) which are analogous
\nRules dealing  with the\t qualifications for  entry into\t the
\nClass II  Service there\t is no room for doubt for clause (1)
\nbegins with  the words\t‘in the\t case of person appointed by
\ndirect recruitment: clause (2) begins with the words ‘in the
\ncase of\t appointment by\t promotion from\t sources (2) and (3)
\nunder Rule  6(1) clause\t (3) begins  with the  words ‘in the
\ncase of\t the appointment  by promotion\tfrom source  4 under
\nRule 6(1)  and clause (4) begins with the words ‘in the case
\nof appointment\tby transfer’.  Each of\tthe above clauses is
\napparently an  independent clause.  It\tmeans  that  persons
\nfalling under  one clause do not fail under any of the other
\nclauses and they start excluded from the other clauses. Each
\nclause deals  with a specific class. Even though the opening
\nwords of  Rule 7  cf the Class II Rules are “No person shall
\nbe appointed  to the Service unless he” as they are found in
\nRule 6 of the Class I Rules also these words have to be read
\nwith each  of the  clauses (I) to (1) of Rule 7 of the Class
\nII Rules  If the  same method  is adopted  in  the  case  of
\nclauses (a)  and (b)  of Rule  6 of  the Class I Rules, then
\nthere would  be no  room for ambiguity. Clause (a) of Rule 6
\nseems to apply to direct appointments to the
\n487<\/span>
\nClass I\t Service which\tordinarily can\tbe to  the posts  of
\nAssistant Executive  Engineers in view of clause (4) of Rule
\n5 of the Class I Rules and only in exceptional circumstances
\nfor reasons  to be  recorded in\t writing  to  the  posts  of
\nExecutive Engineers.  Clause (b)  of Rule  6 which specially
\ndeals with  appointments by  promotion\tfrom  the  Class  II
\nService to  the posts  of Executive  Engineers\texhaustively
\ndeals with  the qualifications\tof officers  to be  promoted
\nfrom the  Class II  Service. The special clause excludes the
\napplication of\tthe general that appears to be the intention
\nof the\trule making  authority because\tclause (a) of Rule 6
\ndeals with  educational qualifications\tand clause (b) deals
\nwith the  qualification of experience for eight years in the
\nClass  II  Service  and\t the  passing  of  the\tdepartmental
\nexamination.  So   far\t as   direct   recruitment   through
\ncompetitive examination is concerned the minimum educational
\nqualification has  to be  prescribed in\t the Class  I  Rules
\nthemselves and it is accordingly prescribed by clause (a) of
\nRule 6. So far as recruitment by promotion from the Class II
\nService to the post of Executive Engineer is concerned it is
\nseen  that   as\t regards   Class  II  officers\tthe  minimum
\neducational qualifications  which they\tshould possess\thave
\nbeen fixed  in the  Class  II  Rules  where  26\t out  of  40
\nvacancies are  to be  filled up by the holders of degrees in
\nengineering of recognised universities and the remaining are
\nto be  filled up  by promotion\tfrom  amongst  persons\twith
\ncertain educational  qualifications and\t experience  of\t ten
\nyears in  the lower cadre or such other experience as stated
\nin the Class II Rules. Rule 6 of the Class I Rule treats the
\npossession of a degree plus the selection at the competitive
\nexamination and\t the passing of the departmental examination
\nafter appointment  as sufficient  for getting into the cadre
\nof  Assistant\tExecutive  Engineers  or  to  the  cadre  of
\nExecutive Engineers when direct recruitment is made to those
\nposts and  the experience  in the  Class II  Service  for  a
\nminimum period\tof eight  years\t plus  the  passing  of\t the
\ndepartmental examinations  before promotion  of an Assistant
\nEngineer in  the Class ll Service a sufficient qualification
\nfor promotion  to the  cadre of\t Executive Engineers. We may
\nhere note  that under  Rule 9(3)  of the  Class I  Rules  an
\nAssistant Executive  Engineer who  is recruited\t directly to
\nthe Class  I Service  would not be eligible for promotion to
\nthe post  of Executive\tEngineer unless he was rendered five
\nyears service  as an  Assistant Executive  Engineer and\t has
\npassed the Departmental Professional Examination as provided
\nin Rule 15 of the Class I Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     The distinction  between the two methods of filling the
\nposts of  Executive Engineers  by promotion is now apparent.
