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

2003 Supreme(Gau) 270

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
I.A.Ansari, J.
Molitatu -Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh -Resopndent
W.P.(C).No. 292 (A.P.) of 2001
Decided On : 25-06-2003

Advocates Appeared:
Tagia Michi, B.Loya, T.Son, B.L.Singh, P.K.Tiwari

Year-wise panel for promotion is mandatory, and Cabinet decisions cannot supercede Recruitment Rules unless translated into Rules by appropriate notification.

Headnote:

Promotion - Delay in Holding DPC - Rules of 1997 - NR Banerjee - APGJEA - BL Gupta - Virendra Kr. Gupta - Year-wise panel for promotion - Cabinet decision not translated into Recruitment Rules

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Junior Engineers in the Department of Public Health Engineering and Water Supply, sought writs to set aside the order promoting private respondents to the posts of Assistant Engineer, alleging denial of due promotion. The petitioners became eligible for promotion in 1999, but no DPC was held until 2001, when accumulated vacancies were considered, leading to the promotion of junior private respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the DPC's consideration of promotions against accumulated vacancies was contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. The Cabinet decision removing the distinction between degree-holders and diploma-holders for promotion could not be retrospectively applied without being translated into Recruitment Rules. The impugned orders promoting the private respondents were set aside, and the State respondents were directed to constitute a DPC afresh for reviewing the cases of promotion.

Issues: Delay in holding DPC for promotion, consideration of promotions against accumulated vacancies, retrospective application of Cabinet decision, adherence to Recruitment Rules

Ratio Decidendi: Year-wise panel for promotion is mandatory unless certified by the appointing authority that no vacancies arose in a particular year and no suitable candidate is available. Cabinet decisions cannot supercede Recruitment Rules unless translated into Rules by appropriate notification.

Final Decision: The impugned orders promoting the private respondents were set aside, and the State respondents were directed to constitute a DPC afresh for reviewing the cases of promotion.

I.A. ANSARI, J.—

This is a classic case, which reveals why law insists on making yearly panel against promotional vacancies. Supposing, 'X' and 'Y' are both Junior Engineers in the same department, 'X' being a diploma-holder and 'Y' being degree holder. The qualifying periods for consideration of promotion for degree-holders and diploma-holders are different. In the year 2001, though' Y' is junior to 'X' in the gradation list, he becomes, on account of the fact that he is a degree-holder, eligible for promotion. Despite the fact that there was one vacancy meant for filling up of the same in 2001 by making promotion, no panel for consideration of such promotional vacancy, which arose in 2001 was made. The promotion was considered in the year 2002 and by this time, 'X' also becomes eligible for promotion. If the promotional vacancy arising in 2001 is considered in 2002, 'X' and ' Y', both being eligible for promotion, and 'X', being senior to * Y', would be obviously given the promotion if they enjoy the same merit, but had the promotional vacancy been considered in 2001, it is 'X', who would have been considered for such promotion. Denial of promotion to ' Y' on account of delay in holding DPC is glaringly unjust. Since a writ Court abhors denial of the principles of natural justice, it zealously protects the rights of the aggrieved person and it is for this reason that year-wise panel for consideration of promotional vacancy is insisted upon by Courts.

2. By making this application under Ar­ticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the pe­titioners, who are serving as Juniors Engineers in the Department of Public Health Engineering and Water Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, have approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/ writs setting aside and quashing the order, dated 22.05.2001, (Annexure P4 to the writ petition) and order, dated 21.08.2001 (An­nexure P5 to the affidavit-in-reply of the pe­titioners) passed by respondent No. 2 namely, Commissioner and Secretary to the Govern­ment of Arunachal Pradesh, PHE & WS Department, promoting the private respon­dents No.4 to 10 to the posts of Assistant Engineer by allegedly denying lawfully due promotion to the petitioners, and command­ing the State respondents to constitute a De­partmental Promotional Committee(in short, "DPC") afresh for reviewing the cases of pro­motion of the petitioners to the posts of As­sistant Engineer as on 1999 by applying the principles of Next Below Rule.

3. Described in a nut-shell, the case of the petitioners runs as follows:-

Both the petitioners are degree holders in Civil Engineering and are presently working as Junior Engineer(in short, JE) in the De­partment of Public Health Engineering and Water Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner No. 1 having joined the said post on 29.06.1994 and the peti­tioner No. 2 having joined on 18.07.1994. The post of JE is a feeder post for promotion to the higher post of Technical Assistant and Assistant Engineer. The post of Technical Assistant, however, stands abolished since 1999. The relevant Rules, which govern the conditions of service pertaining to promotional appointment of Assistant Engineer(Civil) (in short, AE) is known as Assistant Engineer (Civil)/ASW Recruitment Rules, 1997(in short, Rules of 1997) (Annexure P/l). These Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers contained in the proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution of India. As per the said Rules, recruitment to the post of AE is made both by direct recruitment and also by making promotion with 50:50 ratio. The Rules of 1997 make a distinction between JEs, who are decree-holders, and JEs, who are di­ploma-holders. Under the Rules of 1997, JEs, having diploma, become eligible for promotion as AE with 8 years of regular service as JE subject to their passing of departmental examination in accounts, whereas the JEs, holding degree in Civil Engineering, become eligible for promotion, when they complete 5 year






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top