Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
D. STEPHEN JOSEPH.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF LNDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/1997
BENCH:
G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short
question that arises for decision in this case is whether
for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the 5O%
promotion quota reserved for the person possessing, degree
in Electrical Engineering from a recognised University or an
equivalent with three years regular service in the grade of
Junior Engineers, in the electricity department, Government
of Pondicherry, three years experience as Junior Engineer in
the grade is to be counted from the date of acquisition of
the degree in Electrical Engineering or the length of
service in the grade of Junior Engineers is to be reckoned
if the incumbent at the time of promotion to the 30% quota
also possesses degree in Electrical Engineering.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by
the impugned order has held that the respondents who are
holding the post of Junior Engineers and hare three years’
regular service in that grade and also possess degree in
Electrical Engineering will be entitled to get such
promotion to 50% reserved quota and their experience of
three years is not to be reckoned from the date of
acquisition of the degree in Electrical Engineering Such
decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal is being
impugned in this case.
Mr. Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for
appellant has contended that the plain language of the
Rule need not be followed in all cases and in applying the
rule for promotion to 50% quota from amongst Junior
Engineers with degree in Electrical Engineering, past
practice is required to be considered as held by this court
in N Suresh Nathan and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992
Suppl. (1) SCC page 484). If the past practice is taken into
consideration for the purpose of interpreting said Rule, it
will be quite evident that experience of three years had
always been reckoned from the date of the acquisition of the
degree in Electrical Engineering. Therefore, the decision of
the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the promotion of
private respondents in the 50% quota earmarked for the
persons holding degree in Electrical Engineering could not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
have been given to the said private respondents.
It appears to us that the State Government is labouring
under a wrong impression as to the applicability of the past
practice as indicated that past practice should not be
upset provided such practice conforms to the rule for
promotion and consistently for some time past the rule has
been made applicable in a particular manner. In our view,
the decision in Nathan’s case only indicates that past
practice must be referable to the applicability of the Rule
by interpreting it in a particular manner consistently for
some time. Any past practice dehors the Rule cannot be taken
into consideration as past practice consistently followed
for long by interpreting the Rule. It may be indicated here
that a similar question also came up for consideration
before this Court in M.B. Joshi and Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar
Pandey and Ors. (1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 419 ). The decision in
Suresh Nathan’s case was distinguished in the its of that
case and it was indicated that when the language of the Rule
is quite specific that if a particular length of service in
the feeder post together with educational qualification
enable a candidate to be considered for promotion, it will
not be proper to count the experience only from the date of
acquisition of superior educational qualification because
such interpretation will violate the very purpose to give
incentive to the employee to acquire higher education.
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the rule
for promotion to 5O% quota came into effect in 1982 and in
1987 and thereafter only some ad hoc promotions were given,
Therefore, there is no occasion to proceed to proceed on the
footing that the Rule for promotion since effective from
1982 has been followed differently by giving an
interpretation of the Rule as was noted in the decision in
Suresh Nathan’s case. Therefor, in our view, the decision in
Suresh Nathan’s case, which is an exception to the accepted
principle of interpretation of the Rule on the plain
language, only under special circumstances, has no manner of
application in the facts of the case. We, therefore, find no
reason to interfere with the ultimate decision of the
Tribunal. This appeal, therefore fails and is dismissed
without any order as to costs.