Holding

Section 3(1)(b) requires consultation with the Commission on suitability for appointments, and under Section 3(2) the Government’s decision is final; the regularisation was valid and the pre‑regularisation service must be counted for seniority, so the High Court’s order is set aside.

Summary

The appellants, engineers employed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, were appointed on an ad‑hoc basis between 1976 and 1979 and later regularised after passing departmental exams. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) refused to concur with the regularisation dates, leading the Board to refer the dispute to the State Government under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions) Act, 1963. The Government overruled the KPSC and approved regularisation with effect from the date each engineer acquired the requisite qualification, causing a seniority list that placed the appellants above the respondents, who were direct recruits under the 40% quota. The High Court held that seniority should be counted from the date of regularisation (12 May 1982) and ordered a re‑fixing of the list. The Supreme Court held that Section 3(1)(b) mandates consultation with the KPSC on suitability for appointments, that the Government’s decision under Section 3(2) is final, and that the pre‑regularisation service must be counted for seniority under Rule 27. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The extent of the statutory requirement for consultation with the Kerala Public Service Commission under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions) Act, 1963 for appointments of Assistant Engineers.
Whether the State Government’s overriding power under Section 3(2) of the Act validates the regularisation of services despite the Commission’s dissent.
Whether the period of service prior to regularisation should be counted for inter‑se seniority under Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.
Whether the High Court erred in fixing seniority from the date of regularisation rather than from the date of acquisition of qualifications.

Legislation cited

Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958s. Rule 27, s. Rule 39

Subjects

consultationpublic service commissionseniorityregularisationappointmentoverriding powerRule 27service tenureappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A R. HARIHARAN AND ORS.
v.
K. BALACHANDRAN NAIR AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2000

B [V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Kera/a Public Service Commission (Additional Functions) Act, 19631
Kera/a State and Subordinate Servicf!S Rules, 1958 : Sections 3 (1) (a) (b)
(2) and 4/Rule 27-Jn 1975, Kera/a State Electricity Board reserving 10%
C out of 50% quota of direct recruits in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil)
for qualified engineers already in its employment-The appellants the qualified
engineering graduates already in se':"ice of the Board appointed as Assistant
Engineers (Civil) on ad-hoc basis between 1976 to 1979-Regularisation of
their services subject to their passing departmental exams and completion of
D probation period-Accordingly services of appellants and those falling under
10% quota regularised with effect from the date of their joining as Assistant
Engineers in 1982-Rest 40% direct recruits appointed through Public
Service Commission joined their· duties on 21-10-1981-Pub/ic Service
Commission refused to concur on the regularisation of services of appellants
and others with effect from the date of their joining as Assistant Engineers-
E Matter referred to State Government under Section 3 (2) of the Act-State
Government overruled the advice of Commission and approved regularisation
.
with effect from the date of appellants' joining as Assistant Engineers-A
gradation ·tist prepared in accordance with the said order-Respondent
Assistant Engineers falling under the 40% quota challenged the said
F government order and gradation list in a writ petition before the High Court
as the respondents were placed below the appellants in the said gradation
list-Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge on grounds of delay and /aches
with an observation that there was no violation of 10% quota-Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and determined the date of
appointment of the appellants to be the date of regularisation of their
G services as Assistant Engineers i.e. 1982 and also directed refv:ing of the
Gradation list-Consequently, respondents placed above the appellants in
the gradation list-On appeal, Held: Consultation with Public Service _
Commission was a statutory requirement under section 3(J)(b) in respect of
said appointments-There is no provision dispensing with such consultation
H in the said Rules-The State Government had overriding powers in case of
200
R. HARIHARAN v. K. BALACHANDRAN 201
difference of opinion between the Electricity Board and the Public Service A
Commission in the matter of regularisation of services of the employees-The
said order of the Government was in accordance with provisions of the Act-
Pre regularisation service period of the appellants was to be counted in
determining the seniority.

The Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions) Act, B
1963 came into force w.e.f. 01-10-1966 providing for exercise of certain
additional functions by the Kerala Public Service Commission in respect of
appointments of officers and servants of the Kerala State Electricity Board
and their conditions of service. During 1972 to 1974 four of the appellants
were recruited through the Commission on different dates on different posts C
like Overseer and Tracer etc. By its order dated 18-04-1975, the Board
reserved 10% out of the 50% quota of direct recruits in the cadre of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) for qualified engineering graduates in the
employment of the Board. Since the four appellants and others totalling 11
in number were engineering graduates in the service of the Board, the
Board appointed them to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on different D
dates between 26-12-1976 to 01-08-1979. According to their appointment
letters, their appointments were provisional and regularisation was subject
to their passing two departmental tests and satisfactory completion of the
probat.ionary period. Accordingly their appointments were regularised w.e.f.
the date of their joining as Assistant Engineer (Civil). The respondents were E
recruited in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) through the Commission
and had joined their duties on 21-10-1981. Even though services of the 11
Assistant Engineers including 4 appellants had been regularised by the
Board yet the Commission declined to concur on the said regularisation
w.e.f. the date of their joining as Assistant Engineers. On this difference of
opinion, the Board referred the matter to the State Government under Section F
3 (2) of the Act. The State Government by an order dated 12-05-1982,
overruling the advice of the Commission, approved regularisation of services
of the appellants with direction that inter-se seniority of the Assistant
Engineers whose services have been regularised shall be determined froni
the date on which each Assistant Engineer acquired the necessary G
qualifications. Consequently, a gradation list was prepared in which the
appellants were placed above the respondents. The respondents i.e. the direct
recruits falling under the 40% quota who had joined their duties in 1981
challenged the Government Order and subsequent Gradation, by way of a
writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by Single Judge on
grounds of delay as /aches as it was filed 5 years after the preparation of H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A said Seniority List. The Single Judge was also of the view that there was no
violation of 10% quota earmarked for in-service engineering graduates.
The Division Bench of the High Court, holding that the date of the order of
the first appointment of the appellants would be the date when their services
were regularised i.e. 12-05-1982, allowed the appeal and directed the Board
B to re-fix the seniority in light of the judgment. Thus, respondents who had
joined their duty on 21-10-1981 had to be treated senior to the appellants.
Hence this appeal.

The appellants contended that as Section 3(1) (a) of the Act was in pari
materia with Article 320 (3) (a) and (b) of the Constitution in the absence
C of any provision in Section 3 of the Act like Article 320 (1), there was no
obligation on the part of the Board to consult the Commission with regard
to suitability of the candidates. It was further contended that even if consolation
with the Commission was necessary, the State Government, in exercise of
its overri~ing power under Section 3 (2) of the Act had cured the defect of
non-consultation with the Commission by overruling the advice oft.he
D Commission.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1.1. The first part of clause (b) of Section 3 (1) of the Kerala
Public Service Commission (Additional Functions) Act, 1963 requires
E consultation by the Commission on the principles followed in making
appointments, promotions and transfers whereas the later part casts duty on
the Board to consult the Commission on the matters pertaining to
appointments, promotions and transfers of the employees of the Board meaning
thereby that the Commission is required to be consulted on the suitability
of the candidates for appointments, promotions or transfers. It is true that
F there is no substantive provision like Article 320 (1) of the Constitution in
Section 3 of the Act. However, later part of clause (b) of Section 3 (1) is
complete and substantive provision in itself and as such Section 3 of the Act
does not require enactment of any further provision like clause (1) of Article
320 of the Constitution providing for judging the suitability of candidates by
G the Commission in the matter of appointments. This interpretation is in
consonance with the object of the Act for which the Act has been enacted.
Further, the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers
under Section 4 of the Act has already provided the situations where
appointments in the Board would require no consultation with the Commission.
There is no mention in the rules that there would be no consultation with \
"•
H the Commission in respect of appointments of Assistant Engineers in the
R. HARIHARAN v. K. BALACHANDRAN 203
Board. It is settled principle of interpretation that the Court shall lean A
towards an interpretation which advances the object of the Act. Thus, second
part of clause (b) of Sectidn 3 (1) of the Act provides for consultation with
the Commission in the matter of appointments of Assistant Engineers in the

- Board. (209-E-H; 210-A-B]

