M.P. Junior Engineers' Association and Sangarsh Samity & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

RANGANATHAN, J. The controversy in this Special Leave G Petition arises out of the merger, with effect from 1.10.1982, of the staff of the Madhya Pradesh Lift Irrigation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') with that of the Irrigation Depart­ ment of the State Government consequent on the abolition of the Corporation. We have heard counsel on both sides and we are of opinion that these matters should be disposed of finally even at this H 0 Q stage. We therefore grant leave in the Special Leave Petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal. Appellants 2 to 17 and certain other writ petitioners in the High Court were serving as Senior Technical Assistants (S.T.A.) in the Corporation. The cadres of S.T.As. and the lower cadre of Junior Technical Assistants (J.T.As.) in the Corporation were equivalent respectively to the cadres of Junior Engineer (J.E.) and Sub-Engineers (S.E.) in the Irrigation Department of the State. It is common ground that the qualifications for appointment to the two sets of posts were the same and that their pay scales were also the same. The appellants claim that they are entitled, after the merger of the Corporation into the Irrigation Department, to be treated as Junior Engineers and con­ sidered for promotion as Assistant Engineers on completion of two years of service but that this avenue of promq~ion is being deined to them by the State. To appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to set out some historical background of the cadres in the State Department. Initially the Junior Engineer's post in the State Government was a non-gazetted post, governed by the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969. The Junior E'ngineers, on completion of two years' minimum service, were entitled to consideration for promotion to the gazetted post of Assistant Engineer, a post governed by the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Engineering Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968. On March 19, 1973 the posts of Junior Engineers were declared to be gazetted posts. 75% of the posts of Assistant Engineers could be filled up by promotion from amongst Junior Engineers. On January I, 1978 the Junior Engineer's post was once again converted into a non-gazetted post. The quota for such of those Junior Engineers as were working as gazetted officers immediately before the issue of this order was retained at 75% as before for a period of two years by which time it was expected that all of them would get promoted as Assistant Engineers. But for this, the posts of Assistant Engineers were to be filled up equally by promotion from subordinate cadres and direct recruitment. The promotion quota was distributed among the sub­ ordinate cadres in the following proportion: Junior Engineers (Non-Gazetted) Overseers (Sub-Engineers) Head Draftsman/Draftsman -25% -20% - 5% ~ > I j ' i '""--J I -I ' -~ ' ~ ~ 1 J I l ~ ~ ~ 1 I I i ' ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P.[RANGANATHAN, J.) 429 In July, 1979 the Government decided to abolish the post of A.· Junior Engineers in the State Irrigation Department. The relevant cabinet order set out the following terms therefore: I. The posts of Junior Engineer in the three works departments should-be abolished. The Junior Engineers presently working in these departments shall continue to work in their existing pay­ scales under the existing service conditions till their promotion. (emphasis added) 2. The quota of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer, which is at present 50% should be raised to 75%. 3. 25% posts in the Sub-Engineer cadre be converted into selec­ tion grade posts and selection for the selection grade post should be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. 4. The quota prescribed for promotion of the Draftsmen should be reduced from 5% to 3%. Promotion quota of 2% should be reserved for those Sub-E;ngineers/Draftsmen who obtain degree. while in service. 5., The posts of Junior Engineer cadre, which presently exists, should· be converted into the posts of Assistant Engineers and Sub-Engineers with the concurrence of the finance department", Eventually, the State Government decided on 27th May, 1980 that the 941 posts of Junior Engineers in the Irrigation Department should be abolished by converting 658 of those posts into posts of Assistant Engineers and 233 posts into posts of Sub-Engineers (Overseers).ll must be, however, pointed out that, though the existing posts of J .Es. or-S.Es. stood abolished from 27 .5.1980, in fact, a number of Junior Engineers appointed earlier continued to function as before, under the memorandum of July 1979, until they received promotions as Assistant Engineers \A.Es.) in due course. We now come to the details of the merger between the Corpora­ tion and the State Department. In August, 1982 a decision was taken to abolish the Corporation. The Government decided on the merger ut the surplus staff of the Corporation in the