Supreme Court of India
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC.versusRAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR. ETC.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 607
- Decided
- 5 September 2014
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A diploma‑holder Project Engineer (Junior) who obtains the AMIE qualification is not entitled to count his pre‑qualification service for eligibility under the degree‑holder quota; the three years of experience must be accrued after acquiring the qualification.
Summary
The case concerned promotion of Project Engineer (Junior) staff in the Rajasthan Housing Board. Diploma‑holder engineers who later obtained the AMIE qualification (equivalent to a degree) claimed that their service as diploma‑holders should count towards the three‑year experience required for promotion under the 20% quota reserved for degree‑holder engineers. The Board had prepared separate eligibility lists for degree and diploma holders and a resolution allowed diploma‑holders with AMIE to be placed lower in the degree‑holder list, counting past service in a 3:7 ratio. The Supreme Court held that the seniority list must remain common and that a diploma‑holder who acquires AMIE cannot count pre‑qualification service for the degree‑holder quota; the required three years of experience must be earned after obtaining the degree. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, reversing the High Court’s view on the experience‑counting issue, while the order directing separate seniority lists was upheld. The Court directed the Board to implement the decision without reopening earlier promotions not challenged in the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether a diploma‑holder Project Engineer (Junior) who acquires the AMIE qualification can count his service prior to acquiring the qualification towards the three‑year experience requirement for promotion under the degree‑holder quota.
- Whether the Board may prepare separate seniority lists for degree‑holder and diploma‑holder Project Engineers (Junior) for the purpose of promotion.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Service lawPromotionSeniority listQualification equivalenceAMIEQuotaEligibility criteriaAdministrative law
Judgment
[2014) 10 S.C.R. 397
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. A
V.
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8479-8482 of 2014)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2014
B
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
Service law:
Seniority list - Preparing two separate seniority lists for
c
Diploma Holders and Degree Holders for the purpose of
promotion in their respective quotas - Held: Board can
legitimately prepare separate eligibility lists of Project
Engineer (Jr) holding degree and those holding diploma -
However, such eligibility list could not be mistaken for seniority D
list which must remain common based upon merit assessed
9t the time of selection for recruitment - Rajasthan Housing
Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion
Regulations, 1976.
E
Promotion - Seniority list - Dispute between diploma
holder and degree holder engineers - Entitlement of Diploma
Holder Project Engineers (Jr.) upon acquiring degree!
qualification of 'AMIE' to count their experience of service prior
to acquisition of such qualification for the purpose of eligibility F
of 3 years total experience of service for promotion to the post
of Project Engineer (Sr.) in the quota fixed for Degree Holders
- Held: Not entitled - In order to claim promotion against such
quota 3 years experience of service must be acquired after
obtaining the qualification/degree of AMIE. G
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Initially only diploma holders were
appointed under the Regulations to the post of Project
397 H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A Engineer (Jr.) and on their acquiring the certificate of
AMIE while in service they were to be given benefit of their
past service as diploma holders in the ratio of 3:7, i.e., 3
years of their service with AMIE was treated as 7 years
of service as diploma holder for the purpose of eligibility
B for promotion. This benefit of past service in the
prescribed ratio was on account of a Resolution of the
Board dated 17.4.1979 which records that "the present
practice of placing the Diploma Holder Engineers who
have cleared AMIE examination in the bottom of the list
c of Degree Holders, is appropriate. Clause (9)(A) which
provides for promotion when read together with the
Schedule Technical leaves no manner of doubt that in
respect of first promotion to higher post, i.e., promotion
from post of Project Engineer (Jr.) to Project Engineer
(Senior}, promoti9n of eligible person is required to be
0
made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The High Court
has rightly held that the cadre of Project Engineer (Jr.)
cannot be bifurcated for the purpose of seniority alone,
only on the ground that for promotion to the cadre of
Project Engineer (Sr.) there is provision for 20% quota for
E degree holders and 30% quota for diploma holders. The
practical view of the High Court cannot be faulted that the
Board can legitimately prepare separate eligibility lists of
Project Engineer (Jr.) holding degree and those holding
diploma. Such eligibility list could not be mistaken for
F seniority list which must remain common based upon
merit assessed at the time of selection for recruitment.
