SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.)
CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, U.T., CHANDIGARH
Versus
KAMLESH BABOO AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 182 and 183 of 1993 {From the Judgment and Order dated June 6, 1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A/T.A. Nos. 49 & 102 of 1986}
Decided on 25-2-1993
Advocates appeared:
Raj Birbal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Rajinder Sachar, Senior Advocate (Mahabir Singh and A.K. Mahajan, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I (Buildings and Road Branch) Rules, 1960 – Rules 6 and 8 – Considered for promotion - Granted the relief - Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench seeking a direction to effect that their seniority in cadre of Executive Engineers be determined from the date when they became eligible to be considered for promotion words they claimed of their promotion to post of Executive Engineer instead when they were actually promoted – Tribunal by its order granted relief asked for by discussion, we direct that applicant who was promoted as Executive Engineer continued as Executive Engineer even if approval of UPSC is not received within six months from the date of his promotion purposes of seniority applicant shall be considered from when he became eligible – Held, Tribunal grossly erred in directing Chandigarh Administration to give seniority to respondents from their eligibility – Respondents can neither be given their seniority fixed from directions of Tribunal in this respect are patently violative of Rules and cannot be sustained – Even otherwise both were working as Sub-Divisional Engineer and as such treating them to have been appointed to from that date and giving them benefit towards seniority on that basis would be wholly erroneous – Question as to whether deputationists from Punjab and Haryana should be permitted to continue to serve the Chandigarh Administration has no relevance to controversy involved in these appeals matter of policy – Tribunal was wholly unjustified in seeking support from the non- because of presence of many deputationists the respondents in these appeals were not being considered for promotion – Respondents got their promotion at earliest possible opportunity – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
KULDIP SINGH, J.—Kamlesh Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj were promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from January 21, 1986 in the Engineering Department of the Chandigarh Administration. The promotion was made on the basis of merit and suitability as determined under the provisions of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I (Buildings and Road Branch) Rules, 1960 (the Rules) as applicable to the Chandigarh Administration. Both of them approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench seeking a direction to the effect that their seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers be determined from the date when they became eligible to be considered for promotion under the Rules. In other words, they claimed January 1, 1985 - the eligibility date - as the date of their promotion to the post of Executive Engineer instead of January 21, 1986 when they were actually promoted. The Tribunal by its order dated June 6, 1986 granted the relief asked for by Kamlesh Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj in the following terms: "In view of the above discussion, we direct that the applicant, who was promoted as Executive Engineer from january 21, 1986 (videOffice Order dated January 20, 1986 and May 2, 1986) shall be continued as Executive Engineer even if the approval of the UPSC is not received within six months from the date of his promotion. For the purposes of seniority, the applicant shall be considered from the date when he became eligible. The promotion of the applicant as Executive Engineer, shall however, be subject to the approval by the UPSC and without prejudice to the decision of the competent court in the matter of seniority, which is in dispute."
These two appeals by the Chandigarh Administration are against the order of the Tribunal.
2. Kamlesh Baboo joined service as Section Officer under the Chandigarh Administration on March 8, 1971. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer on December 29, 1976 and was confirmed as such on August 13, 1985. The service particulars of V.K. Bhardwaj are identical.
3. The conditions of service of the respondents are governed by the Rules. Rules 6(b) and 8(1), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10) and (11), which are relevant are reproduced hereunder:
"6.(b) in the case of an appointment by promotion from Class II Service has 8 years completed service, in that class and has passed the departmental examination, as provided in Rule 15;
8.(1) A Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or where the Chairman is unable to attend, any other member of the Commission representing it, the Secretary, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), and the Chief Engineers, Punjab, PWD Buildings and Roads Branch, shall be constituted.
(3) The Committee shall meet at intervals, ordinarily not exceeding one year, and consider the cases of all eligible officers for promotion to the senior scale of the Service, as on the first day of January of that year.
(4) The Committee shall prepare a list of officers suitable for promotion to the senior scale of the Service. The selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority.
(8) The list prepared or revised in accordance with sub-rules (4), (5) and (6) shall then be forwarded to the Commission by Government along with-
(i) the records of all officers included in the list;
(ii) records of all officers proposed to be superseded as a result of the recommendations made by the Committee;
(iii) the reasons, if any, recorded by the Committee for the proposed supersession of any officer;
(iv) the observations, if any of the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee.
(9) The Commission shall consider the list prepared by the Committee along with other documents received from the State Government and, unless it considers any change necessary, approve the list.
(10) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any changes in the list received from Government, the Commission sha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.