State ofJammu and Kashmir v. Raj Dulari Razdan, (1979] 1 SCC 461,
relied on.
B

- 1.2. According to Section 3(2) of the Act, the decision of the Government,
in case of difference of opinion between the Commission and the Board is
final. Further under Section 4 of the Act, the State Government is empowered
to lay down the matters where consultation with the Commission is not C
· necessary. The State Government in exercise of its power has already provided
that in certain classes of appointments it is not necessary to consult the
Commission. Thus it would mean that the State Government has overriding
power to take a final decision where there is difference of opinion between
the Board and the Commission in the matter of regularisation of the services D
of the employee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government
took the decision t.o overrule the advice of the Commission while accepting
the reference made by the Board and passed an order to regularise the
services of the appellants with effect from the date of acquiring necessary
qualification. The said order passed by the State Government has the effect of
regularising the services of the appellants in accordance with the provisions E
of the Act. Once it is held that the regularisation of services of the appellants
were in accor~ance with the provisions of the Act, the services of the appellants
prior to regularisation were required to be counted while determining
their inter-se seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engi':_leers under Rule
27 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules. The High Court F
fell in error in holding that the seniority of the appellants bad to be counted
from the date when their services stood regularised by the State
Government. (212-F-H; 231-A-C)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9090-91
ofl996. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.96 of the Kerala High Court in
W.A. No. 1171191 and O.P. No. 12363of1993.

P.P. Rao, T.L.V. Iyer, V.R. Reddy, P. Krishnamurthy, E.M.S. Anam, T.G.N.
Nair, B.V. Deepak, Dileep Pillai and Ajit Pudissery for the appearing parties. H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V.N. KHARE. J. The appellants herein, are Engineers in the service of
Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the "'Board") and
have preferred these appeals against the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court whereby the writ petition and the writ appeal
B filed by the respondents were allowed and the Board was directed to re-fix
the seniority in the light of legal position indicated therein. As a result of the
said judgment, the appellants contend that they .would be treated as junior
to the respondents.

The Board was established under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply)
C Act, 1949 on 7th March, 1957. Pri~r to 1.10.1966, 7 employees were appointed
by the Board on various categories of posts like Overseer, Tracer etc. The
Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions) Act, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act") came into force with effect from I.I 0.1966. The Act
provided for exercise of certain additional functions by the Kerala Public
D Service Commission in respect of appointments of officers and servants of the
Board and their conditions of service. During the period 1972 to 1974 the
appellants - four in number, were recruited through the Public Service
Commission on different dates 'to different cat~gories of posts like Overseer,
Tracer etc. On 18.4.1975, the Board issued an Order that out t>f 50 per cent
quota of direct recruits in the cadre of Asstt, Engineer 40 per c;ent were to
E be appointed from open market and remaining I 0 per cent were to be recruited
from qualified Engineering Graduates in the employment of the Board. The
case of the respondents is that the recruitment of these two categories of
direct recruits were to be made with the consultation of the Public Service
Commission. During, the period 1976 to 1980, the Public Service Commission
did not take any step tor recruitment to fill up the I 0 per cent quota set apart
F for the in-service Engineering graduates who were in employment with the
Board. Since the appellants and others - totalling, eleven in numbers, were
Engineering Graduates in the service of the Board. The Board on different
dates beginning from 26.12.1976 to l.8.1979 appointed them to the posts of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) against I 0 per cent quota reserved for the in-
G service Engineering Graduates in the Board. The letter of appointment indicated
that appointments of the appellants were provisional during the period of
probation and in case they pass two Departmental tests viz., "Departmental
test tor Executive Staff' and "Account Test Lower" and further on satisfactory
completion of the probationary period, their services would be regularised.

