TEK CHAND vs. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (B.B.M.S.)

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4482 OF 2021 (arising out of SLP(C)No.28392 of 2018) 

VERSUS

JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The   appellants   were   promoted   to   the   post   of   Leading Fireman   on   09.02.2012   under   the   Bhakra   Beas   Management Board   Class­III   and   Class­IV   Employees   (Recruitment   and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter called “the Regulations”).  Their promotions have been annulled by the High Court,   holding   them   to   be   ineligible   for   promotion   under   the Regulations. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2021.07.29 16:54:16 IST Reason: 1 3. The post of Fireman is a feeder post for that of Leading Fireman. The appellants are admittedly senior to respondent no.3 having been appointed as Fireman on 09.02.1991.  Respondent no.3 was appointed as Fireman on 09.01.1992.  The respondent filed a writ petition claiming to be considered for promotion as Leading Fireman in view of available vacancies.  The appellants came to be promoted during the pendency of the writ petition and were impleaded as respondents. No relief was sought against the appellants.   The   High   Court   annulled   the   promotion   of   the appellants as ineligible under the Regulations, and directed the promotion of respondent no.3. 4. Shri   S.N.   Bhat,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants, submitted   that   the   appellants   are   admittedly   senior   to respondent no.3. Regulation 5 provided that promotion was to be based on the seniority­cum­merit principle.  The appellants held a good service record. The Departmental Promotion Committee after   consideration   of   their   candidature   promoted   them   on 09.02.2012 as Leading Fireman. Respondent no.3 had sought no relief for annulling the promotion of the appellants, yet the High 2 Court travelled beyond the pleadings to grant a relief not sought by respondent no.3.   5. Shri Bhat submits that the possession of an appreciation certificate under serial 3 of Schedule ‘A’ of the Regulations was not an independent requirement in addition to a good service record. It was but only a facet of the good service record.   He relies upon a passage from Principles of Statutory Interpretation th by Justice G.P. Singh, 9  Edition, which reads as under: “It is also not unusual to find use of pairs of words as a composite class. An example of this nature is found in section 22(1) of the Common Regulation   Act,   1965   which   uses   the expression   ‘sports   and   pastimes’   as   a composite class. In interpreting this expression LORD   HOFFMAN   said:   “As   a   matter   of language I think that ‘sports and pastimes’ is not   two   classes   of   activities   but   a   single composite class which uses two words in order to avoid arguments over whether an activity is a sport or pastime. The law constantly uses pairs   of   words   in   this   way.   As   long   as   the activity   can   properly   be   called   a   sport   or   a pastime, it falls within the composite class. [R. v. Oxfordshire County Council, (1999) 3 All ER 385 p.396 (HL)]” The High Court erred in holding that the two were conjunctive requirements   and   in   absence   of   appreciation   certificates,   the 3 appellants were ineligible to be considered for promotion.  Under the Regulations, promotion was to be based on seniority­cum­ merit.  Since the appellants held good service records and were senior   to   respondent   no.3,   they   were   rightly   promoted   on 09.02.2012.   Appellants   nos.1   and   3   have   since   retired   from service.   The promotion of the appellants was protected, both before the High Court and during the pendency of the present appeal.    They   have   uninterruptedly   continued   on   the   post   of Leading   Fireman.     Respondent   no.3   has   also   been   promoted subsequently on 21.07.2014 with effect from 09.02.2012. 6. Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the   management,   submitted   that   promotion   from   the   post   of Fireman to Leading Fireman under the Regulations are based on seniority­cum­merit   principle   alone.     The   appellants   are admittedly   senior   to   respondent   no.3.     There   were   21   other persons above respondent no.3 in the seniority list of Fireman, as mentioned   in   the   counter   affidavit   before   the   High   Court. Respondent   no.3   could   not   have   been   granted   promotion 4 superseding   so   many   persons   without   examination   of   their claims.  7. Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.3, submitted that the requirements to show appreciable initiative and to  obtain  good   reports  cannot  be  telescoped  together,  as suggested   on   behalf   of   the   appellants,   but   are   separate requirements.   The respondent alone possesses an appreciable initiative certificate dated 14.08.2011 from the Chief Engineer.  It was   acknowledged   that   the   respondent   has   also   since   been promoted with effect from 09.02.2012.  The respondent, though junior but being more meritorious than the appellants, there has been no violation of the seniority­cum­merit principle.  8. We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the parties. Regulations 4(5) and 5, relevant to the controversy, read as follows: “4. Mode of appointment­ xxxxxx 5 4(5)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   these regulations   appointment   by   promotion   shall   be   made   by selection   based   on   seniority­cum­merit   and   no   employee shall be entitled to such appointment as of right. 5. Qualification­ No person shall be appointed to the service unless   he   possesses   the   essential   qualifications   and experience prescribed in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with these regulations.” 9. Serial   3   to   Schedule   ‘A’   (for   Group   VIII)   prescribing   the qualifications for promotion to Leading Fireman from Fireman inter alia  reads as follows:

