Seniors cannot claim promotion parity where juniors possess different prescribed qualifications and eligibility requirements.

The applicants, employees of the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers, held diploma qualifications in engineering and had served in the technical cadre, ultimately being appointed/promoted as Assistant Foremen (Gazetted), later merged with the post of Foreman pursuant to the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations.

Under the Corps of E.M.E. Assistant Executive Engineers (Group ‘A’) Recruitment Rules, 2004, promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer (“AEE”) required, inter alia, five years’ regular service in the grade of Foreman.

In October 2010, six Foremen junior to the applicants in the seniority roll were promoted as AEE; those promotees possessed engineering degrees, whereas the applicants possessed engineering diplomas.

Their representations seeking promotion and consequential benefits were rejected by order dated 17 January 2012 on the ground that no junior diploma-holder had been promoted and that the promoted employees were degree-holders.

Whether the applicants, as senior diploma-holding Foremen, were entitled to consideration for promotion as AEE under Note 3 to SRO 170 merely because junior degree-holding Foremen had been promoted.

Whether the rejection of the applicants’ representations and their non-consideration for promotion violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the applicants were entitled to retrospective promotion from October 2010, arrears of salary, consequential benefits, and restoration of seniority over the promoted employees.

The Tribunal applied the Corps of E.M.E. Assistant Executive Engineers (Group ‘A’) Recruitment Rules, 2004, under which promotion to AEE depended on the prescribed eligibility conditions, including the requisite regular service in the grade of Foreman.

It also considered Note 3 to SRO 170 dated 23 November 2004, which provides that where juniors who have completed the qualifying service are considered for promotion, their seniors must also be considered if they are short of the prescribed qualifying service by not more than half of that service or two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed probation.

The Tribunal further relied upon the Principal Bench’s decision in OA No. 1459 of 2011, which held that where the qualifying-service requirements for diploma-holders and degree-holders differ, the respondents should evolve a methodology—such as separate seniority lists or promotional quotas—to prevent a senior from feeling superseded by a junior, although the OA itself was dismissed.

The applicants’ constitutional reliance was based on the general guarantees of equality and equality of opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal found that the October 2010 promotions were made from among Foremen who possessed engineering degrees, while the applicants possessed diplomas; therefore, the promoted employees were not similarly situated for the purpose of applying the applicants’ claim of automatic parity.

The respondents’ position was that no junior diploma-holder had been promoted and that the applicants could not claim comparison with degree-holders whose eligibility conditions differed.

Although Note 3 was relied upon by the applicants, the Tribunal did not grant them promotion or arrears under that provision.

Since the parties could not clarify whether that decision had attained finality, the Tribunal directed that the present matter be decided in the same manner and language as the earlier decision, rather than issuing an independent direction for retrospective promotion.

It nevertheless reiterated the observation that the respondents should evolve an appropriate methodology—possibly through separate seniority lists or promotional quotas—to address the different qualifying-service requirements applicable to diploma- and degree-holders and to avoid the perception that seniors had been superseded by juniors.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.