\nIf that\t post is  to be\t filled up by promoting an Assistant
\nExecutive Engineer, the
\n488<\/span>
\nAssistant Executive  Engineer concerned\t should possess five
\nyears experience  and should  have passed  the\tDepartmental
\nExamination prescribed\tby Rule\t 15 of the Class I Rules. If
\nthat post  is to  be filled  up by promotion of an Assistant
\nEngineer in  the Class\tII Service the Assistant Engineer to
\nbe promoted  should possess  eight years  experience in\t the
\nClass II  Service and  should have  passed the\tDepartmental
\nExamination prescribed\tby Rule\t 15. That means that whereas
\nan Assistant  Executive Engineer who is a holder of a degree
\nneed have  only five  years’ experience\t in the Public Works
\nDepartment, an\tAssistant Engineer  in the  Class II Service
\nwho may or may not possess a degree should have eight years’
\nexperience in the Public Works Department for being promoted
\nto the\tcadre of  Executive Engineers. This extra experience
\nof three  years\t appears  to  have  been  treated  as  being
\nsufficient to  make good  the deficiency,  if any,  that may
\narise by  reason of  the Assistant  Engineer in the Class II
\nService possessing only a diploma and not a degree.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  seriously urged that the expertness of the Class
\nI Service  would very much suffer if persons without degrees
\nbut with  only diplomas\t are allowed  to get  into it. It is
\nnot, however, suggested that no diploma holder has ever been
\npromoted to the Class I Service in our country. While we are
\naware of  the difference between the proficiency of a person
\nwith a\tdegree who  enters service by direct recruitment and
\nof a  person who  is promoted  after he has acquired certain
\nexperience in  the same\t kind of  work in  a lower cadre, we
\nshould\tstate\tthat  in   administrative  and\tprofessional
\nservices a  combination of  high educational  qualifications
\nand long experience is always preferred so that the services
\nmay be\tefficient by  each of  them supplementing the other.
\nExperienced administrators  have opined\t that in  the higher
\ncadres of  services high educational qualifications alone or
\nlong experience\t alone would  not be in the interests of the
\npublic. It  is true that it is not wise to have only persons
\nwith diplomas  in all  the posts  in the Class I Service. In
\norder to  see that  there is  no lack  of proficiency in the
\nhigher posts  in the Class I Service, Rule 5(2) of the Class
\nI Rules\t expressly provides  that recruitment to the Service
\nshall be  so regulated\tthat the  number of  posts filled by
\npromotion from\tthe Class  II Service shall not exceed fifty
\npercent of  the number\tof posts  in  the  Class  I  Service
\nexcluding the  posts of\t Assistant Executive  Engineers.  It
\nprovides for a healthy blend of the two classes. What is the
\neffect of this clause ? More than fifty percent of the Class
\nI Service  posts would\talways be  held by  direct  recruits
\nbecause the  Strength of promotees from the Class II Service
\ncannot be  more than fifty per cent of the total strength of
\nthe Class 1 Service minus the
\n489<\/span>
\nnumber of  Assistant Executive Engineers. The promotees from
\nthe A  Class II Service will, therefore, always be less than
\nfifty per cent of the total strength of the Class I Service.
\nEven. amongst  them 26\tout of\t40 are\tgraduates because of
\nRule 6\tof the\tClass II Rules which prescribes the quota of
\ndirect recruits who should always be the holders of degrees.
\nS..) diploma holders who may get into the Class I Service by
\npromotion will\tbe only\t 14 out of 40 promotees. It would be
\neasier to ascertain now many non-degree holders can get into
\nthe Class  I Service  by the  following illustration. (Note:
\nThis illustration is adopted without reference to the actual
\nstrength in  the Class\tI Service). Let us assume that there
\nare 240\t Class I  posts and  out of  them 40  are  posts  of
\nAssistant Executive  Engineers. Then  there will  be in\t the
\nClass I Service:\n<\/p>\n
     40\t   Assistant  Executive Engineers  who are graduates
\n\t  (because of Rule 6(a) of the Class I Rules).
