ORDER 1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, are the aftermath of a litigation titled H.S. Verma v. Secretary, Ministry of Shipping and Transport { (1979) 4 SCC 415 }. In this regard, a three-Judge Bench of this Court settled the dispute between a class of officers known as CES officers against another class of officers known as Tool Officers in the backdrop of a set of Rules in the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Roads Wing) of the Government of India; by making inter alia the following directions : (1) All persons appointed in accordance with any of the modes of appointment prescribed by Rule 3 or Rule 19(2) of the 1959 Rules must be taken to have been appointed to the regular cadre of the Central Engineering Service. It will not be permissible to classify them separately as Pool Officers or otherwise. (2) Those whose appointments are not in accordance with any of the modes of appointment prescribed by Rule 3 or Rule 19(2) of the 1959 Rules, shall be taken to have been appointed to ex-cadre posts. Such persons may be classified into a separate category from those referred to in clause (1) above. 2. The above two directions are the outcome of the discussion made by the Bench in an earlier part of its judgment extracted below : "But the fact remains that persons who were appointed contrary to the rules but to ex-cadre posts were taken initially for purposes of certain projects to which we have already referred. Their precarious tenure was continued from time to time but that will not furnish justification for treating them on the same footing as others whose appointments were made strictly in accordance with the Rules and who are appointed to posts borne on the cadre of the Central Engineering Service. A division of these two classes of officers into separate categories will remove possible injustice to those who were appointed to cadre posts in that their promotional opportunities will not be blocked or hindered by ex-cadre officers who were recruited on a large scale to meet an urgent necessity. Such a classification will also minimise the injustice which would otherwise have been caused to those who were appointed to ex-cadre posts." These observations were almost in reiteration of those made by the Delhi High Court in its judgment which was under appeal before this Court. Such a classification will also minimise the injustice which would otherwise have been caused to those who were appointed to ex-cadre posts." These observations were almost in reiteration of those made by the Delhi High Court in its judgment which was under appeal before this Court. As a consequence, the Central Government framed two sets of rules, namely, the Central Engineering Pool Group A of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Roads Wing) Rules, 1976 and the Central Engineering Service (Roads) Group A of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Roads Wing) Rules, 1976 in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which were notified on 25-2-1976. In abbreviation, these can be called as Pool Rules and the CES Rules respectively. Both sets of rules having come on the scene in the meantime figured before this Court in Verma case { (1979) 4 SCC 415 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 19}, but neither their vires nor any question pertaining to them was put to issue. The factum alone was recognised that these had come into existence. 3. A particular feature of these rules is that they provide establishment of two different services and then permit a kind of integration of the personnel for certain purposes while retaining their individual character under the respective two Rules. Another peculiar feature of the Rules is that from the sanctioned strength of posts thereunder posts can be picked up to be in isolation and put up in a separate basket wherefrom by a certain method integrated officers can be given promotion in the isolated post while remaining integrated and as soon as a post in their respective service is available they go back to that post. In its actual working this has led to a lot of difficulty and heart-burning to the officers of the CES and it is alleged that whatever they had gained in Verma case { (1979) 4 SCC 415 } before this Court, it stood lost in the working of these Rules. 4. We heard the parties at great length and examined the matter from all possible angles. At one stage, we thought of examining the comparative positions of both sides as to who was the gainer. We put the Union of India to prepare and place charts before us as to how the system had worked before 31-3-1994. 4. We heard the parties at great length and examined the matter from all possible angles. At one stage, we thought of examining the comparative positions of both sides as to who was the gainer. We put the Union of India to prepare and place charts before us as to how the system had worked before 31-3-1994. Specific queries were put to the Government of India that if on the basis of the concerned rules, the principle of creation of isolated posts and integration is struck down and the two classes of members of the services left to compete with each other confined to their respective promotional posts in their respective service, what would be the fall out from the date of the enforcement of the Rules in 1976 uptil 31-3-1994 and secondly if the principle of isolated posts is adhered to, but its ratio is permitted not to go beyond 50 per cent, then what would be the similar fall out? Two charts prepared by Union of India, were laid before us and on close scrutiny, we find that both the services had gone almost shoulder to shoulder and there had appreciably not been much of a disparity. It is therefrom that we came to the tentative view that position prior to 31-3-1994 need not be disturbed and be positively frozen. Putting that suggestion to the Union of India, we required of it that if the principle of isolation is thenceforth abandoned, would it be able to abolish that concept on its own and necessarily what would follow therefrom. This we had done after consulting all learned counsel for the parties as well as private parties present, though not on consensus but as a decisive need of settling the matter. This we had done after consulting all learned counsel for the parties as well as private parties present, though not on consensus but as a decisive need of settling the matter. We had put to the Union of India the following five proposals : (i) The position as on 31-3-1994 be frozen in the respective services; (ii) From 1-4-1994, the concept of isolation shall be abolished from both the set of rules; (iii) The respective personnel would be confined to their own respective services and there would be no promotion/appointment on the basis or integrated seniority of the two groups; (iv) The rules of two services would be so amended so as to give effect to the above proposals 1, 2 and 3 as stated above, effective from 1-4-1994; and (v) In case, there is a post falling vacant on Pool side where there is no incumbent available to fill that post the same would be abolished. This would provide a justification to add the post in the CES and apart from thatby creating additional temporary posts in order to remove any undue hardship to any officer in the CES. 5. We have been conveyed today the consent of Union of India as it is agreeable to these proposals. 6. Certain additional concessions have been asked for Pool service by contending that a particular person who has worked as a Civil Engineer uptil 31-3-1994, though not on any cadre post in any of these 2 services, may be ordered to be accommodated in the Pool service and that the Court may grant permission to do so. We find this to be difficult to concede because the Pool service is a dying service and we cannot keep it ever in a breathing state. If there is a case of injustice, the Government of India can always resort to the well-known methods of accommodation, such as ad hoc or temporary appointments, of course in ex-cadre posts. If the Government intends to accommodate any officer in this manner, there should be no difficulty. What is emphasised in H.S. Verma case { (1979) 4 SCC 415 }, as also herein, is that the promotional avenues of the CES officers shall not be hindered or obstructed in any manner. We make it clear that in an individual case, the Government of India is at liberty to pass appropriate orders to remove undue hardship. 7. What is emphasised in H.S. Verma case { (1979) 4 SCC 415 }, as also herein, is that the promotional avenues of the CES officers shall not be hindered or obstructed in any manner. We make it clear that in an individual case, the Government of India is at liberty to pass appropriate orders to remove undue hardship. 7. Adopting the above proposals to be governing the fate of the two services, we make them as a rule of the court and basis of this decision in disposing of these writ petitions. The Union of India is directed to work them out preferably within six months. No costs. We mandate that these principles have come into operation with effect from 1-4-1994 and the Government of India is only left to formalise the set of rules in accordance therewith. For Citation: 1995 Supp(1) SCC 279