2008(1) Supreme 34
Supreme Court of india
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Shiv Nath Prasad — Petitioner
versus
Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 1078-1081 of 2005
Decided on : 10-01-2008
AIR 1996 SCC 3534; (1996)2 SCC 715; (1999)7 SCC 209 – Referred.
(b)Service Law – Roster point promotion – Prior to the Constitutional amendment of Article 16(4A) in 2001, consequential seniority on accelerated promotion o reserved quota was not available – That being given retrospective effect from 17.6.1995 only, held to be not applicable to cases prior to that.(Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
1.The case of the appellant (Scheduled Caste)was that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department after selection through Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.
2.Admittedly, the respondents (herein) were senior to the petitioner/appellant.
3.Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer in July, 1980 against the reserved post of the Executive Engineer, whereas, other private respondents (non-scheduled caste candidates) were not considered for promotion on account of non-availability of post in general category. But, they were considered and appointed on the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1985, i.e. much after the promotions of the scheduled caste candidates including that of petitioner/appellant before us.
4.A gradation list was finalized on 8.10.1991. In this gradation list, the candidates who were appointed against the scheduled caste vacancies were shown above the other private respondents who were appointed against the general quota.
5.This list was challenged before Tribunal and a prayer was made that the seniority position of the Assistant Engineers, prepared on the basis of the merit list of the Public Service Commission should be followed and they be made senior to the persons, who were appointed against the scheduled caste quota.
6.Tribunal allowed the application of those applicants and directed to consider all the petitioners before Tribunal and other persons similarly selected against general quota, for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the date prior to the date on which private respondent no. 2 (petitioner/appellant) was promoted by calling a Review Departmental Promotion Committee and consequently, all benefits to be given to them, if they were found suitable including for the post of the Chief Engineer and if it would become necessary to revert the private respondent no. 2 (petitioner/appellant) from the post of Chief Engineer for want of the post, such order shall be made within two months.
7.High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition of appellant.
Findings of the Court:
The benefit of Constitutional amendment in Article 16(4A) is not available to cases prior to 17.6.1995.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
judgment
A.K. Mathur, J. —
1.These appeals are directed against the order dated 15th may 2003 passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 5634 of 1999, whereby Shiv Nath Prasad, appellant (herein) challenged the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the promotion of petitioner/appellant before us and private respondents who belong to non-scheduled caste. The case of the appellant (herein) was that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department after selection through Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petitioner/Appellant (Scheduled Caste) alongwith other Schedule Caste and other private respondents (non-SC) were selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers on the basis of Civil Services Examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. The names of scheduled caste candidates appeared at S.Nos. 23, 24 and 25 below the name of the respondent Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi (herein). After their appointment, they joined the duties on the post of Assistant Engineer on different dates in the year 1972. The names of the petitioner/appellant and other scheduled caste candidates were shown in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission in lower position and their seniority was also drawn on the post of Assistant Engineer in the order mentioned in the select list. In the gradation list, issued for the post of Assistant Engineer as on 1.4.1982, the names of the petitioner/appellant and other scheduled caste candidates duly selected appeared at S. Nos 187, 189 and 190, while the name of the respondent no. 1 (herein) and others appeared between S.Nos 168-186. Therefore, admittedly, the respondents (herein) were senior to the petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer in July, 1980 against the reserved post of the Executive Engineer, whereas, other private respondents (non-scheduled caste candidates) were not considered for promotion on account of non-availability of post in general category. But, they were considered and appointed on the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1985, i.e. much after the promotions of the scheduled caste candidates including that of petitioner/appellant before us. A provisional gradation list was issued and published on 18.6.1991 and objections were invited and that list was finalized on 8.10.1991. In this gradation list, the candidates who were appointed against the scheduled caste vacancies were shown above the other private respondents who were appointed against the general quota. Persons who were promoted against the reserved category were placed low in the merit prepared by the Public Service Commission, but shown as senior, on account of their earlier promotion on the post of Executive Engineer against reserved category, and thereby having march over the persons of the general quota, who were promoted later than these candidates, i.e. scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. This list was challenged before Tribunal and a prayer was made that they be placed above the scheduled caste candidates, because they were not superseded by the scheduled caste candidates but on account of non-availability of post under general quota, they could not be promoted. Therefore, there is no case of supersession and as such, the seniority position of the Assistant Engineers, prepared on the basis of the merit list of the Public Service Commission should be followed and they be made senior to the persons, who were appointed against the scheduled caste quota. It was also contended before the Tribunal that on account of General Administration Department circulars dated 2.5.1975 and 17.5.1975 and as per the provisions of the M.P. Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 1961), they are entitled to be placed higher in the seniority list of Executive Engineer, though they might have been promoted late
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.