SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Gau) 47

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.L.Hansaria, S.N.Phukan, JJ.
Benu Gohain -Appellant
Versus
North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 528 of 1982
Decided On : 05-04-1988

Advocates Appeared:
P.K.Goswami, N.M.Lahiri, M.Z.Ahmed, J.P.Bhattacharjee, G.N.Sahewalla, A.C.Bora

In the absence of service rules, seniority should be determined based on the length of continuous service.

Headnote:

SENIORITIY - ASSISTANT ENGINEER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER - PROMOTION TO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - SERVICE RULES - ABSENCE OF - LENGTH OF SERVICE - CONTINUOUS SERVICE - SENIORITY - FIXATION - PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST - RELIANCE ON - LEGALITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer (Elect) under the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, challenged the provisional seniority list and the order reverting him back to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer after being appointed as Executive Engineer on an ad-hoc basis. The Corporation claimed that the seniority list was based on merit and that the petitioner failed to appear before the Selection Committee for direct recruitment to the post of Executive Engineer.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that in the absence of service rules, seniority should be determined based on the length of continuous service. The petitioner had joined the post of Assistant Engineer before the respondents and was declared as Sub-Divisional Officer before them. Therefore, the petitioner's seniority should have been placed above the respondents in the seniority list.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisional seniority list prepared by the Corporation was valid and could be relied upon for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer? 2. Whether the petitioner's seniority should be determined based on his length of service or on the basis of the provisional seniority list? 3. Whether the petitioner's reversion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer was合法?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that in the absence of service rules, seniority should be determined based on the length of continuous service. The petitioner had joined the post of Assistant Engineer before the respondents and was declared as Sub-Divisional Officer before them. Therefore, the petitioner's seniority should have been placed above the respondents in the seniority list. 2. The court held that the provisional seniority list prepared by the Corporation was not valid and could not be relied upon for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, as it was not based on any objective criteria and was not final. 3. The court held that the petitioner's reversion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer was illegal as it was based on the provisional seniority list, which was not valid.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of reversion, and directed that the petitioner be deemed to have been promoted notionally before the respondents to the post of Executive Engineer.

Phukan, J. —

The petitioner joined as an Assistant Engineer (Elect) under the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, for short the Corporation, respondent No. 1, on 1.12.76. Respondent Nos. 7 and 6 also joined in the said posts under the Corporation in January, 1977 and on 4.4.77 respectively. On 22.2.17 the petitioner was declared as Sub-Divisional Officer whereas the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were so declared on 1.1.78 and in the year 1979 respectively. Respondent No. 1 published a provisional inter-se seniority list of Executive Engineers/ sub-Divisional Officers Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers, Gr. I/ Gr. II/ Gr. Ill in respect of which, it is alleged, that the petitioner submitted a representation. Again on 8.5.80 respondent No 1 published another provisional seniority list of Sub Divisional Officers (Elect) and Assistant Engineers (Elect) against which also, it is alleged, the petitioner submitted a representation. On 4.8.80, the petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer (Elect) on ad-hoc basis along with respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 and the petitioner joined his duties in the above capacity on 7.8.80. Thereafter by the order dated 20.5.82 (Annexure 'C' to the petition ) the petitioner was reverted back to his original post of Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that his adhoc appointment could not be allowed to be continued after "regular appointment/promotion has already been finalised" in the capacity of Executive Engineer (Elect). Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate Writ for quashing the above order dated 20.5.82, Annexure-'C' and also office order dated 26.4.82, Annexure-'M', by which respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer of the Corporation. The petitioner has also challenged the advertisement dated 18.6,81 Annexure-'J* to the petition, by which the Corporation invited applica­tions for the posts of Executive Engineer.

2. According to the Corporation, which is a Government of India Undertaking, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were selected by a Selection Committee and the said Committee fixed the seniority in order of merit and respondent No. 4 was also selected by such Committee on 15.7.76, and as such, he was No. 1 Assistant Engineer in the Corporation. It has further been alleged that the fact that respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are senior to the present petitioner was all along notified in the provisional seniority list and hence he is estopped from challenging the said seniority list. The petitioner was duly informed about the advertisement for the posts of Executive Engineer but he failed to appear before the Selection Committee, and as such, he cannot claim any seniority over the officers who were selected by direct recruitment in pursuance to the said advertisement. It is admitted by the Corporation that no service rules have been framed, and the draft service rules have been sent to the Buraeu of Public Enterprise, Government of India at New Delhi for approval. It was, however, decided by the Corporation that during the interim period the draft service rules shall be taken as a guide line. According to Corporation, though the petitioner was allowed to hold the post of Sub-Divisional Officer before other respondents, the posts of Assistant Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer being in the game cadre the petitioner cannot claim any benefit aid only on 1.7.78 a separate pay-scale was provided for the post of Sub-Divisional Officer. It has also been alleged that the impugned reversion order, Annexure 'O' to the petition was legally and validly mad; as considering his seniority the Departmental Promotion Committee did not promote him to the post of Executive Engineer.

3. Before we take up the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner we would dispose of the preliminary points raised by Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel for the Corporation.

4. At the time of hearing, Mr. Lahiri placed before us a letter dated 22. 1.87 iss




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top