Only if the selection process had been different, there
could have been any scope to argue for separate
seniority lists. In absence of any legal stipulation for
G altering the initial seniority, pre-determined on the basis
of merit at the time of initial selection and date of regular
appointment, the seniority list cannot be altered only
because some diploma holder Project Engineers (Jr.)
acquired the qualification of AMIE equivalent to a degree.
H The three years' or seven years' experience of service will
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 399
BOARD
entitle the degree holders and the diploma holders A
respectively only for inclusion of their names in the
eligibility lists for promotion so as to work out
satisfactorily the provision for different quota for the
degree holders and the diploma holders. [Paras 8, 19]
[405-E-G; 411-B-H] B
2. Degree with three years' service experience and
diploma with seven years' service experience by itself
indicates qualitative difference in the service rendered as
a degree holder and that rendered as a diploma holder. C
The relevant regulation does not contemplate any
reduced total experience for promotion for a diploma
holder who may acquire degree or AMIE qualification
while in service. In such a situation in order to enter into
the water-tight compartment of the quota for the degree
holders with three years' experience of service, a diploma D
holder with AMIE qualification must show that he fulfills
the entire eligibility criterion, i.e., he is a degree holder
with three years' experience of service as a degree
holder. The word 'total' occurring before the words
'experience of service' cannot be construed to mean E
service rendered either as diploma holder or degree
holder. A diploma holder in any case is required to have
seven years' experience of service for being eligible for
promotion and hence the word 'total' would be otiose or
redundant in the aforesaid context. [Paras 29 to 31] [421- F
H; 422-A, D-G; 423-D]
3. The Project Engineers (Jr.) recruited on the basis
of diploma, upon their acquiring the qualification of
'AMIE', are not entitled to count their experience of G
service prior to acquisition of such qualification for the
purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Project
Engineer (Sr.) against the quota fixed for promotion of
degree holder Project Engineers (Jr.). In order to claim
promotion against such 20% quota the three years' H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A experience of service must be acquired after obtaining the
qualification or degree of AMIE. [paras 34, 35) [425-B-C]
Shailendra Dania v. S. P. Dubey (2007) 5 SCC 535:
2007 (5) SCR 190 - relied on.
B N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 1992
Supp. (1) SCC 584: 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 423; Indian
Airlines Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Gopalakrishnan (2001) 2 SCC
362:2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 548; Challa Jaya Bhaskar & Ors.
v. Thungathurthi Surender & Ors. '(2010) 13 SCC 348: 2010
C (13) SCR 643; Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. v. C.K. Saji & Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 734: 2004 (2) SCR 330; Vijay Singh Deora &
Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1997) 3 SCC 118: 1996
(7) Suppl. SCR 170; Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 128: 1999 (4)
D Suppl. SCR 553; M.B. Joshi & Ors. etc. v. Satish Kumar
Pandey & Ors. etc. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 419:1992 (2) Suppl.
SCR 1; A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra
Nath & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 30: 2000 (2) SCR 943; Chand
Adlakha & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 1989
E (1) Supp. SCC 116: 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 253; D. Stephen
Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 753: 1997 (3)
SCR 1040 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
F 2007 (5) SCR 190 relied on Para 21
1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 423 referred to Para 21
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 548 referred to Para 21
2010 (13) SCR 643 referred to Para 21
G
2004 (2) SCR 330 referred to Para 21
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 170 referred to Para 21
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 553 referred to Para 22
H
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 401
BOARD
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 referred to Para 22 A
2000 (2) SCR 943 referred to Para 22
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 253 referred to Para 22
1997 (3) SCR 1040 referred to Para 27
B
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
8479-8482 of 2014.
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.05.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. c
Special Appeal (Civil) No.64/1993, D.B. Special Appeal (Civil)
No. 67/1993, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7063/1993 & D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 20/1993.
