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

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9945

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Lata Baswaraj Patne, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, A
J. Jayakumar, R.Ravichandran, S.Latha – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Government of Puducherry – Respondent
OA No.1206/2018, OA No.1208/2018, OA No.1249/2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y.Kavitha
For the Respondents: R.Syed Mustafa, D.Arun, N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, K.Venkatesh

Promotions in the Public Works Department must be based strictly on merit assessments following degree attainment, rather than mere seniority, in accordance with directives established in the Suresh Nathan Case II.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion in the Public Works Department - Applicants challenging promotion orders based on a Review DPC held in 2016, arguing that merit assessment was neglected in favor of seniority - Court emphasized that promotions must follow the Suresh Nathan Case II directives, focusing on merit not seniority; total services prior to degree should not count for promotion eligibility. (Paras 10, 17, 18)

(B) Recruitment Rules - Assistant Engineers position is a selection post, with no seniority-cum-merit relevance for promotions, which must adhere to merit assessments. (Paras 39, 48)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, having originally entered service as Junior Engineers with Diploma, later obtained Degrees and sought retroactive promotion to Assistant Engineer per Supreme Court judgment. They challenged the retrospective application of promotion criteria that favored seniority.

Findings of Court:
The Review DPC's failure to assess merit and its reliance on seniority contravened the Supreme Court's directive in previous judgments.

Issues: Whether the 2016 Review DPC complied with merit-based assessment criteria and if prior services as Diploma holders could count for promotions under the Degree holder's quota.

Ratio Decidendi: Court reaffirmed that promotions must be based on merit post-degree attainment and that past service as Diploma holders should not confer unfair advantages under Degree quotas.

Result: Impugned orders quashed; direction to carry out assessments based on merit in line with Suresh Nathan Case II.

Table of Content
1. introduction of applicants and respondents (Para 1 , 2)
2. promotion rules and historical context on qualifications (Para 3)
3. arguments and counterarguments from both parties (Para 4)
4. court's critical examination of promotion procedures (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. final order quashing impugned promotions (Para 19)

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J))

The applicants have filed the present OAs under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:

“Relief sought in O.A. No 1206 of 2016 :

(i) To call for the records relating to order No. 271/PW1-A1/2016, dated 29.06.2016 and order No. 271/PW1-A1/2016, dated 29.06.2016 both passed by the 4th Respondent and to quash the same.

(ii) To direct the Respondents to promote the 1st Applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f 08.03.1997, 2nd Applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f 07.06.2002 and the 3rd Applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f 07.05.2003 in accordance with the judgement laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nathan case – II with arrears of pay and all other consequential benefits;

(iii) To award costs, and pass such further and other orders as may be deemed fit and proper and thus render justice.”

Relief sought in O.A. No. 1208 of 2016 :

(i) To call for the records relating to order No. 271/PW1-A1/2016, dated 29.06.2016 and order No. 271/PW1-A1/2016, dated 29.06.2016 both passed by the 4th Respondent and to quash the same.

(ii) To direct the Respondents to promote the 1st Applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f 03.10.2012, 2nd Applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f 03.10.2012 in accordance with the judgement laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nathan case – II with arrears of pay and all other consequential benefits;

(iii) To award costs, and pass such further and other orders as may be deemed fit and proper and thus render justice.”

Relief sought in O.A. No. 1249 of 2018 :

(i) To declare that the Review DPC – II held by the Respondents which met on 11.04.2016, 18.04.2016, 12.05.2016 and on subsequent dates for reviewing the proceedings of the DPC / promotions for the various years as null and void and violative of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.Suresh Nathan case – II and to direct the official Respondents to convene a Review DPC afresh in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.Suresh Nathan case – II in its letter and spirit;

(ii) To call for the records relating to order No. 271/PW1-A1/2016, dated 29.06.2016 and order No. 271/PW1-A1/2016, dated 29.06.2016, order No. 271/PW1 – A1 /2016, dated 01.08.2016, order No. 1-4/PW- 1/A1/2016 both passed by the 4th Respondent and to quash the same.

(iii) To award costs, and pass such further and other orders as may be deemed fit and proper and thus render justice.”

2. Since the issue involved in the matter is one and the same, all the three OAs are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, are as follows:

All the Applicants have done Degree in Civil engineering and initially joined Public Works Department of Puducherry as Junior Engineers. The Private Respondents have joined service initially as Junior Engineers with a Diploma in Engineering and, subsequently, acquired Degree in Engineering. All the applicants have earned promotions to the higher posts of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer on various dates and the respective tables, showing the dates of promotion, have been filed.

3.1 The issue here being promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer are given below :

5. Whether Selection post or Non Selection post : Selection

7. Educational and other qualification required for direct recruits equivalent. : Essential Degree in Civil Engineering of a recognized university or Diploma in C

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