Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 151 (MP)

Hanuman Prasad Verma v. State of M. P.

2016-02-24

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
ORDER : Alok Aradhe, J. In this writ petition, a pure question of law with regard to interpretation of Rule 13 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2000 Rules’) arises for consideration on admitted facts, which are stated infra. 2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 22-10-1999 and was working as such in Municipal Corporation, Satna. The petitioner was given the additional charge of the post of Superintending Engineer on 27-2-2015. The service conditions of the petitioner are admittedly governed by the provisions of 2000 Rules. On 23-1-2015, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held and the case of the petitioner was recommended for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were approved by the Mayor-in-Council by a resolution passed on 2-2-2015 and the same was forwarded for confirmation to the State Government on 7-2-2015 under section 58(1)(iii) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The State Government by an order dated 16-6-2015 rejected the resolution passed by the Mayor-in-Council on the ground that the same has been passed without taking into consideration the educational qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not required to possess the degree in Engineering, as the same is not provided in Schedule III of the 2000 Rules and the qualification which is referred to by the respondents is relevant in case of filling up post of Superintending Engineer by direct recruitment. In Municipal Corporation, there is no quota prescribed for direct recruitment and all the posts have to be filled up either by promotion or by deputation only. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions in the case of Ram Kumar Baishander v. State of M.P and others, 2012 (2) M.P.L.J. 386 and S.K. Gupta and another v. State of M.P. and others, 2013 (3) M.P.L.J. 67 . 4. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions in the case of Ram Kumar Baishander v. State of M.P and others, 2012 (2) M.P.L.J. 386 and S.K. Gupta and another v. State of M.P. and others, 2013 (3) M.P.L.J. 67 . 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate while inviting the attention of this Court to Rule 13 of the 2000 Rules, has submitted that since the educational qualification for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer has not been prescribed, therefore, it is competent to the State Government to prescribe the same. In this connection, reference has been made by learned Government Advocate to the Rules namely Madhya Pradesh Public Works Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to the ‘1969 Rules’). While referring to the aforesaid Rules, it was pointed out that for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, only graduate in Engineering will be eligible. It is urged that since the petitioner does not hold the graduate degree in Engineering, therefore, he is not entitled for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner for his promotion during the pendency of the writ petition, has been rejected by a well reasoned order dated 20-11-2015, which has not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 5. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the 1969 Rules are the Rules which govern the service conditions of employees of Public Works Department of the State Government. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Rules were also applicable to the employees of local bodies namely Municipal Corporation by virtue of executive instructions prior to 2000. In the year 2000, in exercise of powers under section 433 read with section 58 (1) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the State Government has framed Rules relating to set up, strength, recruitment, appointment, scale of pay, allowance and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of Municipal Corporation of Madhya Pradesh, which j are known as 2000 Rules. The relevant extract of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules, which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in this petition reads as under: “10. The relevant extract of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules, which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in this petition reads as under: “10. Promotion.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 4, the Committee specified in Schedule IV shall select candidates for departmental promotion on the posts as shown in column (2) of Schedule III. (2) When a post is to be filled by promotion fall vacant and in the opinion of the appointing authority the filling up the vacant post is necessary in the interest of the Corporation, then the Commissioner, I shall prepare the seniority list of officers/employees shown in column (3) of Schedule III, in their character rolls, the details of award/punishment given to such Officers/ Employees and submit before the Committee specified in Schedule IV”. Admittedly, 2000 Rules have been amended w.e.f. 15-7-2015 by which educational qualification for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer has been prescribed as Bachelor’s degree in Engineering. It is also not in dispute that aforesaid amendment does not apply to the case of the petitioner. 