IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Kiddy TM Lalrintluanga S/o Lalhluta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Mizoram and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 5, 28, 108 of 2023
Decided On : 21-05-2024
MES - Promotion Dispute - Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 2013, Amended Rules - Rule 22(5)(a), Rule 22(5)(b) - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 22(5)(a) and Rule 22(5)(b) of the Amended Rules, highlighting the differences in the qualifying years of service and the promotion procedure. The court emphasized that the Non-Functional promotion under Rule 22(5)(b) is not a regular promotion and is different from the promotion made under Rule 22(5)(a), which is linked to vacancies and the reservation/quota system. The court directed the State respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the substantive regular vacancies/posts of Senior Grade of the MES reserved for the Non-Graduate Engineers, which had been filled up by the private respondents, and set aside the promotion of the private respondents to the Senior Grade (Functional) posts reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Non-Graduate Engineers, challenged the promotion of Graduate Engineers to the Senior Grade of the Mizoram Engineering Service (MES) beyond their quota, usurping the quota reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers. The dispute arose from the interpretation of the Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 2013 and the Amended Rules, specifically Rule 22(5)(a) and Rule 22(5)(b).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Non-Functional promotion under Rule 22(5)(b) is not a regular promotion and is different from the promotion made under Rule 22(5)(a), which is linked to vacancies and the reservation/quota system. The court directed the State respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the substantive regular vacancies/posts of Senior Grade of the MES reserved for the Non-Graduate Engineers, which had been filled up by the private respondents, and set aside the promotion of the private respondents to the Senior Grade (Functional) posts reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers.
Issues: The main issue was the dispute over the promotion of Graduate Engineers to the Senior Grade of the MES, usurping the quota reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers, based on the interpretation of the Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 2013 and the Amended Rules, specifically Rule 22(5)(a) and Rule 22(5)(b).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Non-Functional promotion under Rule 22(5)(b) is not a regular promotion and is different from the promotion made under Rule 22(5)(a), which is linked to vacancies and the reservation/quota system. The court directed the State respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the substantive regular vacancies/posts of Senior Grade of the MES reserved for the Non-Graduate Engineers, which had been filled up by the private respondents, and set aside the promotion of the private respondents to the Senior Grade (Functional) posts reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers.
Final Decision: The court directed the State respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the substantive regular vacancies/posts of Senior Grade of the MES reserved for the Non-Graduate Engineers, which had been filled up by the private respondents, and set aside the promotion of the private respondents to the Senior Grade (Functional) posts reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers. The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents. No one appears for the private respondents even though notice has been deemed to be served upon them.
2. These three writ petitions are being disposed of by a common Judgment and Order in view of the fact that the subject matter in issue is the same in all the three writ petitions, involving the same writ petitioners.
3. At the outset, Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 2 has retired and as such, he does not wish to press the case of the petitioner No. 2.
4. The case of the petitioners is that in terms of the schedule to the 2013 Rules, there were 51 posts of Senior Grade (Civil) of the MES, who are Executive Engineers. As such, 41 posts of the Junior Grade were reserved for Graduate Engineers, while 10 posts were reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers. However, the Graduate Engineers have been promoted beyond their quota in the Senior Grade of the MES, thereby usurping the quota reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers. The petitioners have been promoted to the Senior Grade post (Non- Functional), which is not really a promotion, while the private respondents have been promoted to Senior Grade post (Functional). The case of the State respondents, on the other hand, is that promotion to the Senior Grade of the MES, whether functional or Non-Functional is the same. It is a promotion and they are intra-transferable posts.
5. That in terms of Rule 22(5) of the Mizoram Engineering Service Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Rules), for consideration for promotion to the Senior Grade post of the Mizoram Engineering Service (hereinafter referred to as MES), required a member of the MES of the Junior Grade to have completed not less than 5 years continuous regular service in the Junior Grade and to have passed the Departmental Examination in Engineering & Accounts.
6. The proviso to Section 22(5) of the 2013 Rules stated that 80% of the posts shall be reserved for Graduate Engineers, while 20% would be reserved for Non-Graduate Engineers.
7. The Second Proviso to Rule 22(5) of the 2013 Rules provided that the reservation would be continued after all the present incumbent Non-Graduate Engineers in the Junior Grade as on the date of commencement of the 2013 Rules were promoted, died, retired or had quitted the service by any means.
8. The petitioners herein are Non-Graduate Engineers i.e. Diploma holders, who had been promoted to the post of Junior Grade of the MES at the time of commencement of the 2013 Rules.
9. The 2013 Rules were thereafter amended vide the Mizoram Engineering Service (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Amended Rules) and Rule 22(5) of the 2013 Rules became Rule 22(5)(a) of the Amended Rules. Rule 22(5)(b) was also inserted, which stated that a member of the MES in the Junior Grade who had completed 10 years of continuous regular service in the Junior Grade and who had passed Departmental Examination in Engineering and Accounts, shall be eligible for Non-Functional promotion without linkage to vacancies by Selection Method.
10. The proviso to Rule 22(5) (b) of the Amended Rules provides that the provision for non-functional promotion shall be irrespective of the reservation system between direct recruits and promotes and shall be effective from the date of issue of Notification dated 04.08.2015.
11. The Second Proviso to Rule 22(5)(b) of the Amended Rules provided that the posting of Officers to the functional posts in Senior Grade of the service shall be done, as far as possible, on the basis of seniority or as determined by the Government from time to time.
12. The Schedule to the Amended Rules shows that posts of Senior Grade included Functional and Non-Functional posts. There were 51 Functional posts of Senior Grade (Functional), without giving the numbe
Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association (Direct Recruit) and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
The Non-Functional promotion under Rule 22(5)(b) is not a regular promotion and is different from the promotion made under Rule 22(5)(a), which is linked to vacancies and the reservation/quota system....
Date on which the private respondents were placed in the Functional Post of the Senior Grade under PHE Department. On such consideration, if the petitioners are found eligible to be promoted or to be....
Admitted position is that all the petitioners have been screened by the constituted Screening Committee and thereafter, they were given Non-Functional promotion but only from the date of passing the ....
The court emphasized that the Notifications dated 04.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 did not require passing the Departmental Examination for Non-Functional promotion from Junior Grade to Senior Grade of the ....
Point of law: Rule 22(5)(a) provides that the reservation of post in the ratio of 80:20 between direct and diploma engineers will be discontinued after all the incumbents in the junior grade from the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation system between Graduate and Diploma Engineers, as provided by Rule 22(5)(a) of the Mizoram Engineering Service (Amendment) Rul....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.