\n     80\t  Being 50%-of 200-40-160 degree holders (because of
\n\t  Rule S(2) of the Class I Rules).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     52\t   Degree  holders at  the rate of 26 out of 40 from
\n\t  amongst 80  promotees (because  of Rule  6 of\t the
\n\t  Class II Rules).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
……………………………………………………
\nTotal: 172
\n…………………………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
     The balance  of 28\t posts alone  will be  available for
\ndiploma holders.  Can it be said that the 28 diploma holders
\nwith the  minimum length  of experience prescribed by clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of\tRule 6\tof the Class I Rules who are selected by the
\nPublic\tService\t  Commission  on  the  basis  of  merit\t and
\nsuitability (see  Rule 8(4)  of the  Class I Rules) and with
\nthe  educational   qualifications  they\t  may\tpossess\t  as
\nprescribed by  the Class  II Rules  would dilute the Class I
\nService so  much that  the efficiency of the Class I Service
\nwould go  down to  such an  extent that\t the Class I Service
\nwill  become   unequal\tto   the  tasks\t  to  be   performed
\ncollectively by the entire Service ? It has also to be noted
\nthat if\t a Class II officer is found wanting in merit and is
\notherwise .  unsuitable, he  would not\tbe selected  by\t the
\nPublic Service\tCommission. This  is not  like a nurse in an
\noperation theatre  carrying out\t surgery. Nor  is it  like a
\nlaboratory assistant  teaching astrophysics.  Who are  after
\nall these members of the Class II Service who seek promotion
\nto the cadre of Executive Engineers ? They are all Assistant
\nEngineers who  have held  the office  of a  Sub-Division for
\neight years, Even
\n490<\/span>
\namongst these  diploma holders\twho are\t so selected  by the
\nPublic Service\tCommission how\tmany can possibly reach even
\nthe cadre  of Superintending  Engineers, let alone the cadre
\nof Chief  Engineers in view of their entering the Government
\nservice earlier\t than the  direct recruits  ? We  are of the
\nview that  in the  circumstances it  could not have been the
\nintention of  the  rule\t making\t authority  that  no  person
\nwithout a  degree should  be allowed  to enter\tthe Class  I
\nService. If  the construction  placed by  the petitioners in
\nthe writ  petition and\tthe  Government\t is  accepted  every
\ndiploma holder\twho is\tan Assistant  Engineer would have to
\nretire only  as a Class II Officer and cannot hope to become
\nan Executive  Engineer till  his retirement. If that was the
\nintention, Rule\t 6(b)  of  the\tClass  I  Rules\t would\thave
\ncontained necessary  words conveying  that meaning  as it is
\npointed out  earlier. We  feel that  clause (b)\t of  Rule  6
\nappears to  be\texhaustive  of\tthe  qualifications  of\t the
\nAssistant Engineers who can seek promotion from the Class II
\nService to  the Class I Service. So read Rule 6 of the Class
\n1 Rules\t will read  in so far as the promotees are concerned
\nas ‘no\tperson shall  be appointed  to the Service unless in
\nthe case  of an\t appointment by\t promotion has\teight  years
\ncompleted  service   in\t Class\t II  and   has\tpassed\t the
\nprofessional Examination  of the  Department as\t provided in
\nRule 15″  and clause  (a) of  Rule 6 should be read as being
\napplicable to the other mode of recruitment.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  is drawn  by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners in\tthe writ petition out of which these appeals
\narise to the decision in O.P. Bhatia’s case (supra) in which
\na rule\tsimilar to  Rule 6  of the  Class I  Rules arose for
\nconsideration. That  Rule is Rule 6 of the Punjab Service of
\nEngineers, Class  I, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964.
