Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
AKIL KURESHI, S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ.
Shri Sumanta Nandi, Junior Engineer, Grade-I (Degree holder category) Agriculture Department - Appellant
Versus
Shri Apurba Chakraborty, Junior Engineer (Mechanical) - Respondents
WA No.26 of 2020
Decided on : 31-08-2021
Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Powers of High Court to issue Writ - present appellant had applied for direct recruitment to post of Junior Engineer Grade-I for which selection was undertaken by TPSC in the year 2005. The appellant was selected and placed in serial No.2 of select list and appointed on said post which he joined on 02.02.2005. Significantly, in the final seniority lists dated 07.08.2006 and 06.11.2010 for the cadre of Junior Engineer Degree holder Grade-I where, as noted above, the petitioner was shown at serial No.1, the appellant was shown at serial No.6. Thus, in seniority lists of 2006 and 2010 the petitioner was shown junior to appellant
Finding of the Court :
Government of Tripura published afresh seniority list in the grade of Junior Engineer Degree holder Grade-I in which the name of petitioner was missing and appellant was shown at serial No.2. The petitioner, thereupon, filed above numbered writ petition and prayed for insertion of his name in the seniority list. Petitioner did not join present appellant as one of respondents. The Government officials appeared in the writ petition and filed a detailed reply - Inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the seniority lists of 2006 and 2010 was a pure error and which was corrected in the fresh seniority list which was published in the year 2014. It was averred that to safeguard the interest of Degree holder Engineers the department maintains two separate seniority lists of Degree holders and Diploma holders. The petitioner should not have been shown in seniority list of Degree holders - Certain events are undisputable. Petitioner was appointed as an Overseer in the year 1990. For the reasons which we would elaborate later, he was shown at serial No. 1 in final seniority list of Jr. Engineer published in the year 2006. This was reiterated in a seniority list which was re-published in the year 2010. In both seniority lists name of the appellant was shown at serial No.6. There is nothing on the record to suggest that appellant or any other person objected to this seniority position assigned to the petitioner. The contention of counsel for appellant that not being a party to the writ petition, appellant could not bring on record any such document even if they are existed, is not a valid argument - Court has granted liberty to appellant to appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge, recognizing his locus standi insofar as the relative seniority is concerned - He could not expect second innings for production of documents and for making averments after the appeal is heard and decided. Court has therefore, proceeded on the basis that there was no opposition to the seniority lists published by the department in the years 2006 and 2010 - Court also find that by virtue of series of office orders and office memoranda the Government of Tripura had taken certain decisions and as a result of which the petitioner first got the benefit of absorption in the cadre of Junior Engineer Grade-I and after completion of four years thereof, got benefit of designation of Junior Engineer Grade-I . His inclusion in final seniority list of 2006 in said cadre was thus neither an error nor an oversight. On merits also the Government committed an error in deleting the name of the petitioner from the seniority list published
Result : Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Akil Kureshi, J.
The appellant has challenged a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2017 passed in WP(C) No.310 of 2014 filed by the respondent No.1 herein.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The respondent No.1 was appointed on the post of Extension Officer(Engineering) in the Department of Agriculture under an order dated 15.12.1989. The petitioner was holding the degree of Engineering(Mechanical), though he was selected and appointed on a post which did not require the degree in Engineering. Over a period of time the Government of Tripura re-designated and at times amalgamated some of its cadres. Under an OM dated 12th September, 1991 it was provided that a Junior Engineer Grade-II (Diploma holder) who has completed 4(four) years of service including service as Overseer as on 31.12.1987 shall be designated as Junior Engineer Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.2000-4410/-and those who complete such period after coming over to the revised scale also likewise shall be designated as Junior Engineer Grade-I in such revised scale of Rs.2000-4410/-from the date of completion of four years in service. On 29.10.2005 the Government of Tripura decided to amalgamate various posts of LUDC (Engineering), Technical Officer(Engineering), Workshop Foreman, Instructor(Engineering), Extension Officer(Engineering) under the Department of Agriculture into the post of Junior Engineer Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.6500-12300/-with effect from 01.01.1996. It appears that pursuant to the said decisions of the Government of Tripura, the name of the petitioner was also included in the seniority list of Junior Engineer(Mechanical) Degree holder Grade-I in a final seniority list which was published on 07.08.2006. On the basis of the date of joining service the petitioner was shown at serial No.1 in the seniority list. Yet another seniority list was published by the department in the said cadre on 06.11.2010 in which also the petitioner was shown at serial No.1.
[3] In the meantime, the present appellant had applied for the direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-I (Mechanical) for which selection was undertaken by TPSC in the year 2005. The appellant was selected and placed in serial No.2 of select list and appointed on the said post which he joined on 02.02.2005. Significantly, in the final seniority lists dated 07.08.2006 and 06.11.2010 for the cadre of Junior Engineer(Mechanical) Degree holder Grade-I where, as noted above, the petitioner was shown at serial No.1, the appellant was shown at serial No.6. Thus, in the seniority lists of 2006 and 2010 the petitioner was shown junior to the appellant.
[4] On 30.04.2014 the Government of Tripura published a fresh seniority list in the grade of Junior Engineer(Mechanical) Degree holder Grade-I in which the name of the petitioner was missing and the appellant was shown at serial No.2. The petitioner, thereupon, filed the above numbered writ petition and prayed for insertion of his name in the seniority list dated 30.04.2014. The petitioner did not join the present appellant as one of the respondents. The Government officials appeared in the writ petition and filed a detailed reply. Their stand was that though the petitioner possessed the degree in Mechanical Engineering, he was selected and appointed on the post of Overseer which did not require such qualification. The petitioner, therefore, cannot stake his claim in the cadre of Junior Engineer(Degree holder). Inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the seniority lists of 2006 and 2010 was a pure error and which was corrected in the fresh seniority list which was published in the year 2014. It was averred that to safeguard the interest of Degree holder Engineers the department maintains two separate seniority lists of Degree holders and Diploma holders. The petitioner should not have been shown in the seniority list of Degree holders.
[5] The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment holding that
Point of Law : Seniority position in a cadre should not be disturbed after a long period of time and should be allowed to be settled after a reasonable period of time. It is not necessary to refer to....
Inter se seniority of Junior Engineers – Direct recruits versus upgraded – All what is required to be considered is date on which they became members of cadre of Junior Engineers coming from two diff....
Seniority - Incumbents from different streams with different quotas cannot challenge grant of seniority from back date to each other.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that seniority as an Executive Engineer (Civil) should be counted from the date the individual was actually borne in the cadre, and that while prom....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of an employee should be counted from the date they were actually borne in the cadre, and while promotion is an individual right....
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