Irrigation Department and 8.10.82 was decided upon as the effective date of merger for all puposes. We are concerned here with the formula for transition set out in the opening para 0£ a memorandum of the above date regarding the 13 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 1 S.C.R. ~ merger of the posts of S.T.As. and J.T.As. It read thus: ((2. Senior Technical Sectioned posts-Nil .. Assistants The above employees may be Equivalent Post- merged in the posts of Junior Engineer Junior Engineers and an (Rs. 360-650) equivalent number of posts may be deemed to have been \, 27 posts-Civil created in the dying cadre "' 34-Posts-Electrical of Junior E11gineers. (Mechanical) 12 posts-Geologists I post-Geophysist 3. Junior Technical Sanction-30 posts (reserved). Assistants Equivalent These may be merged against post: (Sub-Engineer the posts of Sub-Engineers ~ (Rs.280-480) which have been obtained by conversion of the posts of b2 posts-Civil Junior Engineer. The posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may be made unreserved and appoint- ,i I men ts may be made against them also." The memorandum of 8.10. 1982 was followed up by a communi- cation . .dated 10.11. 1982. The enclosures to this letter described the ~ absorptions as "ad hoc" but this word was deleted on 29. 1. 1983 with reference to the posts with which we are concerned, making it clear F that the absorption was to be permanent. The letter set out three \ conditions for the merger which admittedly are fulfilled l)y the t appellants: (i) The staff will be absorbed only subject to their fulfilling the qualifications prescribed for the posts against which they are to G be absorbed; (ii) The inter-se seniority of the employees of the Corporation shall be in accordance with the seniority list cleared by the Man- r aging Director. The inter-se seniority of the departmental employees and the employees of the Corporation shall be H determined in accordance with the orders of the Government; and i ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P.[RANGANATHAN, J.] 431 (iii) It was open to an employee of the Corporation to join the A Government department or not to do so, for the employees were to be required to join duties at· the place of their posting within 20 days from 10.11.1982, failing which it was to be deemed that the appointment was not acceptable to them. The seniority rule was announced much later, on 16A.1984. It said: B "The regular officers/employees of the Corporation shall, in the event of merger in the Irrigation Department, be considered as Junior to the permanent officers/employees of the Department and their seniority in the lists of the temporary officers/employees of the department, shall be fixed on the basis of the dates of assuming Office, without C. affecting the inter-se seniority of the Corporation". The result of all this, according to the appellants, was that the S. T.As. of the Corporation became, w.e.f. 8.10.1982, J.Es. of the department but their seniority therein was below the J.Es. of the State o Department who had been in office in July 1979 and continued to function as such even thereafter. It is stated that these Junior Engineers in the Di<fJartment were being gradually promoted as A.J;:s. and it was only sometime in 1983 that the appellants who were at the bottom of the seniority list became eligible for promotion as A.:Es. Their legitimate claims in this regard, it is alleged, were being stalled E by the State and so the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court in 1985. Sometime later, the appellants allege, it came to light that the State, far from giving the petitioners their legitimate entitlement, was planning a volte face to upset the whole scheme of merger as envisaged F earlier, to the detriment of the applicants. This they did, it is said, by issuing a memo on 1.3.1986 which read thus: "1. The State Government amends point No. 2 of para­ graph 1 of the orders issued vide Irrigation Department's Memo No. 22(C)/43/32/P/37 dated 8. JO. 1982 as follows: G 2. Senior Technical ] [ Assistants ] [ equivalent to Junior l [ Engineer (Rs.350-650)] [ The above employees may be absorbed on the post of Sub­ Engineer protecting H ... 432 27 posts-Civil ) I 34 posts-Electrical ) [ the pay which they were drawing previously. Such absorbed employees shall be eligible for promotion to the posts of A. Es. from the quota of Graduate Sub-Engineers. 