\nThe relevant  part of  Rule 6  of the said Irrigation Branch
\nRules reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “6. Qualifications-No person shall be appointed to
\n     the Service unless he-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) possesses\t one of\t the University\t Degrees  or
\n     other qualifications  prescribed in  Appendix of  these
\n     rules;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided   that    Government\t  may\twaive\tthis
\n     qualification in  the  case  of  a\t particular  officer
\n     belonging to Class II Service;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) in  case of  an appointment  by promotion from
\n     Class II  Service,\t has  completed\t in  that  class  of
\n     Service, for a period
\n491<\/span>
\n     of ten  years from the commencement of these rules, six
\n     years  service   and  after  that\tperiod\teight  years
\n     services
\n\t  Provided that\t if it\tappears to  be necessary  to
\n     promote  an   Officer  in\t the  public  interest,\t the
\n     Government may  for reasons  to be recorded in writing,
\n     either generally  or in  any individual case reduce the
\n     period of\tsix or\teight years to such extent as it may
\n     deem  proper   in\t consultation\twith   the   Finance
\n     Department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation-For  the   purposes  of   this\t clause\t  in
\n     computing the  period of six or eight years any service
\n     rendered as  a temporary  Engineer shall  be taken into
\n     account….. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court held  in that case that a member of the
\nClass II  Service in  the Irrigation  Branch of\t the  P.W.D.
\nshould possess\ta degree to be eligible to be promoted as an
\nExecutive Engineer  in the Class I Service in the Irrigation
\nBranch of the P.W.D. The High Court was of the view that the
\nomission of  the word ‘directly which was in . Rule 7 of the
\n1956 Rules  which were\treplaced by  the  Irrigation  Branch
\nRules of  1964 led  to the  inference that  Rule 6(a) of the
\n1964 Rules was applicable both to the direct recruitment and
\npromotions from the Class It Service. In order to understand
\nthe above  reason, we  have ourselves  looked into  the said
\n1956 Rules.  Rule 7  of the said 1956 Rules which dealt with
\nonly direct appointments to the posts of Assistant Executive
\nEngineers read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “7.  Qualifications\tfor  appointment.-No  person
\n     shall be appointed directly to the Service unless he-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) possesses\t one of\t the university\t degrees  or
\n     other qualifications  prescribed in  Appendix to  these
\n     rules;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) has in the case of a candidate for appointment
\n     on the advice of the Commission passed such competitive
\n     examination or  such other\t test as  the Commission may
\n     prescribe for appointment to the Service; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) has  obtained from a Standing Medical Board in
\n     the State\tof  Punjab,  a\tcertificate  of\t mental\t and
\n     physical fitness  as prescribed  by the  regulations in
\n     Appendix C\t and is considered by the Board to be fit in
\n     all respects for active outdoor duty;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
492<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  Provided that in the case of officers belonging to
\n     the Class\tII Service  the State  Government may, after
\n     consultation   with    the\t  Commission,\t waive\t the
\n     qualifications required by clause (a):
\n\t  Provided further  that other\tthings being  equal,
\n     preference will be given to a candidate who has himself
\n     worked for\t the cause  of national\t independence or has
\n     rendered some out standing social or public service.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  above\t Rule  did  not\t contain  any  reference  to
\nrecruitment by\tpromotion from\tthe Class  II Service to the
\npost of\t Executive Engineer.  The promotion  to the cadre of
\nExecutive Engineers  was dealt\twith by\t Rule 15 of the said
\n1956 Rules.  Sub-rule (7)  of Rule 15 of the said 1956 Rules
\nread as under.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “15. (7)  A member  recruited\t by  promotion\tfrom
\n     Class  II.\t  Service,  who\t is  reported  to  be  fully
\n     qualified to hold charge of a Division will be promoted
\n     as Executive Engineer on completing 10 years qualifying
\n     service as\t in sub-rule  4 above,\tbut  such  promotion
\n     shall not establish the right to be placed in charge of
\n     a Division\t or draw  pay in  the senior  scale  of\t pay
\n     unless a Divisional charge is available.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Clause (4)\t of Rule 15 of the said 1956 Rules laid down
\nthe method  of determining ten years of service in the Class
\nII Service as follows.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “15. (4)  In the case of members promoted from the
\n     Punjab Service  of Engineers,  Class II, the equivalent
\n     length of\tService shall  determine the seniority. This
\n     will be worked out as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  Service in  the Punjab  Service of Engineers,
\n\t       Class I Full\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  Service in  the Punjab  Service of Engineers,
\n\t       Class II 0.8\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  Service as Temporary Engineer 0.64\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)  Service as officiating Sub-Divisional officer
\n\t       or Assistant  Design Engineer  (Non-gazetted)
\n\t       0.4″<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
493<\/span><\/p>\n
     There was\tno insistence  upon the\t qualification of  a
\ndegree in  the said 1956 Rules in the case of promotees from
\nthe Class  II Service. when the 1964 rules of the Irrigation
\nBranch, Class  I were  promulgated, the pattern of the Rules
\nwas changed.  While doing  so, in  the new  Rule 6, the word
\n‘directly’ which  was in the old Rule 7 was no doubt omitted
\nbut the\t new Rule  6 referred to both kinds of appointment,.
