Case Summary: Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association vs State of Maharashtra (1990)
Citation Stats: (1990) 05 SC CK 0030 | AIR 1990 SC 1607 | (1990) 92 BOMLR 360 | (1990) 60 FLR 918 | (1990) 2 JT 264 | (1990) 2 KarLJ 73 | (1990) 2 PLJR 23 | (1990) 1 SCALE 839 | (1990) 2 SCC 715 | (1990) 2 SCR 900 | (1990) 2 SLJ 40 | (1990) 2 UJ 314 | (1990) 2 UPLBEC 833
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Full Bench – Sabyasachi Mukherjee, C.J.; S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.; P. B. Sawant, J.; L. M. Sharma, J.; K. Ramaswamy, J.
Date of Decision: 02-05-1990
Final Decision: Dismissed
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=289323
Facts of the Case
This case revolved around the long-standing seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees in the Maharashtra Engineering Services (Class I and Class II). The dispute, originating in the early 1970s, involved multiple sets of rules (1939, 1960, 1970, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1983, and amendments in 1984) governing recruitment and seniority. The landmark Patwardhan judgment (1977) had struck down certain rules granting direct recruits undue seniority over promotees, holding that continuous officiation should determine seniority. Despite this, subsequent rules attempted to dilute this principle, leading to repeated litigation culminating in the present appeals and writ petitions.
Law Points Raised
1. Validity of seniority rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution affecting promotees' rights.
2. Whether continuous officiation should determine seniority irrespective of confirmation status.
3. Legality of retrospective quota allocation for direct recruits and promotees.
4. Applicability of res judicata (Section 11 CPC) to service disputes already settled.
5. Extent to which State can amend rules to overcome Supreme Court judgments.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
• Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16, 136, 163, 226, 309.
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 (Res judicata).
• Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Regulation of Seniority...) Rules, 1982, 1983.
• Reorganised Bombay State Overseers & Deputy Engineers Seniority Lists Rules, 1978.
• Reorganised Bombay State Assistant Engineers & Executive Engineers Seniority Lists Rules, 1981.
Judgements Referred
• S.B. Patwardhan vs State of Maharashtra (1977) – Continuous officiation principle.
• Bagayat Patil case (Bombay HC) – Implementation of Patwardhan judgment.
• Dafle-Lele case (Bombay HC) – Struck down retrospective quota allocation.
Obiter Dicta
Attempts by the executive to neutralise or circumvent judicial decisions undermine rule of law and fairness in public service.
Ratio Decidendi
Continuous officiation in a post, after appointment following the prescribed procedure, must count towards seniority. Subsequent rule-making cannot retrospectively take away rights crystallised by earlier judgments.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's invalidation of retrospective quota rules (Rules 4 & 9 of 1982 Rules) and reaffirming that seniority must be determined by continuous officiation in accordance with Patwardhan's case.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
Paras: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12.
Summary
This judgment reinforced the principle from Patwardhan's case that promotees' continuous officiation cannot be ignored in fixing seniority. The Court condemned retrospective quotas undermining settled rights and reiterated that rule-making under Article 309 is subject to constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=289323