6. From perusal of Rule 10 of the 2000 Rules, it is evident that subject to provision of Rule 4, the committee specified in Schedule IV shall select the candidates for departmental promotion on the posts as shown in column (2) of Schedule III. Rule 13 is reproduced below for the facility of reference :- 13. Other conditions of Service. - (1) The Corporation shall be competent to prescribe the method/procedure under which decision is to be taken in respect of medical treatment, general Provident Fund and Pension. The other conditions of service which have not been provided in these rules or any other rules made under the Act shall be deemed to be the same which are applicable to Government servants on the same post from time to time. 7. Relevant extract of Schedule III of the Rules which is in consonance with Rule 10 of 2000 Rules, is reproduced below :- SCHEDULE-III [See Rule 10(1)] ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION Sr. No. Name of the Post to which promotion is to be made Name of the Post from which promotion is to be made Minimum years service required on the post shown in column (3) for promotion to the post shown in column (2) 1 Superintending Engineer Executive Engineer 5 years 2 ...... ...... ...... No. Name of the Post to which promotion is to be made Name of the Post from which promotion is to be made Minimum years service required on the post shown in column (3) for promotion to the post shown in column (2) 1 Superintending Engineer Executive Engineer 5 years 2 ...... ...... ...... 3 Executive Engineer (Water Works, Engineering Electricity) Assistant Engineer According to the criterion of Govt. (PWD) 4 Account Officer Assistant Account Officer 8 years 5 ...... ...... ...... 6 ...... ...... ...... 7 ...... ...... ...... 8 ...... ...... ...... 9 Assistant Engineer Sub-Engineer/ Draftsman According to the criterion of Govt. (PWD) 10 ...... ...... ...... 11 ...... ...... ...... 12 ...... ...... ...... 13 ...... ...... ...... 14 ...... ...... ...... 15 ...... ...... ...... 16 ...... ...... ...... 8. It is well settled Rule of Statutory Interpretation that a prior general law may be affected by subsequent particular or special law if the subject-matter of the particular Act prior to its enforcement was being governed by general provisions of the earlier law. See : Daurji v. Life Corporation of India, AIR 1986 SC 135, Punjab State Electricity Board v. Bassi Cold Storage, AIR 1994 SC 2544 and Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2008 SC 1414 . In the instant case, admittedly, the prior general law i.e. 1969 Rules, were governing the service conditions of the employees of local bodies. However, subsequently, the special provision namely 2000 Rules has been enacted which affects the provisions of general law. 9. In the context of aforesaid well settled legal proposition, the provisions of 2000 Rules may be seen. The 2000 Rules are complete code in itself insofar as it pertains to set up, strength, recruitment, appointment, scale of pay, allowance and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the local bodies are concerned. Rule 10 provides for promotion which is made by the committee specified in Schedule IV. Schedule III prescribes eligibility for promotion. The Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed 5 years of experience as eligibility criteria on the post of Executive Engineer for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. Rule 10 provides for promotion which is made by the committee specified in Schedule IV. Schedule III prescribes eligibility for promotion. The Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed 5 years of experience as eligibility criteria on the post of Executive Engineer for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. Wherever, the Legislature had thought it apposite to refer to the qualification which are applicable in case of a Government servant, reference has been made to the criteria which is fixed under the Rules in respect of Public Works Department. In this connection, reference may be made to Entry 3 and 9 of Schedule III. It is also pertinent to mention that w.e.f. 15-7-2015 eligibility criteria for the post of Superintending Engineer has been altered and requirement of possessing Bachelor’s degree in Engineering has been made mandatory. Thus, seniority on the feeder post has been prescribed as eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer upto 15-7-2015 i.e. till amendment of the 2000 Rules. The Legislature has prescribed the eligibility criteria for promotion in case of Superintending Engineers in the Rules in 2000 itself, which is a special law. It is not the case where the Legislature has not prescribed any eligibility criteria for promotion. Therefore, the contention made by learned Government Advocate that with recourse to Rule 13 of Rule 2000, read with 1969 Rules, the petitioner can be held to be not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, as he does not possess the degree of Engineering, cannot be accepted. The petitioner is eligible for promotion as he holds the requisite criteria prescribed under Rules 2000, which is a special law applicable to the case of the petitioner. 10. In view of preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 16-6-2015 and the order dated 20-11-2015 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected, are hereby quashed. The State Government is directed to pass an appropriate order in light of the observations made in this order on the recommendation sent by the Mayor-in-Council, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.