Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
K.K. Dixit & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8479-8482 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.19220-19223 of 2007]
Decided On : 05-09-2014
(b) Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Condition of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976 – Clause (6), (9)(A) and (9)(B) – Eligibility for promotion and seniority – Eligibility list could not be mistaken for seniority list – Board can legitimately prepare separate eligibility lists of Project Engineer (Junior) holding degree and those holding diploma – Seniority list, however, must remain common based upon merit assessed at the time of selection for recruitment. (Para 19)
(c) Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Condition of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976 – Clause (6), (9)(A) and (9)(B) – Promotion – To Project Engineer (Senior) – Quota for degree holders and diploma holders – 20 % for degree holders and 30% for diploma holders – Water tight compartments – Whether diploma holders acquiring AMIE degree can be considered against 20% quota – Requirement of Degree with three years’ service experience and diploma with seven years’ service experience – By itself indicating qualitative difference in the service rendered as a degree holder and that as a diploma holder. (Para 20, 21, 29)
(d) Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Condition of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976 – Clause (6), (9)(A) and (9)(B) – The word ‘with’ cannot be read as ‘and’ – Three years’ total experience of service must be service as a degree holder – Acquiring AMIE degree does not benefit a diploma holder – He continues to have his right to be considered under 30% quota for diploma holders – In order to claim berth in 20% quota, a diploma holder acquiring AMIE degree must show that he fulfills the entire eligibility criterion – In other words he has to show that he is a degree holder with three years’ experience of service as a degree holder. (Para 31)
(2007) 5 SCC 535; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 584; (2001) 2 SCC 362; (2010) 13 SCC 348; (2004) 3 SCC 734; (1997) 3 SCC 118; 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 116 – Relied upon
(2000) 1 SCC 128; 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 419; (2000) 4 SCC 30; (1997) 4 SCC 753 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
All the appellants belonged to the category of degree holder engineers appointed as Project Engineers (Junior) in the service of Rajasthan Housing Board. The contesting respondents also held the same post but initially only as diploma holder who later acquired qualification of AMIE which is admittedly equivalent to degree in Engineering.
Appellants preferred writ petition challenging the Resolution of the Board dated 17.4.1979, the joint Provisional Seniority List dated 11.8.1989 and ad-hoc promotion of the Diploma Holders with AMIE. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge. It was held that their experience as ad-hoc appointees shall not be taken into consideration.
The writ petitioners preferred a review petition praying for passing of judgment on the other two grievances raised in the writ petition. The first grievance was that seniority list of degree holders and diploma holders on the post of Project Engineer (Junior) should be prepared separately. The other grievance was that in view of the Resolution No.6 dated 17.4.1979 those diploma holders who passed AMIE examination while in service, should be placed below the degree holders of that year. The Single Judge allowed the review petition to the extent of directing that the Board shall prepare separate seniority lists for degree holders and diploma holders Project Engineer (Junior) and such of the Project Engineers (Junior) who have passed AMIE examination while in service, shall be placed lowest in that year in the seniority list of degree holder Project Engineers (Junior).
Some of the affected diploma holders preferred D.B. Spl. Appeal.
They were heard together and partly allowed.
Finding of the Court:
For claiming a berth in 20% quota a candidate has to show that he has three years experience as degree holder.
JUDGMENT : -
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are further additions to the long list of service matters decided by High Courts and this Court resolving disputes between “Diploma Holder” and “Degree Holder” Engineers in the matter of eligibility for further promotion. All the appellants belonged to the category of degree holder engineers appointed as Project Engineers (Junior) in the service of Rajasthan Housing Board (for sake of brevity referred to as ‘the Board’). The contesting respondents also held the same post but initially only as diploma holder who later acquired qualification of AMIE which is admittedly equivalent to degree in Engineering.
3. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench and the facts as well as issues of law are common, all the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. At the outset, two important issues raised by way of questions of law in these appeals need to be noticed so that subsequent discussion of facts and law may be of help in answering both the issues/questions in controversy. The issues are :
(i) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in holding that the Diploma Holder Project Engineers (Junior) upon acquiring degree / qualification of ‘AMIE’ would be entitled to count their experience of service prior to acquisition of such qualification for the purpose of eligibility of 3 years total experience of service for promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Sr.) in the quota fixed for Degree Holders?
(ii) Whether the Division Bench has erred in setting aside the direction of the learned Single Judge for preparing two separate seniority lists for Diploma Holders and Degree Holders for the purpose of promotion in their respective quotas?
5. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, the Board made Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). Chapter II of the Regulations contains Clauses (6) to (10) providing for Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion. Clause (6) provides the manner of filling up the posts created from time to time. In the context of absorption of employees working in the Board on deputation, the word ‘category’ has been used in the context of posts created and vacant. Clause (7) provides as follows :
“(7) The ratio of direct recruitment and promotion of employees in the service of the Board and qualification and experience required for various posts will be in accordance with the ‘Schedule’ appended to these Regulations.”
Clause (9)(A) of the Regulations pertains to promotion and provides as under :
“(9)(A) Promotion
In respect of first promotion to higher post, promotion of eligible person shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Second promotion shall be made on the basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit in the promotion of 50:50.”
Clause (9)(B) provides that “seniority lists for each category of employees will be prepared and maintained.” Clause (10) pertains to ‘seniority’ and reads thus:
“(10) Seniority :
Amongst the persons recruited in the same year, the promotees will rank senior to those who will be appointed by direct recruitment. Amongst the promotees those who are appointed on the basis of seniority cum merit with rank senior to those who are appointed on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority. The inter se seniority of those appointed on the basis of merit will be in accordance with their relative seniority in the lower cadre.”
6. Chapter III of the Regulations contains Miscellaneous Provisions and includes Clause (12) which empowers the Board to issue general instructions not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder for the purpose of removing doubt, lacuna, inconsistency or anomaly which may arise in interpreting the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
