http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1078-1081 of 2005

PETITIONER:

SHIV NATH PRASAD

RESPONDENT:

SARAN PAL JEET SINGH TULSI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/01/2008

BENCH:

A.K. MATHUR & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

A.K. MATHUR, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the order dated

15th may 2003 passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court

in Writ Petition No. 5634 of 1999, whereby Shiv Nath Prasad, appellant

(herein) challenged the order passed by the State Administrative

Tribunal challenging the promotion of petitioner/appellant before us

and private respondents who belong to non-scheduled caste. The case

of the appellant (herein) was that he was appointed as Assistant

Engineer in the Public Works Department after selection through Madhya

Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petitioner/Appellant (Scheduled

Caste) alongwith other Schedule Caste and other private respondents

(non-SC) were selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers on the

basis of Civil Services Examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh

Public Service Commission. The names of scheduled caste candidates

appeared at S.Nos. 23, 24 and 25 below the name of the respondent

Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi (herein). After their appointment, they

joined the duties on the post of Assistant Engineer on different dates

in the year 1972. The names of the petitioner/appellant and other

scheduled caste candidates were shown in the select list prepared by

the Public Service Commission in lower position and their seniority

was also drawn on the post of Assistant Engineer in the order

mentioned in the select list. In the gradation list, issued for the

post of Assistant Engineer as on 1.4.1982, the names of the

petitioner/appellant and other scheduled caste candidates duly

selected appeared at S. Nos 187, 189 and 190, while the name of the

respondent no. 1 (herein) and others appeared between S.Nos 168-186.

Therefore, admittedly, the respondents (herein) were senior to the

petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant was

promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer in July, 1980 against

the reserved post of the Executive Engineer, whereas, other private

respondents (non-scheduled caste candidates) were not considered for

promotion on account of non-availability of post in general category.

But, they were considered and appointed on the post of Executive

Engineer in the year 1985, i.e. much after the promotions of the

scheduled caste candidates including that of petitioner/appellant

before us. A provisional gradation list was issued and published on

18.6.1991 and objections were invited and that list was finalized on

8.10.1991. In this gradation list, the candidates who were appointed

against the scheduled caste vacancies were shown above the other

private respondents who were appointed against the general quota.

Persons who were promoted against the reserved category were placed

low in the merit prepared by the Public Service Commission, but shown

as senior, on account of their earlier promotion on the post of

Executive Engineer against reserved category, and thereby having march

over the persons of the general quota, who were promoted later than

these candidates, i.e. scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. This list

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

was challenged before Tribunal and a prayer was made that they be

placed above the scheduled caste candidates, because they were not

superseded by the scheduled caste candidates but on account of non-

availability of post under general quota, they could not be promoted.

Therefore, there is no case of supersession and as such, the seniority

position of the Assistant Engineers, prepared on the basis of the

merit list of the Public Service Commission should be followed and

they be made senior to the persons, who were appointed against the

schedule