H On successful completion of the probationary period, the Board by
R. HARIHARAN v. K. BALACHANDRAN [V.N. KHARE, J.] 205
separate orders regularised the appointments of all the II Assistant Engineers A
including the appellants from the date of their joining duties as Assistant
Engineers. The writ petitioners who are the respondents herein were recruited
in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) through the Public Service
Commission and had joined their duties on 2 l.l 0.1981. Although the services
of 11 employees including the appellants were regularised by the Board, yet B
the Public Service Commission declined to give its concurrence to the
regularisation of the services with effect from the date of their joining duties ..
There being difference of opinion between the Board and the Public Service
Commission on the question of date of regularisation of services of the
appellants, the Board referred the matter to the State Government under sub-
section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The State Government on receipt of the C
reference from the Board again referred the matter to the Public Service
Commission. Thereafter, the State Government after considering the matter, by
an order dated 12.5.82 overruled the advice of the Public Service Commission
and approved the regularisation of the services of the appellants with direction
that inter-se seniority of the Assistant Engineers whose services have been
regularised shall be determined from the date on which each Assistant Engineer D
acquired the necessary qualification. Consequent upon the order of the State
Govt. dated 12.5.1982 a gradation list of Assistant Engineers was prepared
wherein the appellants were shown above to the respondents herein. After
a lapse of 5 years the respondents herein who are direct recruits and joined
duties on 21.10.1981, fiJed a writ petition O.P. No. 7730of1987 for quashing E
the Govt. Order dated· 12.5.1982 and the consequent gradation list Ext. 12 to
... the "'.rit petition. In the said writ petition 10 Assistant Engineers including the
appellants were arrayed as respondents 15 to 24. A learned Single Judge of
the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the
challenge to the seniority list was highly belated and further there was no
violation of quota of l 0 per cent earmarked for in-service Engineering Graduates. F
Against the said judgment the respondents herein filed a Writ Appeal before
a Division Bench of the High Court. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal
two other Assistant Engineers (Civil) who were also directly recruited and had
joined their duties on 21.10.1981 filed another Writ Petition No. 12363/93
seeking quashing of the Govt. Order dated 12.5.1982 and. the gradation list Ext. G
P. 12. The writ appeal and the writ pet~tion filed by the writ petitioners were
consolidated and heard tpgether. Dliring the pendency of the writ appeal and
the .writ petition the appellants were promoted to the posts of Executive
Engineers. The Division Bench after hearing the matter was of the view that
the date of the order of the first appointment of the appellants would be the
date when their services were regularised i.e. 12.5.1982 and, therefore the H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A respondents who joined their duty on 21.10.1981 have to be treated senior to
the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ appeal and the writ petition
and directed the Board to re-fix the seniority in the light of what was stated
in the judgment.

Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants
B advanced three submissions. The first submission is that under the Act there
is no requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission in
regard to suitability of the candidate to be appointed to the post of Assistant
Engineers in the Board and, therefore, the seniority of the appellants has to
be determined with effect from the date of their first ad-hoc appointments. .....
.
C The second submission is that if it is held that consultation with the Public
Service Commission was necessary with respect to the appointment of the
appellants in the Board, the State Government in exercise of its over-ridding
power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act cured the defect
of non consultation with the Public Service Commission by over-ruling the
advice of the Public Service Commission and ordering for regularisation of the
D services of the appellants with effect from the dates the appellants acquired
qµalification. The third submission is that in any event if it is held that the
Kerala State and Subordinate Rules 1958 are applicable to the appointment of
Assistant Engineers in the Board, the Government has power under rule 39
of the said Rules to retrospectively remove the hardship by regularising the
E services of the appellants.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that under the
Act, consultation with the Public Service Commission in regard to the suitability
for appointment to the post of Assistant En~ineers is mandatory and once
the Public Service Commission declined to give concurrence to the
F regularisation of services of the appellants with effect from the date of their
joining duties, the seniority of the appellants has to be determined from the
date they were regularised in the service of the Board. The further argument
. of learned counsel for the respondents is that under rule 27 of the Rules the
ad-hoc appoin.tment of the appellants cannot be taken into consideration for
G the purpose of determining inter-se seniority of Assistant Engineers and as
such the respondents are to be treated as senior to the appellants in the cadre
of Assistant Engineer (Civil).

Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his argument referred
to Section 3 of the Act and argued that sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section
H (1) of Section 3 of the Act being in para materia with clause (3) (a) and (b)
R. HARIHARAN v. K. BALACHANDRAN [V.N. KHARE, J.] 207
of Article 320 of the Constitution. The State legislature having not enacted A
any substantive provision like clause (1) of Article 320 in Section 3 of the Act,
there was no obligation on the part of the Board to consult the Public Service
Commission with regard to suitability of the candidates for appointment as
Assistant Engineers in the Board. His further argument is that the Board is
competent to appoint Assistant Engineers under Section 15 of the Electricity B
Supply Act. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 requires the Board to
consult the Public Service Commission on all matters relating to method of
recruitment to services and posts under the Electricity Board and clause (b)
of sub-section ( l) of Section 3 of the Act casts duty on the Board to consult
the Public Service Commission on the principles to be followed in making
appointments to services and posts under the Board and in making promotions C
and transfers from one service to another. According to appellants only on
aforesaid situations the Public Service Commission is required to be consulted
and not on the matter relating to the suitability of the candidates for
appointment~ as Assistant Engineers in the Board. No doubt, the argument
is attractive and at the first glance appeared carrying substance. But on a
deeper consideration, we find that second part of clause (b) to sub-section D
(1) of Section 3 of the Act requires the Board to consult the Public Service
Commission in the matter of appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineers
in the Board. The object of the Act is to provide certain additional functions
by the Kerala Public service Commission in respect of appointment of officers
and servants of the Kerala Electricity Board and in laying down their conditions E

- of service. Section 3 of the Act provides for the functions of Public Service
Commission in respect of services under the ~oard, which is extracted below:-

"3. Functions of the Public Service Commission in respect of services
under the Electricity Board.-{l) Notwithstanding anything contained
in the Electricity (Supply) Act (Central Act 54 of 1948), or the rules F
or regulations made thereunder regarding the recruitment and
conditions of service of officers and servants of the Electricity Board,
the Public Service Commission shall be consulted-

(a) on all matters relating to method of recruitment to services and G
posts under the Electricity Board;

(b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to services
and posts under the Electricity Board and in making promotions and
transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of
candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers; H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] Sl{PP. JS.C.R.

A (c) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving or has ·
served under the Electricity Board that any costs incurred by him in
defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts
done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty should be
paid out of the funds of the Electricity Board;

B (d) on the claim for the award. of a pension in respect of injuries
sustained by a person while serving under the Electricity Board and
any question as to the amount of such award; and it shall be the duty
of the Public Service Commission to advice on any matter so referred
to them:
c Provided that the Government may make rules specifying the
matters in which either generally or in any particular class of cases
or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for the
Public Service Commission to be consulted.

(2) In the case of any difference of opinion between the Public Service
D Commission and the Electricity Board on any matter, the Electricity
Board shall refer the matter to the Government and the decision' of the
government thereon shall be final:

Provided that the Government before taking a decision against the
advice of the Commission shall refer the matter to the Commission."
E
Section 4 empowers the Government to frame rules in consultation with the
Public Service Commission for carrying out the purposes of the Act and also
to frame rules. on the matters where it shall not be necessary for the Public
Service Commission to be consulted, in exercise of the said power Government
-
ofKerala has framed rules which is known as 'Kerala Public Service Commission
F
(Additional Functions) (Consultations) Rules 1966. Rule 3 of the rules proviA-
the matters where the Public Service Commission is not required to be
consulted. Rule 5 then provides that it would not be necessary for the Board
to consult the Commission where appointment of a person is made temporarily
for a total period not exceeding three months or where appointment has to
G be made in public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill
immediately a vacancy in the post and there would be undue delay in making
the appointment after such consultation. Rule 5 further provides that the
concurrence of the Commission shall be obtained for the continuance of such
temporary appointment beyond three months.
H Now coming to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 3 of
R. HARIHARAN v. K. BALACHANDRAN [V.N. KHARE, J.] 209
the Act it is no doubt true that clause (a) provides for consultation on all A
matters pertaining to method of recruitment to services. A perusal of clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act shows that clause (b) is in two
parts. The first part of clause (b) runs as under:

"on the principles to be followed in making appointments to services
and posts under the Electricity Board and in making promotions and B
transfers from one service to another."

The second part of clause (b) runs as under:

- "and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions
or transfers."