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Shobha, Jyoti Rana, Prasanna
Mohan, Ambika Bedi, Piyush Jain, Ankit Sethi, Ravindra Bana D
for the Appellants.
Vijay Hansaria, Sadri Das Sharma, Narottam Vyas, Satish
Chand Varma, Ved Parya, Manu Mridul, Abhijit Sengupta, Ekta
Rai, Anish Kumar Gupta, Deep Shikha Bharti, R.D. Gupta, E
Abhishek Gupta, Praveen Chaturvedi, M.L. Lahoty, Rashmi
Singhania, Gargi B. Bharati, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Milind
Kumar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Leave granted·.
2. These appeals are further additions to the long list of .
service matters decided by High Courts and this Court resolving . ··,:
disputes between "Diploma Holder" and "Degree Holder" G
Engineers in the matter of eligibility for further promotion. All
the appellants belonged to the category of degree holder
engineers appointed as Project Engineers (Junior) in the
service of Rajasthan Housing Board (for sake of brevity referred
to as 'the Board'). The contesting respondents also held the H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A same post but initially only as diploma holder who later acquired
qualification of AMIE which is admittedly equivalent to degree
in Engineering.
3. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment
B passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at
Jaipur Bench and the facts as well as issues of law are
common, all the appeals have been heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. At the outset, two important issues raised by way of
C questions of law in these appeals need to be noticed so that
subsequent discussion of facts and law may be of help in
answering both the issues/questions in controversy. The issues
are:
D (i) Whether the Division Bench of the High Court has
erred in holding that the Diploma Holder Project
Engineers (Junior) upon acquiring degree I
qualification of 'AMIE' would be entitled to count
their experience of service prior to acquisition of
such qualification for the purpose of eligibility of 3
E
years total experience of service for promotion to
the post of Project Engineer (Sr.) in the quota fixed
for Degree Holders?
(ii) Whether the Division Bench has erred in setting
F aside the direction of the learned Single Judge for
preparing two separate seniority lists for Diploma
Holders and Degree Holders for the purpose of
promotion in their respective quotas?
G 5. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 oftl-le
Rajasthan Housing Board Act, the Board made Rajasthan
Housing Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and
Promotion Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Regulations'). Chapter II of the Regulations contains Clauses
H (6) to (10) providing for Conditions of Recruitment and
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 403.
. BOARD [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]
Promotion. Clause (6) provides the manner of filling up the A
posts created from time to time. In the context of absorption of
employees working in the Board on deputation, the word
'category' has been used in the context of posts created and
vacant. Clause (7) provides as follows :
B
"(7) The ratio of direct recruitment and promotion of
employees in the service of the Board and
qualification and experience required for various
posts will be in accordance with the 'Schedule'
appended to these Regulations."
c
Clause (9)(A) of the Regulations pertains to promotion and
provides as under :
"(9)(A) Promotion
D
In respect of first promotion to higher post,
promotion of eligible person shall be made on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit. Second promotion
shall be made on the basis of merit and seniority-
cum-merit in the promotion of 50:50."
E
Clause (9)(B) provides that "seniority lists for each category
of employees will be prepared and maintained." Clause (10)
pertains to 'seniority' and reads thus:
"(10) Seniority :
F
Amongst the persons recruited in the same year,
the promotees will rank senior to those who will be
appointed by direct recruitment. Amongst the
promotees those who are appointed on the basis
of seniority cum merit with rank senior to those who G
are appointed on the basis of merit with due regard
to seniority. The inter se seniority of those
appointed on the_ basis of merit will be in
accordance with their relative seniority in the lower
cadre." H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A ~-, Ctiapter Ill of the Regulations contains Miscellaneous
Provisions and includes Clause (12) which empowers the
Board tc)issue general instructions not inconsistent with the Act
and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder for the
purpose of removing doubt, lacuna, inconsistency or anomaly
B which may arise in interpreting the Regulations or in giving
effect to them or in putting them to application. The Regulations
contain various schedules as appendices. In the case at hand
"Schedule Technical" alone is of significance and that shows
the post of Project Engineer (Junior) at the entry level. 97% of
c this post is to be filled by direct recruitment and 3% by Board
employees. The basic qualification required is a Degree or
Diploma in Civil Engineering. The next post in hierarchy,
promotion to which is uncjer issue, is Project Engineer (Senior).
