Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENT, U.T. CH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KAMLESH BABOO ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT25/02/1993
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (2) 121 1993 SCC Supl. (2) 628
JT 1993 Supl. 25 1993 SCALE (1)716
ACT:
Civil Services :
Punjab Service of Engineers Class I (Buildings and Roads
Branch) Rules, 1960-Rules 6(1), 8, 12-Post of Executive
Engineer, Class I-Promotion and Seniroity-Determination-
1.1.1985 eligibility date for promotion-Promotion w.e.f.
21.1.1986-Whether legal.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent in C.A. No.182 of 1993 joined service as
Section Officer under the appellant on 83.1971. On
29.12.1976 he was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional
Engineer and was confirmed on 13.8.1985. With effect from
21.1.1986, the. respondent was promoted as Executive
Engineer (Civil).
The service particulars of the respondent in C.A. No.183 of
1993 were identical.
The respondents approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal to determine their seniority in the cadre of
Executive Engineers from the date of eligibility, ie.
1.1.1985 and not from 21.1.1986.
The Tribunal allowed the applications of the respondents,
against which the present appeals were riled by the
Administration.
Allowing the appeals, this Court,
HELD:1.01. The selection to the post of Executive
Engineer was to be done by following the procedure laid down
under Rule 8 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I
(Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 1960. Eligibility under
Rule 6(b) of the Rules by itself does not give a right to a
member of Class 11 service to be promoted to the post of
Executive Engineer in Class I service. The promotion has to
be made in accordance with the procedure laid down under
Rule 8 of the Rules. No member of Class 11 service can
claim
122
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the ground of
eligibility alone. Unless a Class II officer has been
selected in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules he cannot be
promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. [125C-E]
1.02. The question of assigning seniority in Class I
service only arises after a Class 11 officer has been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
selected and appointed to the said service. The seniority in
class I is determined under Rule 12 of the Rules, keeping in
view the date of appointment as a result of selection under
Rule 8 of the Rules. [125F]
1.03. The respondents in these appeals were appointed to
the post of Executive Engineer, as a result of selection
held under Rule 8 of the Rules, with effect from January 21,
1986. Their seniority has to be determined in Class I
service keeping in view the date of their appointments as
January 21, 1986. [125F-G]
1.04 The Tribunal grossly erred in directing the Chandigarh
Administration to give seniority to the Respondents from the
date of their eligibility. The respondents can neither be
given the date of appointment as January 1, 1985 nor their
seniority fixed from that date. The directions of the
Tribunal in this respect are patently violative of the
Rules. [125G-H]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 182 and 183
of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.86 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A./T.A. Nos.49 & 102
of 1986.
Raj Birbal for the Appellant.
Rajinder Sachher, Mahabir Singh and A.K Mahajan for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. Kamlesh Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj were
promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from
January 21, 1986 in the Engineering Department of the
Chandigarh Administration. The promotion was made on the
basis of merit and suitability as determined under the
provisions of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I
(Buildings and Road Branch) Rules, 1960 (Rules) as
applicable to the Chandigarh Administration. Both of them
approached the Central Administrative
123
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench seeking a direction to the effect
that their ’seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers be
determined from the date when they became eligible to be
considered for promotion under the Rules. In other words,
they claimed January 1, 1985 the eligibility date as the
date of their promotion to the post of Executive Engineer
instead of January 21, 1986 when they were actually
promoted. The Tribunal by its order dated June 6, 1986
granted the relief asked for by Kamlesh Baboo and V.K.
Bhardwaj in the following terms:
"In view of the above discussion, we direct
that the applicant, who was promoted as
Executive Engineer from 21.1.1986 (vide Office
Order dated 20.1.1986 and 2.5.1986) shall be
continued as Executive Engineer even if the
approval of the U.P.S.C. is not received
within six months from the date of
his promotion. For the purposes of seniority,
the applicant shall be considered from the
date when he became eligible. The promotion
of the applicant as Executive Engineer, shall
however, be subject to the approval by the
U.P.S.C. and without prejudice to the decision
of the competent court in the matter of
seniority, which is in dispute."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
These two appeals by the Chandigarh Administration are
against the order of the Tribunal.
Kamlesh Baboo joined service as Section Officer under the
Chandigarh Administration on March 8, 1971. He was promoted
to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on December 29, 1976
and was confirmed as such on August 13, 1985. The service
particulars of V.K. Bhardwaj are identical.