6 10. The Regulations provide that appointment by promotion is to be made by selection based on seniority­cum­merit and no employee   is   entitled   to   appointment   as   a   matter   of   right. Schedule ‘A’ provides three different categories of Fireman eligible to be considered for promotion to Leading Fireman.  We are not concerned   with   the   first   two   categories.     The   appellants   and respondent no.3, all belong to the third category. They do not possess   any   proficiency   qualifications   but   have   10   years’ experience as Fireman.  It was expected that they would acquire sufficient experience by that time to be considered for promotion. Experience and skill acquired during on­the­job training is very different from expertise acquired based on preceding proficiency qualifications from accredited institutions.  11.  The   term   selection   used   in   Regulation   4(5)   and   its connotation in respect of the third category of Fireman has to be understood in that context.  Though a good service record would be a  sine qua non  for selection based on seniority­cum­merit, but if a Fireman appeared to have acquired better proficiency by on­ the­job training by reason of an appreciation certificate, he would 7 certainly be considered in possession of an additional attribute. The   appellants   have   not   been   granted   appreciable   initiative certificates in performance of their duties.  We find it difficult to uphold the reasoning that both requirements were mandatory and conjunctive for promotion or that appreciable initiative was only a facet of a good service record.  If that were so, there was no need to incorporate appreciable initiative as a separate head in the Regulations.  To interpret it otherwise is to render a part of the Regulations as redundant.  The language of the Regulations being clear, it shall require a literal interpretation.  The view be taken   by   us   is   fortified   from   the   endorsement   by   the   Chief Engineer   on   the   appreciable   initiative   certificate   given   to respondent no.3 that it should be annexed to his service record. 12. In other words, a person possessing good reports is eligible to   be   considered   for   appointment   by   promotion   as   Leading Fireman based on selection.   Other things being equal between competing  candidates,   seniority   is  to  be   given  due  weightage. But it does not mean that even if a junior is more meritorious by way of possessing an appreciable initiative certificate which the 8 senior does not, irrespective of the same, the senior shall march ahead on the seniority­cum­merit principle. 13. The fallacy in the thinking of the management is evident from the letter of the Secretary dated 06.02.2011 in context of the writ petition filed by respondent no.3, opining that under the Regulations   there   was   no   provision   for   extra   weightage   of appreciation   letter   issued   to   employees.     We   are   unable   to sustain the same. 14. The   seniority­cum­merit   principle   is   well   established   in service jurisprudence and does not need much discussion.   In , (1998) 6 B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. vs. K. Addankl Babu and Ors. SCC   720,   explaining   the   principle   of   seniority­cum­merit   in service jurisprudence, this Court observed as follows: “10. On the other hand, as between the two principles of seniority and merit, the criterion of “seniority­cum­ merit” lays greater emphasis on seniority. In  State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood  [AIR 1968 SC 1113 : (1968) 3   SCR   363]   while   considering   Rule   4(3)(b)   of   the Mysore   State   Civil   Services   General   Recruitment Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­merit,   this 9 Court has observed that the Rule required promotion to   be   made   by   selection   on   the   basis   of   “seniority subject to the fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties   of   the   post   from   among   persons   eligible   for promotion”.   It   was   pointed   out   that   where   the promotion is based on seniority­cum­merit, the officer cannot claim promotion as a matter of right by virtue of   his   seniority   alone   and   if   he   is   found   unfit   to discharge the duties of the higher post, he may be passed   over   and   an   officer   junior   to   him   may   be promoted. 11. In   State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas   [(1976) 2 SCC 310] A.N. Ray, C.J. has thus explained the criterion of “seniority­cum­merit”: (SCC p. 335, para 38) “With regard to promotion the normal principles are either merit­cum­seniority or seniority­cum­ merit. Seniority­cum­merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of   administration,   the   senior   though   the   less meritorious shall have priority.” xxxxxxxxxx 18. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the criterion of  “seniority­cum­merit”  in  the  matter  of   promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior, even though less meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to be made. For assessing the minimum necessary merit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard that is required and also prescribe the mode of assessment of merit of the employee who is eligible for consideration for promotion. Such assessment can be made by assigning marks on the basis of appraisal of   performance   on   the   basis   of   service   record   and interview and prescribing the minimum marks which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority­cum­merit.” 10 15. We are unable to sustain the view taken by the High Court that it was only if a candidate possessed an appreciable initiative and also obtained good reports, then only he was eligible to be considered for promotion.   The use of the  word ‘and’, to our understanding does not make it compulsory for the candidate to possess both because in that event the question of selection from amongst the eligible post on the seniority­cum­merit principle would not apply  stricto senso .    16.  Respondent no.3 had not sought any relief for setting aside the promotion of the appellants.  The High Court travelled beyond the pleadings in annulling the promotion of the appellants.  The High Court even while holding that promotion was not a matter of  right,   nonetheless   instead   of   directing   consideration   of   the claim of respondent no.3 for promotion, exceeded its jurisdiction by   issuing   a   mandamus   for   promotion.     The   High   Court completely lost sight of the objection of the management that there were many others senior to respondent no.3 in the category of Fireman.  A writ petition by respondent no.3 could not become 11 a springboard for out of turn promotion superseding his seniors, taking them by surprise without an opportunity to contest even. The   impugned   order   directing   promotion   of   respondent   no.3, causes discrimination by a judicial order leaving the aggrieved remediless as observed in   Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ex­ employees   Association   vs.   Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation   (1995) 2 SCC 15.   Appropriately the High Court ought to Ltd.   have directed consideration of respondent no.3 for promotion in accordance with law.  However, in the facts of the case we are not inclined to interfere with the promotion of respondent no.3. 17. The appeal therefore is allowed holding that the appellants were   eligible   to   be   considered   for   promotion.   Their   orders   of promotion are restored subject to the principle of seniority­cum­ merit as discussed hereinabove.  …………...................J. [NAVIN SINHA] …………...................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY] NEW DELHI JULY 29, 2021. 12