The source of recruitment for this post is 50% by direct
D recruitment, 20% by promotion of degree holder and 30% by
promotion of diploma holder. For direct recruitment, the
essential qualification is a Degree in Civil Engineering in First
Division with at least one year's experience in design and
construction of building. The 50% posts to be filled up by
E promotion of Project Engineer (Junior) require further minimum
experience and qualification as laid down in Column 6 of the
Schedule Technical. Since the contesting respondents have laid
a great amount of emphasis on several words prescribing the
minimum experience and qualification required for promotion,
the provisions of relevant Column No.6 are extracted
F hereinbelow :
"Post to be filled in by promotion from amongst the
P.E.Jr.'s who are degree holders with 3 years total
experience of service.
G
Post to be filled in by promotion from P.E.Jr.'s who are
diploma holders with 7 years total experience of service.
(137.20)
Govt. approved Dt.25.2.2000 w.e.f. 9.12.87
r
H
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 405
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
Or A
Qualification recognized by the State Govt. to be equivalent
to Degree in Civil Engineering."
7. There are four higher posts in the, hierarchy above the
post of Project Engineer (Senior). All of them are required to B
be filled up only by promotion and require a Degree in
Engineering in Civil, except the post of Resident Engineer just
above that of Project Engineer (Senior) which requires filling
up "75% by degree holder and 25% by diploma holder by
rranting promotion to eligible Project Engineer (Senior)". C
Column 6 of the Schedule Technical provides minimum
experience and qualification for promotion to the post of
Resident Engineer as (i) Degree Holder with 5 years'
experience and (ii) Diploma Holder with 13 years experience.
A diploma holder, as noticed earlier, is not qualified for any D
further promotion.
8. From the facts available on record it appears that
initially only diploma holders were appointed under the
Regulations to the post of Project Engineer (Junior) and on their E
acquiring the certificate of AMIE while in service they were to
be given benefit of their past service as diploma holders in the
ratio of 3:7, i.e., 3 years of their service with AMIE was treated
as 7 years of service as diploma holder for the purpose of
eligibility for promotion. This benefit of past service in the
F
prescribed ratio was on account of a Resolution of the Board
dated 17.4.1979 which records that "the present practice of
placing the Diploma Holder Engineers who have cleared AMIE
examination in the bottom of the list of Degree Holders, is
appropriate. But it has also been decided that their experience
should be determinant in the ratio of 3:7 (3 years degree G
holders equal to 7 years diploma holders)". Some diploma
holders who were initially appointed as Project Engineers
(Junior) purely on ad-hoc basis were not only regularized by the
Board vide Order dated 18.5.1987 but they were also given
benefit of their past service like the regularly appointed diploma H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A holders and together with the latter category they also gained
ad-hoc promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) in
the year 1992. In the meantime, pursuant to an advertisement
of March 1988 issued by the Board, the appellants as degree
holders applied and on selection, were appointed to the post
B of Project Engineer (Junior) on 18.3.1989. It appears that a
common Provisional Seniority List of Project Engineer (Junior)
including diploma, AMIE and degree holders had been issued
on 11.8.1989 and although appellants had objected to the said
seniority list, promotions were granted by the Board to few
c diploma holders on ad-hoc basis in January and February
1992, as noted above.
9. Appellants - K.K. Dixit and some others preferred writ
petition challenging the Resolution of the Board dated
17,4.1979, the joint Provisional Seniority List dated 11.8.1989
D and ad-hoc promotion of the Diploma Holders with AMIE. The
writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 7.7.1993
after deciding only the issue relating to counting of experience
and holding that only such service could count for eligibility for
promotion which was rendered by the ad-hoc Project Engineer
E (Junior) after regularization. It was held that their experience as
ad-hoc appointees shall not be taken into consideration.
