Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Marto Kamgo, S/o Lt. Kimar Kamgo & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP and 23 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 149 of 2023
Decided on : 31-08-2024
Promotion - Assistant Engineer - Arunachal Pradesh Power Engineering Service Rules, 1993 - The Court interpreted the rules regarding promotion eligibility and the necessity of conducting timely DPCs, concluding that the petitioners were not entitled to retrospective promotion due to lack of clear vacancies at the relevant times.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Junior Engineers, sought retrospective promotion to Assistant Engineers after a DPC regularized their promotions from a later date, despite having officiated in the role earlier against clear vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners were not entitled to retrospective promotion as there were no promotional vacancies when they completed their qualifying service, and the DPC had acted within its authority.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to retrospective promotion to Assistant Engineer despite being promoted on an officiating basis against direct recruitment quotas.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that mere completion of service length does not guarantee promotion, and retrospective promotions cannot be granted if it adversely affects validly appointed direct recruits.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Power Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 24.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by which the 23 numbers of Junior Engineers (Electrical) have been promoted/regularized to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) including the petitioners, to the extent of promoting/regularising the petitioners from the date of Departmental Promotion Committee (referred to as DPC in short) i.e. 10.06.2022. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to hold a review DPC and to regularize the petitioners in the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with retrospective effect from the date of their officiating promotion/ad-hoc against the clear existed vacancies at par with similarly situated persons in the Department.
3. Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioners 17 (seventeen) in numbers were appointed as Junior Engineers in the Department of Power, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, in the year, 1994, 1997 and 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 was promoted to the post of officiating promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 27.02.2008, the petitioner no. 2 and 3 on 23.08.2009, the petitioner no.4 on 16.06.2010 and the petitioner no. 5, 6 and 7 on 07.07.2011. According to the petitioners, they were promoted on officiating basis against the clear vacancies.
4. As per the Arunachal Pradesh Power Engineering Service Rules, 1993, the qualifying length of service for promotion from the grade of Junior Engineer to the grade of Assistant Engineer was 8 (eight) years for the degree holder and 10 (ten) years for diploma holder. The petitioners contended that since they were confirmed as a Junior Engineer since 1994 to 1998, they became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year, 2002, 2005, 2006 respectively. In the year, 2005, the Arunachal Pradesh Power Engineering Service Rule, 1993 was amended prescribing the qualifying length of service for degree holder as 5 (five) years and 8 (eight) years for diploma holder.
5. The petitioners contended that they being graduate in Engineering were become eligible for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), however, the State respondents had never conducted DPC within an interval of every 6 (six) months. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 14.09.2012 praying for holding of DPC for regularization of their officiating promotion as Assistant Engineers but the respondent authorities had failed to address the grievance of the petitioners.
6. The respondent authorities convened a DPC on 24.07.2012 after a long gap of many years whereby, the services of 11 (eleven) Junior Engineers, senior to the petitioners in service, were regularized of their officiating promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer with retrospective effect from the date of their officiating promotion. Thereafter, the 11 (eleven) seniors whose officiating promotions were regularized w.e.f the date of their officiating promotion have been currently further promoted to the posts of Executive Engineer in the Department.
7. The petitioners filed a representation for convening of DPC for regularization of their officiating promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) at par with the 11 (eleven) Assistant Engineers whose services were regularized with retrospective effect. However, the same has not been considered. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent authorities had made an attempt to hold the DPC as is reflected from the communication dated 29.05.2013, whereby, ACR/APAR/Dossier and Vigilance Clearance of the petitioners were sought for. The petitioners submitted their
Promotion rights are not absolute; retrospective promotions require clear vacancies and adherence to procedural rules, which were not met in this case.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
Promotion and seniority can only be awarded retrospectively when vacancies exist at the time of officiating promotions, and the Department must reevaluate claims based on factual evidence.
Court emphasized that administrative decisions regarding promotion and seniority must adhere to established rules and principles, ensuring equitable treatment for all eligible individuals.
Amended promotion rules' 45% quota for Junior Engineers with 7 years service contains no Diploma/Degree requirement; unqualified seniors eligible; DPC rejection on qualification grounds invalid.
The court established that administrative lapses in conducting promotions must not prejudice employees' rights, and adherence to reservation limits is mandatory.
If an appointment is made by way of stop gap arrangement without considering claims of all the eligible available persons and without following rules of appointment, experience on such appointment ca....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