2. These orders shall come into effect from 8.10.1982." This order vitally affected the interests of the appellants in four C respects- (a) Having been absorbed into the State Department as J.Es. in 1982, they were suddenly demoted to the post of S.Es. retrospec- ~ tively, with the "saving grace" that their pay was protected; (b) Under the seniority rules of 1984 earlier referred to, they were at the bottom of the list of J.Es. but above the S.Es. But , now they became juniors to all the Sub-Engineers of the Department; E ( c) While previously a substantial quota for promotion from J .Es. to A.Es. was a2plicable to them, the quota now got reduced (as will be explained later) tu 4%; and ( d) While previously an experience of 2 years was sufficient for their promotion, now they had to have a minimum experience ol' 8 years (as will be seen later). The combined effect of all this is, it is alleged, that the appellants will become eligible for consideration for promotion as A.Es. in the distant future as follows: Year No. of posts available Graduate Sub-Engineers quota - 1989 1997 3 2004 2 2007 I 2008 1 \ r ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P.IRANGANATI!AN, J.] 433 In other words, only 8 persons will become eligible at distant dates A A whereas aU of the appeUants should have received promotions gradu- aUy since 1983 as and when vacancies occurred. The appellants con- tend that this is a great travesty of justice which should be set right by quashing the decision of 1.3.1986 and restoring the posit10n as it actu- ally prevailed on 8.10.1982 at the time of the merger. ~ Sri Datar attempted to counter this-what prima facie appeared to be a just and reasonable-plea with his usual persuasiveness. He urged that the contentions of the appeUants overlook four important basic facts and that, if these are kept in mind, itwill be seen not merely that no injustice has been done to the appellants but that, in fact, the State has come to their rescue by providing an avenue of promotion c where none existed. These basic facts are, he says: -~ (1) As from 27.5.1980, there was no cadre of jUnior engineers at all in the State service. That cadre had been abolished by the decision of 1979 and the conversion, on27.5.1980, of the existing posts of J .Es. into those of A.Es/S.Es. D (2) There had been an amendment on 27.7.81 to the relevant recruitment rules which made it clear that, after that date at least, there could be no promotions to the posts of A.Es. from amongJ.Es. (3) When the Corporation was abolished in 1982, the State Government could have dispensed with the services of the appel· ~ !ants. Instead, they considered the appellants' cases sympatheti· caUy and decided to absorb them into the State service. In doing -I so, they purported to absorb them as J .Es. overlooking that, as on 8.10.1982, there was no cadre of,J.E. in the State service. It i~ F this mistake that was rectified on 1.3.1986 by absorbing the appeUants as S .Es. (instead of as J .Es.) but protecting the pay they were drawing. ( 4) The petitioners had an option to join or not to join the State service on 8.10.1982 asJ.Es. When they decided to join, they were G aware that, according to the rules prevailing on that date, there i was no avenue of promotion for them as A.Es. The net result of these considerations is, says Sri Datar, that, instead of completely denying the appellants any promotion altoge· ther (as there was no right, under the rules, to any suchpromotion), H 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R. the State has, equitably, decided to confer qn these officers a right of promotion by treating them as S.Es. This was a generous gesture on the part of the State. The appellants should have been happy that an avenue for promotion had been opened out to them, instead of being disgruntled on the assumption that their promotion chances had dwindled by the action of the State. This was the only reasonable way of resolving the impasse that faced the appellants and the authorities. Since Sri Datar has referred to the rules, it will be appropriate to ·.,_ pause here and notice the relevant service rules and the amendments made thereto: Taking up the Non-Gazetted Service Rules of 1969 first, they provided, in Schedule I-read with rule 5-for 269 posts of Civil Engineers and 13 posts of Electrical/Mechanical Engineers in the cadre of Junior -li:ngineers. Curiously enough these rules appear to have remained unamended notwithstanding the decision of 1979 to abolish these posts and the office order of 1980 converting these posts (these appear to have numbered 941 at the relevant time) into A.Es. or S.Es. Turning next to the Gazetted Service Rules, the following provi­ sions thereof are relevant: Rules 7. Method of recruitment- ( 1) Recruitment to the service, after commencement of the rules, shall be by the following methods, viz.: (a) by direct recruitment by selection; (b) by promotion of substantive/officiating member of the ;- M.P. Irrigation Engineering Service (Gazetted); and ( c) by transfer of persons who hold in a substantive capa­ city such posts in such services as may be specified in this behalf. (2) The number of persons recruited under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage shown in Schedule II of the number of duty posts (as specified in Schedule I). ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P.