The conditions of service of the respondents are governed by
the Rules. Rules 6(b) and 8 (1)(3)(4)(8)(9)(10)(11) which
are relevant are reproduced hereunder:
"6 (b) in the case of an appointment by
promotion from Class 11 Service has 8 years
completed service, in that class and has
passed the departmental examination, as
provided in rule 15;
8(1) A committee consisting of the Chairman of
the Public
124
Service Commission or where the Chairman is
unable to attend, any other member of the
Commission representing it, the Secretary,
P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch), and the
Chief Engineers, Punjab, P.W.D. Buildings and
Roads Branch, shall be constituted.
(3)The Committee shall meet at intervals,
ordinarily not exceeding one year, and
consider the cases of all eligible officers
for promotion to the senior scale of the
Service, as on the first day of January of
that year.
(4)The Committee shall prepare a list of
officers suitable for promotion to the senior
scale of the Service. The selection for
inclusion in such list shall be based on merit
and suitability in all respects with due
regard to seniority.
(8)The fist prepared or revised in accordance
with subrules (4), (5) and (6) shall then be
forwarded to the Commission by Government
along with
(i) the records of all officers included in
the list;
(ii) records of all officers proposed to be
superseded as a result of the recommendations
made by the Committee;
(iii)the reasons, if any, recorded by the
Committee for the proposed supersession of any
officer;
(iv) the observations, if any of the State
Government on the recommendation of the
Committee.
(9) The Commission shall consider the list
prepared by the Committee along with other
documents received from the State Government
and,unless it considers any change necessary,
approve the list.
(10) If the Commission considers it necessary
to make any, changes in the list received from
Government, the ’Commission shall make the
changes it proposes and forward the list it
considers suitable to the State Government.
125
(11) Appointments to the Service shall be
made by Government from this list in the order
in which names have been placed by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
Commission."
It is not disputed that the respondents in these two appeals
completed eight years of service in Class 11 cadre, by the
end of December 1984 and as such they were eligible to be
considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer
on January 1, 1985. The selection to the post of Executive
Engineer was to be done by following the procedure laid down
under Rule 8 of the Rules, reproduced above. Rule 8 of the
Rules envisages a Selection Committee presided over by
Chairman/Member of the Public Service Commission. The
Committee considers the cases of eligible officers on the
basis of merit and suitability, the list of the selected
officers is sent to the Commission for final approval and
thereafter the appointments are made out of the approved
list in accordance with the merit assigned therein. It is
thus obvious that eligibility under Rule 6(b) of the Rules
by, itself does not give a right to a member of Class II
service to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in
Class I service. The promotion has to be made in accordance
with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules. No
member of Class 11 service can claim promotion to the post
of Executive Engineer on the ground of eligibility alone.
Unless a Class 11 officer has been selected in accordance
with Rule 8 of the Rules he cannot be promoted to the post
of Executive Engineer. The question of Assigning seniority
in Class I service only arises after a Class 11 officer has
been selected and appointed to the said service. The
seniority in class I is determined under Rule 12 of the
Rules, keeping in view the date of appointment as a result
of selection under Rule 8 of the Rules. Both the
respondents in these appeals were appointed to the post of
Executive Engineer, as a result of selection held under Rule
8 of the Rules, with effect from January 21, 1986. Their
seniority has to be determined in class I service keeping in
view the date of their appointments as January 21, 1986.
The Tribunal grossly erred in directing the Chandigarh
Administration to give seniority to the respondents from the
date of their eligibility. The respondents can neither be
given the date of appointment as January 1, 1985 nor their
seniority fixed from that date. The directions of the
Tribunal in this respect are patently violative of the Rules
and cannot be sustained. Even otherwise both Kamlesh Baboo
and V.K. Bhardwaj were working as
126
Sub Divisional Engineer on January 1, 1985 and as such
treating them to have been appointed to Class I service from
that date and giving them benefit towards seniority on that
basis would be wholly erroneous.
The question as to whether the deputationists from Punjab
and Haryana should be permitted to continue to serve the
Chandigarh Administration has no relevance to the
controversy involved in these appeals. That is a matter of
policy between the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union
Territory of Chandigarh. The Tribunal was wholly
unjustified in seeking support from the non-existent fact
that because of the presence of many deputationists the
respondents in these appeals were not being considered for
promotion. As a matter of fact the respondents got their
promotion at the earliest possible opportunity. They became
eligible on January 1, 1985 and thereafter within a period
of one year the procedure under Rule 8 was completed and
they were promoted with effect from January 21, 1986.
We allow the appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal
dated June 6, 1986 and dismiss the applications filed by
respondents Kamlesh Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj before the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
Tribunal. No costs.
V.P.R.
Appeals allowed.
127