10. The writ petitioners preferred a review petition praying
for passing of judgment on the other two grievances raised in
F the writ petition. The first grievance was that seniority list of
degree holders and diploma holders on the post of Project
Engineer (Junior) should be prepared separately. The other
grievance was that in view of the Resolution No.6 dated
17.4.1979 those diploma holders who passed AMIE
G examination while in service, should be placed below the
degree holders of that year. Both the aforesaid claims or
grievances were based upon the plea that as per recruitment
rules there is separate quota for the degree holders and also
a separate quota for diploma holders. The learned Single
H Judge, by Order dated 21.9.1993, allowed the review petition
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 407
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
to the extent of directing that the Board shall prepare separate A
seniority lists for degree holders and diploma holders Project
Engineer (Junior) and such of the Project Engineers (Junior)
who have passed AMIE examination while in service, shall be
placed lowest in that year in the seniority list of degree holder
Project Engineers (Junior). B
11. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.07.1993 passed
by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and also against
order dated 21.9.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Review Petition, some of the affected diploma holders preferred C
D.S. Spl. Appeal (C) No.67 of 1993 and 64 of 1993
respectively. Five other matters including D.B. Civil Writ Petition
Nos.20 of 1993 and 7063 of 1993 were also tagged with the
Special Appeals. They were heard together and partly allowed
by a common judgment dated 25.5.2007 which is under
challenge in these appeals preferred by those who had entered D
Board's service as degree holders on the post of Project
Engineers (Junior). Since these appeals arise from only four
out of seven matters decided by the Division Bench of the High
Court, it is not necessary to indicate details of the remaining
three matters which were also disposed of by the common order E
under appeal.
12. By the judgment under appeal, the High Court has
decided three questions under controversy between the parties.
The High Court has summarized the three questions thus : F
"1. Whether the Project Engineer (Junior) who were initially
appointed on ad-hoc/officiating/urgent temporary basis,
upon being screened and made members of service with
reference to clause 3 of the Note below 'Schedule
Technical' of the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees G
Condition of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations,
1976 are entitled to count the period of service rendered
in trat capacity for the purpose of seniority and experience
for eligibility of promotion to the post of Project Engineer
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A (Senior) as provided for in column No.6 of Sr. No.2 in the
'Schedule Technical' of Regulations of 1976?
2. Whether the Project Engineers (Junior) recruited on the
basis of diploma, upon their acquiring the qualification of
'AMIE', are entitled to count their experience of service
B
prior to acquisition of such qualification for the purpose of
eligibility of 'three years total experience of service' for
promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) as
provided for in column No.6 of Sr. No.2 of 'Schedule
Technical' of Regulations of 1976?
c
3. Whether according to the Regulations of 1976 the
diploma holders Project Engineers (Junior) on acquiring
the qualification of 'AMIE' are liable to be placed in the
seniority list of Project Engineers (Junior) below degree
D holders available as on the date of their acquiring such
qualification and further whether according to the
Regulations of 1976, a separate seniority list of Project
Engineers (Junior) based on their educational qualification,
viz.-degree and diploma, is required to be maintained?"
E
13. On behalf of the appellants, learned counsel Ms.
Shobha led the arguments. It was categorical stand of the
appellants that since Question no.1 was decided against the
ad-hoc/officiating category of Project Engineer (Junior) and no
one from that category has preferred any appeal, hence answer
F to that question has attained finality. Learned counsel for the
appellants has seriously assailed the findings given against the
appellants in respect of Question nos.2 and 3.
