IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the significance of considering the service in the supernumerary post as part of the sanctioned strength of the post of AE(C) and highlighted the principles of seniority calculation, promotion to supernumerary posts, and determination of gradation.

JUDGMENT :

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging the final gradation list of Assistant Engineers (civil) published by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘KMC’) dated 5th July, 2021 wherein the petitioners were superseded by the promotees and directly recruited Assistant Engineers (civil) with effect from 6th July, 2018.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioners are Assistant Engineers (civil) (hereinafter referred to as “AE(C)”) of KMC herein respondent no.1 having promoted from the post of Sub-Assistant Engineers (civil) (hereinafter referred to as “SAE(C)”) under the 15% quota for graduates against the supernumerary post by an order dated 5th July, 2012, pursuant to the D.M.C (P) circular no. 19/IIIB/2012-13 dated 3rd July, 2012. The aforementioned circular established an avenue for advancement from the position of SAE(C) to AE(C) accessible to individuals possessing diplomas and degrees in engineering. This advancement requires 25 years of service for diploma holders and 13 years for degree holders, with the stipulation that in the latter scenario, a minimum of 05 years out of the 13 years of service must be completed as a degree holder.

3. The petitioners upon being promoted as AE(C) against the supernumerary post have been duly discharging their duties as AE(C). Moreover, by an order dated 25th January, 2019, the Hon’ble Division bench, upon revising the order of the Ld. Single Judge, upheld the legality and validity of the circular issued on July 3, 2012 and the promotion order dated July 5, 2012. It is worth noting that subsequent to the order issued on January 25, 2019, a directive was issued by the Chief Manager (Personnel) herein respondent no. 3 on December 30, 2019, with the explicit approval of the Corporation. This directive explicitly stated that the matter of re-establishing the seniority ranking among the thirty-two individuals within the Gradation List of AE(C) commencing from July 6, 2012, in accordance with their respective degree acquisition dates, has been deliberated upon and duly sanctioned. Thereafter, on 26th August, 2021, 19th March, 2021, 8th January, 2020 and 26th August, 2021 the petitioners was absorbed against the permanent vacancies in the post of AE(C) by orders issued from time to time respectively.

4. However, on 4th March, 2021 and 12th March, 2021 two provisional gradation lists for AE(C) were published by respondent no.1 wherein the petitioners were suppressed by nine direct recruits of the year 2012-13 herein respondent nos. 4-12 in the gradation list in breach of the provision of the circular no. 13 of 1984-85 dated 25th April, 1984 and was wrongfully suppressed by respondents nos. 13- 34 all of whom attained the degree after the petitioners.

5. Owing to such discrepancy, the petitioner raised objection to the provisional gradation list as published. However, the Board of Administrators issued a recommendation dated 29th June, 2021 without changing any of the objections raised by the petitioner. Shortly thereafter, the Board of Administrators, KMC published the final gradation list of AE (C) on 5th July, 2021 wherein none of the anomalies pointed out by the petitioners were removed, resulting in illegal supersession of the petitioners by their juniors. Therefore, aggrieved by such act of the respondent no.1 the present petition has been preferred.

6. The Learned Counsel representing the petitioner has advanced the following arguments:

I. The respondent authorities have acted wrongfully and illegally in placing nine directly recruited individuals from the year 2012-13 in the seniority list for AE(C) as of 5th July, 2021 superseding the petitioners. This inclusion contravenes the guidelines established in D.M.C (P)’s circular no. 13 of 1984-85 dated 23rd April, 1984 which stipulates that employees promoted in a specific year should be regarded as a collective senior group or in-bloc seniority, in comparison to the d