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

2023 Supreme(Gau) 709

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Shri Moli Tatu, S/o Late Semmo Riba – Appellant
Versus
The State Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
WP(C) 297 of 2021
Decided on : 05-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Saikia, L. Nochi, L. Bam, H. Ete, B. Taipodia, I. Bam, Y. Linggi
For the Respondent: R.H. Nabam, Addl. A.G.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment Rules, 1996 (as amended in 2005) - Petitioner challenge against the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommendation dated 07.09.2020, denying retrospective regularization of adhoc promotion from 2006 - Court emphasizes eligibility and existence of clear vacancies for promotion, stating that petitioners had continuous service as adhoc AEs. (Para 50)

(B) Legal Principles - DPC must objectively evaluate cases based on eligibility criteria, existing vacancies, and applicable rules, ensuring no prejudice to eligible officers. Mere existence of vacancy does not guarantee retrospective promotion, but should be conferred if legal criteria are met. (Par 28, 46, 54)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers and promoted to adhoc Assistant Engineers in 2006. They repeatedly approached authorities for regularization but faced delays in DPC meetings, eventually prompting the writ petition claiming violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners' eligibility for promotion was established, and the court found the DPC's retrospective recommendation invalid. Court directed the respondent authorities to review the promotion decision with respect to legal criteria.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to retrospective promotion from the date of adhoc appointment despite DPC recommendation stating otherwise.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the DPC's approach was unjustifiable, emphasizing that the delay in conducting the DPC should not prejudice officers who had met eligibility requirements and had valid legal grounds to claim promotions with retrospective effect.

Result: The writ petition was allowed with a directive for convening a fresh DPC meeting for regularization of the petitioners' promotions from their respective adhoc appointment dates.

Table of Content
1. challenge regarding promotion regularization (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments against prospective promotion decisions (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. determination of retroactive promotion date (Para 28 , 29)
4. entitlement to retrospective regularization (Para 50 , 51 , 53 , 54)
5. court's directive for fresh dpc meeting (Para 57)

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Additional A.G for the State Respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners, three (3) in numbers have challenged the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 07.09.2020 and the consequent order No. Sectt/PHE(Estt)-161/2012 Pt-I/631 dated 05.10.2020 whereby services of the petitioners as adhoc Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public Health Engineering & Water Supply Department (“PHE&WS” in short) have been regularized w.e.f. the date of DPC i.e. 07.09.2020. The petitioners have prayed for a direction for regularization/promotion of the services of the petitioners as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in PHE&WS Department with retrospective effect w.e.f. the date of adhoc-promotion i.e. 09.05.2006 in respect of petitioner No. 1 and 06.06.2006 in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and for grant of consequential benefits.

3. The petitioners are working as Assistant Engineer (Civil) [AE(C) in short] in the Department of PHE&WS, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are Graduates in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and they were initially selected and appointed as Junior Engineers (JE in short) in the erstwhile Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order dated 10.06.1994. Thereafter, on the bifurcation of the Department of Rural Works and after creation of Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were absorbed with the Department of PHE. The petitioner No. 3 is also a Graduate in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and was appointed as JE in PHED vide order dated 29.08.1996.

4. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order No. PHE/Sectt-04/96 dated 13.03.2001, had regularized the services of twenty-one (21) AEs under PHE Department with retrospective effect from the date of adhoc-promotion as AE. The petitioners have requisite length of service in the cadre of JE in terms of Recruitment Rules, 1996 as amended in 2005. On vacancies that arose against the promotional quota, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh promoted the petitioners to the post of AE(C) in PHE&WS Department on adhoc basis with scale of pay and other benefits as that of regular AEs on the vacancies against the promotional quota. The petitioner No. 1 was promoted as AE(C) vide order dated 09.05.2006 and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were promoted as Assistant Engineer on adhoc-basis on 06.06.2006 (issued on 07.06.2006) with the scale of pay of AE(C) plus other allowances permissible under the Rules from time to time. The petitioner No. 1 was promoted as AE on adhoc basis in the existing vacancy which arose due to retirement of one Shri Pankajakshan on 30.04.2006. The petitioner No. 2 on the existing vacancy of one Shri Toney Ete on 17.05.2006 and the petitioner No. 3 was promoted on the existing vacancy that arose due to promotion of one Shri P.K. Dey on 29.05.2006.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the Recruitment Rules, 1996, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were eligible for being considered for promotion as far back as on 26.06.1999 and 18.07.1999 in terms of the gradation list dated 14.05.1999 and the petitioner No. 3 became eligible on 06.09.2001. However, no Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC” in short) was held from 1999 to 2000. The DPC was held in the year 2001 pursuant to which juniors of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were promoted as AE(C) and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were deprived of their right to be considered for promotion. Being aggri

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
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