2010 (5) Supreme 114
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. M. Panchal, A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
N. Suresh Nathan & Ors., Etc. Etc. — Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors., Etc. Etc. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003
with
Civil Appeal No. 698 of 2004,
Civil Appeal Nos. 3649-3650 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7174-7175 of 2009)
and
Civil Appeal No. 8470 of 2003
Decided on : 22-4-2010
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 584 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 141 – No law, much les binding one, was laid down on how Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who become qualified or eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer would be considered for promotion. (Para 14)
(c) Assistant Engineers (including Deputy Director of Public Works Department) Group ‘B’ (Technical) Recruitment Rules, 1965 – Rule 5 – The post of Asstt. Engineer declared selection post without making seniority-cum-merit the selection criteria – Seniority not relevant in promotion to selection post – Merit is the sole criteria. (Paras 29 and 30)
(1971) 1 SCC 30; (1971) 2 SCC 452 – Relied upon
(1999) 7 SCC 54 – Distinguished
(2000) 4 SCC 30 – Referred
(d) Assistant Engineers (including Deputy Director of Public Works Department) Group ‘B’ (Technical) Recruitment Rules, 1965 – Rule 5 r/w Article 16 of the Constitution of India – The selection procedure should be in accordance with Rule 5 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (Para 34)
(1983) 4 SCC 339; (1991) 3 SCC 368; (2006) 9 SCC 69; (2003) 2 SCC 632; (2008) 9 SCC 242; (2007) 3 SCC 102; (2007) 11 SCC 10; 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 419 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The controversy revolves around eligibility of diploma holders for promotion to Asstt. Engineer.
Finding of the Court:
Cases of all Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who have completed three years’ service in the grade of Section Officers or Junior Engineers, for promotion to the vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Pondicherry, should be considered in accordance with their merit.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Patnaik, J. —
Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7174-7175 of 2009.
2.These are appeals against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.11236 of 2000.
3.The relevant facts briefly are that the Government of Pondicherry, Planning & Development Department, made the Assistant Engineers (including Deputy Director of Public Works Department) Group ‘B’ (Technical) Recruitment Rules, 1965 [for short ‘the Recruitment Rules’] for the post of Assistant Engineers for the Public Works Department initially by a Notification dated 31.01.1966. The Recruitment Rules were amended by a Notification dated 08.08.1986 and as per the amended Recruitment Rules the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, Pondicherry, was a selection post and appointment to the 20% of the posts of Assistant Engineer was to be by direct recruitment and to the 80% of the posts by promotion. 50% of the promotion quota was to be filled up by Section Officers (now Junior Engineers) possessing a recognized degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent with three years service in the grade, failing which Section Officers holding diploma in Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade and the remaining 50% of the promotion quota was to be filled up by Section Officers (Junior Engineers) possessing a recognized diploma in Civil Engineering with six years service in the grade.
4.On 24.09.1968, the Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, wrote to the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (for short ‘the UPSC’) that there were Section Officers with diploma qualification who have acquired degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent and have putting in several years in service and having become qualified for consideration for 50% quota of the post of Assistant Engineers to be filled up by promotion and questions have arisen whether the service rendered by such Section Officers before and after possessing the degree or equivalent can be taken into account for consideration for promotion under the degree holders quota and whether their cases may be considered under the diploma holders quota as well for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. In the letter dated 24.09.1968, the Chief Secretary sought the advice of the Commission regarding the correct procedure to be followed in such cases. The UPSC gave its advice in its letter dated 06.12.1968 that the services of Section Officers, who qualify as graduates while in service, should be counted from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination or from the date they started drawing Rs.225/- p.m. in the prescribed scale, whichever was earlier and Section Officers may continue to be considered in the diploma holders quota in case it is advantageous to them and the Government followed this advice of the UPSC.
5.In 1989, however, some Junior Engineers, who were formerly Section Officers working in the Public Works and Local Administration Department of Government of Pondicherry, filed O.A. No. 552 of 1989 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and in its judgment and order dated 09.01.1990 the Tribunal held that when the Recruitment Rules require three years service in grade, the Section Officers (now Junior Engineers) who ceased to be mere diploma holders having acquired the degree qualification have to be regarded as having total experience put in the grade of Section Officers before and after acquiring the degree qualification and there was nothing in the Recruitment Rules to warrant the exclusion of a part of the experience acquired by such Junior Engineers while functioning in the grade of Section Officers (Junior Engineers). The Tribunal accordingly directed that the cases of the applicants in the O.A. be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers on par with other degree holders Junior Engineers taking due note of their total length of service rendered
N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India
R. B. Desai v. S. K. Khanolkar
A. K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath
Dr. Jai Narain Misra v. State of Bihar
Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan
SupremeToday
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.