So far as the first part of clause (b) is concerned, we are in agreement with
c
the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that it pertains to laying
down the principles to be followed in making appointments to the service and
does not provide for consultation with regard to appointments in service. But
the same is not the position in the case of second part of clause (b ), extracted D
above. The language employed in clause (b) is plain and simple and there is
no ambiguity in it. Both the parts of clause (b) operate on different fields. The
first part of clause (b) requires consultation by the Public Service Commission
on the principles followed in making appointments, promotions and transfers,
whereas later part of clause (b) casts duty on the Board to consult the Public E
Service Commission on the matters pertaining to appointments, promotions
and transfers of the employees of the Board meaning thereby that the Public
Service Commission is required to be consulted on the suitabitity of the
candidates for appointments, promotions or transfers. It is true that there is
no substantive provision like clause (I) of Article 320 of the Constitution in
Section 3 of the Act. However, later part of clause (b) is complete and F
· substantive provision in itself and as such Section 3 of the Act does not
require enactment any further provision like clause (1) of Article 320 of the
Constitution providing for judging the suitability of candidates by the Public
Service Commission in the matter of appointments. This interpretation of ours
is in consonance with the object of the Act for which the Act has been
enacted. If we put any other interpretation and hold that the Public Service G
Commission is not required to be consulted in the matters of appointments,
promotions or transfers, the same would be repugnant to the object of the
Act which means that the provisions of the Act are meaningless and without
any purpose. Further, the rules framed by the State Government in exercise
of its powers under Section 4 of the Act has already provided the situations H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A where appointments in the Board would require no consultation with the
Public Service Commission. There is no mention in the rules that there would
be no consultation with the Public Service Commission in respect of
appointments of Assistant Engineers in the Board. It is settled principle of
interpretation that the court shall Jean towards an interpretation which
advances object of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that second part
B of clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 3 provides for consultation with the
Public Service Commission in the matter of appointments of Assistant Engineers
in the Board. This view of ours also finds support from a decision of this
Court in State ofJammu and Kashmir v. Mrs. Raj Dulari Razdan (Jnd others,
[ 1979] l SCC 461, wherein a Constitution Bench of this Court held that clause
C (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 133 of Jammu & Kashmir Constitution which
is analogous to clause (b) of sub-section ( l) of Section 3 of the Act requires
consultation with the Public Service Commission in the matter of suitability
of candidates for appointments, promotions and transfers in the service.
/

Coming to the next argument ()f learned counsel for the appellants, we
D find that originally the appellants were appointed through Public Service
Commission on various categories of posts like Overseers, Tracers etc. The
Board had reserved I 0% posts of Assistants Engineers to be filled in from
the qualified Engineering Graduates in the employment of the Board. During
the period 1976 to 1980, the Public Service Commission did not take any steps
E for recruitment to fill up the I 0% quota set apart in the service for the
Engineering Graduates who were in the employment in the Board. Since there
was an emergent requirement for Assistant Engineers in the Board, the Board
appointed the appellants who were -in the service of the Board and possessed
the requisite qualifications, ~o the post of Assistant Engineers on probation
on the following terms:
F
l. He will be a probationer in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
for a period of 6 months on duty within a continuous period of
one year, from the date of joining duty.

2. He should pass the two Departmental tests viz. "Departmental
G test for Executive Staff' and "Account Test Lower" within the
period of probation failing which the declaration of satisfactory
completion of his probation may be postponed until he acquires
these two tests or clause 5 below may be resorted to.

3. His appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) is in the scale of
H pay of Rs. 800-30-890-40-1250.
R. HARIHARAN v. K. BALACHANDRAN [V.N. KHARE, J.] 211
4. He is eligible to get the allowances admissible to the post held A
by him from time to time.
5. His appointment which is provisional during the period of
probation, shall be regularised only on satisfactory performance
of duties assigned to him during the period of probation. His
services are liable to be terminated at any time during the period B
of probation, if his performance of duties is found to be
unsatisfactory.

6. His duties and functions, in general as Assistant Engineer (Ele)
will be in accordance with those laid down in B.O. No. EB.II
24780/75/25-2-1977 as amended or modified from time to time. He C
will have to attend to such works also as may be entrusted to
him/her from time to time by superior officers.