[RANGANATHAN, J.] 435 (3) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the method or methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of A filling any particular period of recruitment, and the number of persons to be recruited by each method, shall be de­ termined on each occasion by the Govt. in consultation with the Commission: (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) if in the opinion of the Govt., the exigencies of the service so require, the Govt. may, after consulting the General Administration Department, adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub-rule, as it may by order issued in this behalf, prescribe. Rule 15. Conditions of eligibility for promotions­ ( I) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the Commit­ tee shall consider the case of all persons who on the 1st day of January of that year had completed the prescribed years of service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post/ service mentioned in column 2 of Schedule IV or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the Govt. as under and are within the zone of consideration, as per sub­ rule (2)- (i) Sub-Engineers, Head Draftsman/Draftsman to the posts of Assistant Engineers-Minimum service of 12 years as Sub-Engineers, Head Draftsman/Draftsman. Provided that a Sub-Engineer and Head Draftsman/ Draftsman who has completed a minimum of 8 years' F service and possesses degree in Civi/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering from recognised university or qualification declared equivalent thereto by the State-Govt., will also be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and will be considered each time just after the zone of consideration and then final selection 1ist will be made from G both the groups on the basis of merit. For example, if ten posts are vacant in the cadre of Asstt. Engineer to be filled by promotion of Sub-Engineer, then 10x5=50 diploma holder Sub-Engineers from working list be considered first and thereafter the eligible graduate Sub-Engineers be con- sidered.in the order of their seniority for promotion. H 436 (ii) Junior Engineers to the posts of Assistant Engineers minimum service of 2 years as Junior Engineer. xxxxxxxxx Rule 18. Select list-(1) The Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with the other documents received from the Govt. and unless it con­ siders any change necessary, approve the list. (2) If the Commission considers it necessary to mlike any changes in the list received from the Govt. the Commission shall inform the Govt. of the changes proposed and after taking into account the comments, if any, as may in its opinion be just and proper. (3) The list as finally approved by the Commission shall form the select list for promotion of the members of the cadres of Sub-Engineers, Head Draftsman/Draftsmen, Research Assistant and Junior Engineers of the M.P. Irri­ gation Engineering Service or its higher cadres, as the case maybe. (4) The selecte list shall ordinarily be enforced until it is reviewed or revised in accordance with sub-rule (4) of rule 16, but its validity shall not be extended beyond a total period of 18 months from the date of its preparation: Provided that, in the event of a grave lapse in the conduct of performance of duties on the part of any person included in the select list, a special review of the select list, may be made at the instance of the Govt. and the Commis­ sion, may, if it thinks fit, remove the name of such person from the select list". (underlining ours) G Schedule I to the rules specified the number of posts in each cadre. So far as Assistant Engineers (Class II) are concerned, the number of posts is put at 329 (253 permanent and 76 temporary) in the Civil Branch and 36 (22 permanent and 14 temporary) in the Electrical & Mechanical Branch. The description and contents of the relevant columns of Schedule II have to be set out a little more meticulously. H Theyread: ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P.[RANGANATHAN, J.) 437 Name of Deptt. (1) Civil Irriga­ tion Deptt. Name of service (2) Total no. of duty postP.T.T (3) AE, Class 253 76 II M.P. Irrigation Engg. Service (Gazetted) percentage of the number ofduty posts to be filled in By direct recruitment [vide rule 7(a)] (4) 329 50 By promo­ tion of the substantive members of the service [vide rule 7(b) l (5) (6) By transfer of persons from other service [vide rule 7(c)] 50 25 % by promotion ofJEs 20% by promotion of SEs (previously Overseers) 5 % by promotion of Head Draftsman/ Draftsmen Elec- -do- 22 34 36 50 50 As for A.E. trical &Mecha­ nical Branch (underlining ours) Schedule IV says that J .Es. (Class III) with minimum experience of two years as well as S.Es. and Head Draftsmen/Draftsmen with 12 years' experience (8 years in the case of degree holders) will be eligible for promotion as A.Es. (Class II) on selection by a departmental com­ mittee constituted as specified therein. The interesting feature regarding the amendments of 1981 relied upon by Sri Datar is that they left the rules quoted above and Schedules I & IV untouched. They only amended Schedule II in two respects: (1) In the heading of column 5, the words "By promotion" were H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R. substituted for the words "By promotion of substantive members of the service [vide rule 7(b )l". (2) The figures in columns 4 and 5 were substituted by the fol­ lowing in respect of both thl? Civil Branch and the Electrical/ Mechanical Brancb: (4) (5) 60 40 33% by SES. who are diploma holders; 4% by SEs./Draftsmen who are Engineering Graduates; 3 % by Draftsmen/Head Draftsmen who are not Engineering Graduates. We have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the above rules and amendments and come to the conclusion that there is force in the contention of the appellants that they are eligible for promotion as AEs. in the same manner as the erstwhile JEs. of the Irrigation Department. The assumption of the respondents that the E cadre of JEs. had ceased to exist long before the absorption of the present appellants into the Department is incorrect. As pointed out earlier, though the decision to abolish the cadre was taken in 1979 and the existing posts were converted into those of AEs./SEs. on 27 .5.1980, the cadre did not die, for the JEs. of the Department who were then functioning continued to function as before until they were F promoted in due course as AEs. It is also not correct to se•y that this crucial "fact" had been overlooked at the time of passing the merger order of 8.10.1982. On the contrary, the State was fully conscious of its earlier decision and the order of 8.10.1982 specifically mentions that the posts of STAs. will be merged in the posts of JEs. "and an equiva­ lent number of posts may be deemed to have been created in the dying G cadre of Junior Engineers". These words make it perfectly clear that the cadre of JEs. was "dying" (but not dead) and the strength of the dying cadre was further enlivened by taking in the STAs. of the Corpo­ ration as JEs. Thus, the position is that, as on 8.10.82, the cadre of JEs. continued to subsist and comprised of the old JEs. of the Irriga­ tion department and the STAs. engrafted·from the Corporation. This H conclusion is reinforced by the interesting circumstance that the refe- '- J ~ ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P:IRANGANATHAN, J.] 439 rence in Schedule I of the Non-Gazetted Service Rules to JEs. was not omitted despite the decisions of 1979 and 1980. It is true that the A number of these posts was mentioned as 269 in the Civil Branch and 13 in the Electrical & Mechanical Branch. But the actual number had far exceeded these without a corresponding amendment in the Sc_hedule. This. however. is inconsequential. Rule 6 of these Rules is in the follow­ ing terms: Rule 6. Method of recruitment-(i) Recruitment to the service, afier the commencement of th~se .rules, shall be by the following methods, viz.- (a) by direct recruitment, by Selection/by Competitive C Examination as shown in Schedule II, (b) by promotion of substantive/officiating members of the service (as shown in the Schedule IV), and (c) by promotion of persons who hold in a substantive D capacity such posts in such services as may be specified in this behalf. (ii) The number of persons recruited. under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of the rule 6 shall not at any time exceed the percentage shown in the Schedule II. E (iii) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the method/methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling any particular vacancy /vacancies in the Service as may be required io be filled during any particu­ lar period of recruitment, and the number of persons to be F recruited by each method, shall be determined on each occasion by the appointing Authority. (iv) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (i) if in the opinion of Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer, the exigencies ofjhe service so require, the said Engineer- G in-Chief/Chief Engineer, may after consulting the Govt., may adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub-rule, as he may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe . . Rule 6(iv) read with the Schedule I clearly empo~red the Govern- H ment, in the exigencies of the situation, to continue the cadre for limited purposes and augment the same by the number of STAs. ab­ sorbed from the Corporation. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that,. on the terms of the relevant rules as well as on the language of the order of 8.10.1982, the appellants, viz. STAs. absorbed from the Corporation were constituted as a part of the cadre of J .Es., placed on complete par with the JEs. of the. department already in service and given the same promotional eligibility and opportunities as the latter. Counsel for the State contends that this conclusion would directly run contrary to the rules of the Gazetted Service particularly after their amendment in 1981 and that, after the date of said amend­ ment, no AE could be recruited by promotion from among JEs. The objection on this account is two-fold. The first, not clearly articulated by counsel, is that rule 7(b) permits recruitment by promotion only from among the members of the service and that a Non-Gazetted JE is not eligible for promotion. The second is that, after the 1981 amend­ ment, JEs have been excluded as one of the sources of recruitment by promotion. We shall deal with these two objections one after another. lt is true