Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. The legislation under challenge was in that view not a Validation Act as it purported to be but an enactment that regularised the appointment of graduate Stipendiary Engineers working as ad hoc Assistant Engineers as Assistant Engineers. Reliance upon the decision of this Court in Satchidananda Mishra v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 599 is, in our opinion, of no assistance to the respondents. In Satchdinanda’s case (supra) the High Court had struck down the validation act which order was confirmed by this Court in appeal. What is significant, however, is that while affirming the view taken by the High Court that the validation law was not constitutionally sound, this Court proceeded on the assumption that the legislation with which it was dealing with was a validation act in the true sense. It was on that assumption that this Court looked into the invalidity and held that the validation act did nothing except validating the appointments without removing the basis on which such appointments could be invalidated. We have not proceeded on any such assumption in the instant case especially because learned counsel for some of the parties have argued that the legislation under challenge is not a Validation Enactment. The Enactment in the case at hand deals with the law relating to regularisation of incumbents holding public office on ad hoc or temporary basis, much in the same way as regularisation of such temporary appointments is ordered in terms of a scheme for that purpose. The only difference is that while a regularisation scheme can be framed by the Government in exercise of its executive power, the regularisation ordered in the case at hand is by way of a legislation. It is trite that what could be achieved by the Government by exercise of its executive power could certainly be achieved by legislation, as indeed it has been achieved in the case at hand. Question No.1 is answered accordingly.

39. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the degree holder Junior Engineers who were also appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers against 5% quota which the Government resolution had provided for, argued that although degree holder Junior Engineers are eligible for appointment against the vacancies in direct recruits quota, that opportunity was not available to his clients when the degree holder Junior Engineers were appointed as Assistant Engineers. He contended that Junior Engineer degree holders who were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Engineers against 5% quota reserved for them under the Government resolution would have no objection to the regularisation being upheld provided degree holder Junior Engineers who had served for a relatively longer period as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis were also given a similar treatment. He submitted that the exclusion of degree holder Junior Engineers from the legislative measure aimed at regularising the Stipendiary degree holders was clearly discriminatory and that the High Court was on that count justified in holding that the Validation Act itself was ultra vires. It was contended by Mr. Patwalia that even if the legislature had restricted the benefit of regularisation to the Stipendiary Engineers later appointed on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineers, there was no reason why this Court could not extend the very same benefit to degree holder engineers who had similarly worked for over 15 years.

56. We have in the light of the above no hesitation in holding that the legislation under challenge does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity and that the High Court was in error in having struck it down.

57. Having said that we are of the opinion that even when the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned enactment fails, the degree holder Junior Engineers currently working as ad hoc Assistant Engineers are entitled to the relief of regularisation in service, having regard to the fact that they have rendered long years of service as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis for 17 to 18 years in some cases. While it is true that those in service degree holders working as Junior Engineers were not the beneficiaries of the legislation under challenge, the fact remains, that they were eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineers on account of their being degree holders. It is also not in dispute that they were appointed against substantive vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Engineers no matter by utilizing the direct recruit quota. Even in the case of Stipendiary Engineers the vacancies were utilized out of the 67% quota meant for direct recruitment. What is, however, significant is that the utilization of the quota reserved for direct recruitment for appointing Stipendiary and Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers has not been assailed either before the High Court or before us. On the contrary the contention urged on behalf of Junior Engineers degree holders who are still working as Junior Engineers was that the remainder of vacancies comprising 5% of the cadre strength should be utilised to appoint the eligible degree holder Junior Engineers. We shall presently deal with that contention. Suffice it to say for the present that the appointments granted to degree holder Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis were pursuant to a Government decision whereunder such degree holders as were already in-service as Junior Engineers, were also given an opening for upward movement. Appointment of such degree holders was not grudged by their diploma holder colleagues as no challenge was mounted by them to such appointments ostensibly because degree holder Junior Engineers were getting appointed without in the least affecting the quota of 33% reserved for the promotees. In a way the upward movement of the degree holders as Assistant Engineers brightened the chances of the rest to get promoted at their turn in the promotees quota. All told, the Junior Engineers have served for almost a lifetime and held substantive vacancies no matter on ad hoc basis. To revert them at this distant point of time would work hardship to them. Besides, we cannot ignore the march of events especially the fact that Stipendaries appointed at a later point of time with the same qualifications and pursuant to the very same Government policy as took shape for both the categories, have been regularised by the Government through the medium of a legislation. That this Court can suitably mould the relief, was not in serious controversy before us. In the circumstances, we hold the degree holder Junior Engineers currently working as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis writ petitioners in the High Court entitled to the relief of regularisation with effect from the same date as the Validation Act granted such regularisation to the Stipendiary Engineers.

66. We may also refer to a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Anr. etc. etc. v. Lalita S. Rao and Ors. etc. etc. (2001) 5 SCC 384 where doctors appointed by Railway Administration on ad hoc basis had been upon regularisation granted seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointment. This Court held that proposition B stated in Direct Recruits case (supra) permitted such seniority being granted. This Court observed:

“Obviously the Court had in mind the principle B evolved by the Constitution Bench in the Direct Recruit Engineering Officers Association case (supra). If the initial appointment had not been made in accordance with the prescribed procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rules, and yet the appointees Medical Officers were allowed to continue in the post uninterruptedly and then they appeared at the selection test conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, and on being selected their services stood regularised then there would be no justification in not applying the principle 'B' of the Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association case (supra) and denying the period of officiating services for being counted for the purpose of seniority.”