The appellants passed the departmental examination and various tests
!lnd after successful completion of the probationary period their services as
Assistant Engineers were regularised by the Board by an order dated 14.11.79 D
with effect from the date of joining their duties. One of such orders issued
in favour of Shri V. Venkiteswara Iyer, is extracted below:

"Kerala State Electricity Board
Proceedings of the
E
Chief Engineer (Civil) KS E Board, Trivandrum.

Sub : Estt - Sri. V. Venkiteswara Iyer, Asst. Engineer (C) Declaration of
probation - Orders issued -

Older No. EBC4/807177 Dated : 14-11-1979
F
Read: This office Memo No. EBC4/807/77/5-5-79 to Sri V. Venkiteswra
Iyer.

ORDER
G
Sri V. Venkiteswara Iyer, first Gr. Overseer (Ele) Office of the Chief
Engineer (Ele) KSE Board, Trivandrum was provisionally appointed as Assistant
Engineer (Civil) and posted in this office vide this office memo read above
and he had reported for duty on the A.N. of 5-5.79. As per the condition of
appointment he will be a probationer in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
- from the date of his joining duty in that post and the period of probation was H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A then fixed as 6 months within a continuous period of one year.
The Executive Engineer, T.P.H. Office - has reported in Office note (i)
dated 6-11-79 that the period of probation has been completed by Sri
V. Venkiteswara Iyer, Assistant Engineer (Civil) satisfactorily.

·B Hence, it is hereby declared that Sri V. Venkiteswara Iyer has completed
. the probation satisfactorily and that his provisional appointment as Assistant
Engineer (Civil) is regularised from the date of his joining duty: - ,

Sd/-
CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL)
.c
However, the Public Service Commission did not agree for regularisation
of services of the appellants with effect from the date of joining their duties
and as such the matter was referred to. the State Government. The State
•
Government after consultation with the Public Service Commission found that
the appellants had possessed the prescribed qualifications and were suitable
D to be appointed as Assistant Engineers and further they gained considerable
experience and competence, and as such over-ruled the advice of the Public
Service Commission and approved the regularisation of services of the
appellants with effect from the date they acquired the requisite qualifications.
Admittedly, the appellants had acquired the qualifications prior to 21.10.81,
E which is the date of joining duty by the respondents herein. In this background
the question that arises is whether the Government could grant regularisation ·
of services of the appellants as Assistant Engineers with effect from the date
of acquisition of their qualifications. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act
provides that in case of any difference of opinion between the Public Service
Commission and the Electricity Board on any matter, the Electricity Board is
F required to refer the matter to the Government and the decision of the
Government thereon is to be treated as final. The said power of the State
Government has not been questioned. Further, under Section 4 of the Act, the
State Government is empowered to lay down the matters where consultation
with the Public Service Commission is not necessary. The State Government
G in exercise of its power has already provided that in certain classes -of
appointments it is not necessary to consult the Public Service Commission.
Thus, it would mean that the Stat.e Government has overriding power to take
a final decision. where there is a difference of opinion between the Board and
the Public Service Commission in the matter of regularisation of the services
of the employees. Here, we find that 'in the facts and circumstances of the
H case, Government took the decision to overrule the advice of the Public
r--
R. HARIHARAN v. K. BALACHANDRAN [V.N. KHARE, J.] 213
Service Commission while accepting the reference made by the Board and A
passed order to regularise the services of the appellants with effect from the
date of acquiring necessary qualification. The said order passed by the State
Government in law has effect of regularising the services of the appellants in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. Once it is held that the regularisation
of services of the appellants were in accordance with the provisions of the
Act, the services of the appellants prior to regularisation were required to be B
counted while determining their inter-se seniority in the cadre of Assistant
Engineers under Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Rules. The High
Court fell in error in holding that the seniority of the appellants has to be
counted from the date when their services stood regularised by the State
Government i.e. on 12.5.1982. C
Since the appellants are to succeed on the aforesaid view we have
taken, we are not inclined to enter into the third argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the appeals deserve to succeed. D
Consequently, the judgment and order of the High Court under appeal is set
aside. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

RC.K. Appeals allowed .

.........,.
'