that rule 7(b) of the Gazetted Service Rules of 1968 provides only for JEs belonging to the said service being promoted as AEs. However, when the JE's post became a non-Gazetted one in 1978, the relevant Government orders made it clear that AEs will be recruited by promotion from among JEs to the extent of 25% out of the 50% quota available for promotion. The Schedule clearly mentioned this. As it also mentioned SEs and Head Draftsman as other sources from which promotion could be made, the reference to JEs was also clearly to the non-Gazetted JEs. Promotion of Gazetted JEs had been serarately provided for as before. Thus, under the Schedule, non-Gazetted JEs were also clearly eligible for promotion despite the restriction in rule 7(b). This inconsistency between the Schedule and the rule was apparently noticed only in 1981 and the heading of Column 5 of Schedule II was amended to make it clear that the promotions therein referred to were from the non-Gazetted serviee, although rule 7(b) was left unamended. The omission to amend rule 7, however, is not of much significance. It was open to the State, in view of rule 7( 4), to promote members of the non-Gazetted Services also to the Gazetted Service to the extent of a prescribed quota. The restricted language of rule 7 cannot, therefore, be construed in such a way as to render redundant the specific provision in the Schedule entitling several persons from the non-Gazetted services to promotion. ENGINEERS'.ASSOCIATION v. M.P.[RANGANATHAN, J.) 441 It is then argued that, at any rate, after the amendment of the A .l. relevant columns of Schedule Hin 1981 there is no right in any J.E. to claim promotion as A.E. At least from that date, the promotional avenue for J.Es. stands abolished, claims Sri Datar. Sri Ashok Sen, for the petitioner, contended that the petitioners having been given a right, at the time of absorption in 1982, that they will be eligible for promotion in the same way as the erstwhile J.Es. of the State Depart- B ment, this right cannot be taken away by invoking an earlier amend- ment of the rule. He cited some authorities in support of the proposi- tion and pointed out that the petitioners had amended the original writ petition to include a prayer for quashing the amendment purportedly effected on 27.7.81. On the other hand, Sri Datar contends that no employee has a vested right to promotion and that it was in law open to c the Government to change the conditions of service so as to take away a right to promotion that may have existed earlier. But, he pointed out, so far as the petitioners were concerned, there was no taking away of any right to promotion at all because, even as on 8.10.82 when they claim to have become J .Es., the rules provided for no promotional avenue at all and none was promised to them either by the order dated D 8.10.82. We do not think it is necessary for us to express any views on the l question whether an amendment taking away the rights of promotion earlier available to a cadre of employees is constitutionally valid. We shall proceed on the assumption, as contended by the State, that this is E permissible and that the effect of the amendment is that, _on and from 27.7.81, no A,~. can be recruited, under the amended Schedule, from among the J .Es. Assuming thi.s to be correct, this rule should apply to all the J.Es. in the "dying cadre''. It is seen from the records placed before us that such of the J .Es. belonging-.to this cadre as had been in service with the State Department have continued to get th~ir promo- F lions even after the 1981 amendment. This is clear from the gradation list filed by the appellants which shows that three Junior Engineers were promoted as AEs. on 17.8.83. Further, the specific averments to this effect in the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners at various stages have not been denied. The petitioners have also placed on record an order dated 18.10.1985 which shows that a J.E. of the State G Department in the Electrical & Mechanical Branch (perhaps the last of i that category) was promoted as A.E. If this be so, then, clearly, the Department cannot discriminate as between officers belonging to the same cadre by promoting some of them and denying promotion to others. Sri Datar emphasised that the J .Es. belonging to the State Ft service had a right of promotion earlier and this was cotinued even after 'E the amendment whereas the appellants became J .Es. at a time when there was no further promotion available to them and that this makes all the difference. This argument runs somewhat contrary to the earlier argument of counsel that ·the amendment of 198_1 should be treated as applicable to all claims for promotion after 27. 7 .81 and that the State is at complete liberty to deny promotion after that date even in respect of those wno may have earlier had a right to such promotion. But even assuming that the distinction now sought to be pointed out by him marks a difference between the two categories of J.Es. on the cadre as on 8. 10. 