\nnamely, direct\trecruitment and\t promotion from the Class II
\nService. It  was not a case of just reproducing the old Rule
\n7 and  omitting one word therefrom but the introduction of a
\nnew Rule  6 with  a different structure. The High Court also
\nappears to  have overlooked while relying upon Rule 9 of the
\nIrrigation Branch  Rules of  1964 that\tthe proviso  to Rule
\n6(a) of\t the said  Rules was  applicable only  to a Class II
\nofficer who wanted to get into the Class I Service by direct
\nrecruitment as\tprovided in  the Explanation to Rule 2(7) of
\nthe  Irrigation\t Branch\t Rules\twhich  corresponded  to\t the
\nExplanation to\tRule 2(7) of the Class I Rules with which we
\nare  concerned.\t  The  High   Court  has  not  examined\t the
\nIrrigation Branch  Rules as  fully as  we have\texamined the
\nClass I\t Rules. The  judgment of  the  High  Court  is\tvery
\ncryptic. We  do not  agree with its conclusion that a degree
\nis a  pre-requisite for\t being promoted\t from the  Class  II
\nService to  the Class  I Service  for the  reasons  we\thave
\nalready given above.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t these\tcases  the  State  Government  having  first
\nconstrued that\tRule 6\tof the Class I Rules required that a
\npromotee should\t also have  a degree,  tried to\t relax\tthat
\ncondition by  making orders relaxing it as it found that its
\nconstruction had  led to unjust results. It did not make any
\nattempt to reconsider its interpretation of Rule 6 even when
\nthe matter  came up  before the High Court. It only tried to
\njustify the order of relaxation but ultimately failed in its
\nattempt. It  is only  in this  Court that  the\tquestion  of
\ninterpretation of Rule 6 of the Class I Rules was raised.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  indisputable that  if the  Government wishes  to
\nappoint only  holders of  degrees to the Class I Service, it
\nmay do\tso by  promulgating appropriate Rules. That power is
\nbeyond question and it is not, therefore, necessary to refer
\nto those decisions which lay down that classification on the
\nbasis of educational qualifications of officers belonging to
\na cadre\t for purposes  of promotion  to a  higher  cadre  is
\npermissible.  The  question,  however,\tin  these  cases  is
\nwhether the  Class I  Rules as\tthey  now  exist  debar\t the
\npromotion of  an Assistant  Engineer in the Class II Service
\nwho does  not possess  a egree\tto the\tcadre. Of  Executive
\nEngineers even\twhen he satisfies the requirements of clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of\tRule 6\tof the\tClass I Rules and is selected by the
\nPublic
\n494<\/span>
\nService Commission. Our answer is in the negative.\n<\/p>\n
     Since Rule\t 6(a) of the Class I Rules is not applicable
\nto the Class II officers who are to be promoted to the Class
\nI Service, the question whether the order of relaxation made
\nin the case of the promotes is validly passed or not becomes
\nimmaterial. We,\t therefore, set\t aside the  judgment of\t the
\nHigh Court  and dismiss\t the writ  petition filed before the
\nHigh Court.  Since we  have disposed  of these\tappeals on a
\nground different  from the  ground  urged  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt, we express no opinion on the validity of the order of
\nrelaxation
\n     For the  foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed but
\nin the\tcircumstances of  the cases  without any order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
S. R.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n495<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 643, 1984 SCR (2) 476 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: A. S. PARMAR & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/01\/1984 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1984-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-29T12:01:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"40 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-29T12:01:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984\"},\"wordCount\":6235,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984\",\"name\":\"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-29T12:01:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-29T12:01:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"40 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984","datePublished":"1984-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-29T12:01:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984"},"wordCount":6235,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984","name":"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-29T12:01:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-s-parmar-others-vs-state-of-haryana-others-on-24-january-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49938","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}