http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:

A.K. RAGHUMANI SINGH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

GOPAL CHANDRA NATH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/04/2000

BENCH:

Ruma Pal, M.J.Rao

JUDGMENT:

RUMA PAL, J.

The appellants and the respondent No. 1 are all

Executive Engineers in the Public Health Engineering

Department of the Government of Manipur. All the appellants

had Degrees in Engineering before they joined service. The

respondent No. 1 obtained a Diploma in 1989 having duly

qualified in both sections of the Associate Membership

Examination of the Institution of Engineers (AMIE). It is

not in dispute that the AMIE Diploma is recognised by the

Central Government as being on par with a Bachelors Degree

of Engineering for the purpose of recruitment to superior

posts under the Central Government. The question is whether

the respondent No. 1 was eligible to be considered for

promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in 1991.

The Rules regulating the recruitment to the post of

Superintending Engineers of the State of Manipur were

notified on 18th October 1977. The Rules called The

Manipur P.W.D./Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health

Engineering (Superintending Engineer (Civil)/Superintending

Surveyor of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1977 provide that the

post of Superintending Engineer shall be filled up by

promotion from Executive Engineer (Civil)/ (Mech) and

Surveyor of Works possessing Degree in Civil/Mechanical

Engineering or its equivalent from a recognised institution

with 6 years regular service in the grade. The vacancy in

the post of Superintending Engineer arose in 1991. In the

same year the respondent No. 1 filed a writ application

seeking directions on the State Government to consider his

name for promotion to the post as he had put in 12 years

service in the grade and possessed the necessary educational

qualifications. The writ application was opposed by the

State Respondents. They contended that the eligibility

criteria required six years regular service after the

educational qualification was obtained. In the writ

petitioners case, his period of service after he obtained

the AMIE diploma was far short of the requirement and as

such, according to the respondents, he could not be

considered for promotion to the post of Superintending

Engineer. The writ application was allowed by the learned

Single Judge on 17th March 1993. It was held that the

requirement of six years service was independent of the

requirement of educational qualifications and the

eligibility criteria was fulfilled even if the requisite

experience had been obtained before obtaining the

educational qualifications. The appellants herein moved an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

application for review of the order before the Learned

Single Judge. This was rejected. The appellants then filed

an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High

Court. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the

learned Single Judge was upheld. There is no dispute that

as on 1991 the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had put in

more than 6 years regular service in the grade. Of that

period only a little over 2 years was after he was granted

the AMIE Diploma. The controversy hinges on the

interpretation of the word with used in the eligibility

criteria. The word with has been defined in the New

Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993),diversely the meaning

depending on the context in which it is used. But when it

is used to connect two nouns it means Accompanied by;

having as an addition or accompaniment. Frequently used to

connect two nouns, in the sense and as well. Applying

the definition to the eligibility criteria it is clear that

it requires the prescribed educational qualification and 6

years experience as well. Given the plain meaning of the

phrase, the Court would not be justified in reading a

qualification into the conjunctive word and imply the word

subsequent after the word with. Even on a point of

principle it would be unreasonable to distinguish between

the nature of the regular service required, as if the

service in the grade subsequent to the obtaining of the

necessary educational qualification were qualitatively

different from the service in the grade prior thereto. In

fact no such case has been made out . The appellants

contention appears to have been based on the decision of

this Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Another V. Union of

India and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584. In that case, the

qualification for promotion prescribed was as under:

1. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in

Civil Engineering or equivalent with three years service in

the grade failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in

Civil Engineer with six years service in the grade 50 per

cent.

2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma

in Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade

50 per cent.

The Court held that the Rules would have to be read in

keeping with the practice followed in the Department for a

long time and that the period of service in the grade for

eligibility for promotion commenced from the date of

obtaining the degree and the earlier period of service prior

to the obtaining the degree was not counted. Since this

practice had been consistently followed and was understood

as such by all concerned, the Court held that it would not

be justified in taking the contrary view and unsettling the

settled practice in the Department. The decision in Suresh

Nathans case has been explained in M.B. Joshi and Others

V. Satish Kumar Pandey and Others 1993 Supp (2) SCC 419 ;

D. Stephen Joseph V. Union of India and Others 1997 (4)

SCC 753 and finally in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others V.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2000) 1 SCC 128 as being

limited to the facts of that case. In M.B. Joshis case

the decision in Suresh Nathan case was distinguished in the

facts of that case and it was indicated that when the

language of the rule is quite specific that if a particular

length of service in the feeder post together with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

educational qualification enables a candidate to be

considered for promotion, it will not be proper to count the

experience only from the date of acquisition of superior

educational qualification because such interpretation will

violate the very purpose to give incentive to the employee

to acquire higher education. [See D. Stephen Joseph vs.

Union of India at page 755] The Court in D. Stephen

Josephs case was also of the view that the decision in

Suresh Nathan was an exception to the accepted principle of

interpretation of the rule on the plain language. In the

last mentioned case, namely, Anil Kumar Guptas case, the

essential qualifications for appointment were (a) Degree in

Civil Engineering and (b) two years professional

experience. The Court interpreted the language to mean

that the two years professional experience need not

entirely be experience gained after obtaining the Degree.

Given the meaning of the words, the principle involved and

the weight of precedents, the view of the High Court must be

upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any

order as to costs.