82, a discrimination between them would be totally arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of absorption envisaged in 1982. It cannot be presumed that the State, when it absorbed the S.T.As. into the dying cadre of J.Es., was unaware that (though, since 1981, there were no promotional avenues for J .Es. as A.Es. under the rules) the incum­ bents of that cadre were entitled to such promotion under the cabinet orders dated 5.7.79. The order of 8.10.82 places the absorbed S.T.As. into that "dying" cadre by creating fictionally ID! equl!_l number of_posts to accommodate the persons so absorbed. The intention and effect of. the order of 8.10.82 was to 2rant to all the S.T.As. so absorbed exactly the same stams as was enjoyed bv those already in the cadre. In other words, if the J .Es. already existing in the cadre nad a right of promo­ tion, as on 8.10.82, the new incumbents were also given that right; and if they had none lifter 27. 7 .1981, the new incumbents would have none either. The State has admittedly proceeded on the footing that, despite the 1981 amendment, the J.Es. from the State Department were eligi­ ble for promotion; in fact, they have been promoted since 1979 as A.Es. as and when vacancies arose. This being so, any differential treatment of the absorbed S.T.As. would clearly be discriminatory and unconstitutional. In interpreting these rules and Government orders, one should bear in mind that the promotional stipulations in Schedule II should be read in the light of rule 7(4) which permits a wide latitude to the Government in making recruitments, by way of promotion, even otherwise than in the manner outlined in rule 7(1). Reading the rules and the .Government orders issued from time to tim1: har­ moniously, the effect of the cabinet order ef July, 1979 was that all J .Es., in position as such, should continue to be promoted until all of them became A.Es. It is no doubt somewhat difficult to see how, after 27. 7.81; only a part of the pattern ofrecruitment in vogue earlier could. stand side by side with that introduced on that date. One could have anderstood a stand on the part of the State that, as and from that date, promotions would be limited only to the new feeder categories and would not be available to any J.E. at all. But if the subsequent varia- H tion of 1981 did not override this benefit extended to the former Sta.te ) ) ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION v. M.P.(RANGANATIIAN, J.] 443 J .Es. and has nor oeen understood as having done so and the pattern of promotion indicated in the amendment of 1981 was subject to the right of such J.Es. in the cadre for promotion as per the cabinet order of 1979, it is difficult to see how a different rule could be applied to the S.T.As. Who have been absorbed to augment that cadre. The truth of the matter is that, when abolition of the cadre of J .Es. was thought of, ' the State decided that this should not effect the existing J.Es. and their promotional chances. Again, when the merger of the Corporation and State services was thought of, the decision was that the S.T.As. should be placed on a par with the J.Es. Qf th~ State service and that the J.T.As. should be placed on_par with the S.Es. This was a consci•;ms and equitable decision (for, as is common ground, the post of S.T.A was equivalent to J.E.) and to go back upon it has resulted in arbitrary c discrimination against the appellants. By the decision of 1986, they lose their status as J.E. (and are equated to S.Es. which is the status also accorded to the JTAs, their subordinate~ in the erstwhile Corpo­ ration), they lose their right to promotion, they lose seniority by being placed at the bottom of the S.Es. of the State service and the promo­ tional quota now allotted to them is illusory. It is true that they had D volunteered for absorption as JEs. in 1982, a date when there was no promotional avenue to a JE _under the rules. But they _did so because Jhey were told.that they would be_placed on J?art with the J.Es. in the State service and never imagined that they would be denied promotion on the basis of the amended rules while the JEs in the State service continued to get promotions despite the amendment. The fact that they opted for the.State service does not, therefore, entitle the State to treat them differently from the JEs of the State service. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds that gross injustice has been done to the appellants by the subsequent decision of the State Government. We, therefore, quash the decision of 1.3.86 and direct that the appel­ lants will be entitled to be considered for promotion as A.Es. in the same manner and to the same extent as the J.Es. of the State service have been considered and not on the basis of the percentages pre­ scribed for S.Es. under the amended rules. In the view taken by us that the rules and the amendment therein do not override the effect of the orders of 5.7 .1979 and 8.10.82, it is not necessary for us to pronounce any opinion on the validity of the 1981 amendment to the Rules. G The appeals succeed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. ·· R.S.S. Appeals allowed. H