14. According to the High Court the Resolution of the Board
G dated 17.04.1979 affirming the alleged practice of placing the
diploma holder engineers who have cleared AMIE examination
in the bottom of the list of degree holders and giving them
benefit of their experience in service as diploma holders only
in the ratio of 3:7 is neither justified by past practice nor by the
H Regulations. It was also held that the learned Single Judge
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 409
BOARD [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]
erred in directing the Board to prepare two separate seniority A
lists. Thus the Division Bench answered Questions nos.2 and
3 against the appellants by reversing the effect of order passed
by the learned Single Judge in review and also by granting the
benefit of entire past service once a diploma holder cleared
AMIE examination. B
15. Before deciding the two main issues raised on behalf
of th'e appellants as noticed earlier, it may be useful to note
certain subsequent developments which are not in dispute.
Pursuant to the impugned order of the High Court the Board
issued a provisiona~ common seniority list on 30.06.2007 and C
withdrew the Resolution dated 17.04.1979 on 06.07.2007. A
final common seniority list was issued on 27.08.2007 and
according to appellants it was prepared without deciding their
objections. Provisional promotions have been granted to
several persons to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) who D
cleared AMIE examination while in service and were allegedly
much junior to the appellants with respect to the date of
acquiring eligibility for such promotions. The Special Leave
Petitions giving rise to the present appeals were preferred in
this Court on 25.09.2007 or soon thereafter. While issuing E
notice in one such matter, on 26.10.2007 this Court directed
that no coercive steps shall be taken in the meantime. On
19.07 .2010, 200 posts of Project Engineer (Junior) were
upgraded to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) and 31 such
posts were abolished. As a consequence of upgradation, on F
12.08.2010, 168 persons holding the post of Project Engineer
(Junior) came to acquire the upgraded post of Project Engineer
(Senior).
16. On account of the present dispute raised by appellants G
K.K. Dixit and some others through writ petitions filed in the year
1992, inter a/ia, against ad-hoc promotions, the Board has
granted only ad-hoc promotions even subsequently and hence
resolution of the dispute appears to be necessary to enable
regularization of those promotions in accordance with law and
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A the Regulations and also for making regular promotions to the
next higher post of Resident Engineer. The issues under
consideration relate only to eligibility for promotion against
respective quotas and not to the Regulations providing for
seniority and promotion.
B
17. The issues relating to Question no.3 decided by the
High Court are not very contentious and hence those are taken
up first. The learned Single Judge directed for preparation of
two seniority lists, one for the degree holders and another for
C diploma holders only with a view to give effect to the Resolution
of the Board dated 17 .04.1979 without undertaking the
necessary exercise for finding out whether the Resolution was
in consonance or in conflict with the Regulations. Such exercise
was undertaken by the Division Bench of the High Court which
did not approve of the Resolution and held that it was contrary
D to the Regulations. It also rightly noticed that the earlier seniority
list was only a common seniority list and there was no past
practice of having any seniority lists.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute the
E relevant facts noticed by the High Court on this issue. The High
Court noticed that Schedule Technical and the Regulations
provide for only one source of recruitment for the post of Project
Engineer (Junior) that is by direct recruitment and the same
selection process was applicable to both, the degree holders
F and the diploma holders and, therefore, only on account of
difference in their academic qualification they could not be
treated to be belonging to two different cadres in absence of
any provision for this purpose in the Regulations. They were to
be treated as two channels for next promotion because of
G separate quota for each channel and different eligibility criteria.
19. On behalf of appellants, a submission was advanced
that in Clause (9)(B) of the Regulations there is a mandate that
seniority lists for each "category of employees" will be prepared
and maintained and hence the Board should treat degree
H
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 411
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
holders and diploma holders as separate category of A
employees for preparation of separate seniority lists for each
of these categories. We do not find any merit in this submission.
The words "category of employees" used in Clause (9)(B) in
the context of the Regulations can only mean category of posts
held by the employees. The word "category" has been used in B
the context of posts only in Clause (6) of the Regulations,
although in the matter of absorption of employees working in
the Board on deputation. Clause (9)(A) which provides for
promotion when read together with the Schedule Technical
lea·1es no manner of doubt that in respect of first promotion to c
higher post, i.e., promotion from post of Project Engineer
(Junior) to Project Engineer (Senior), promotion of eligible
person is required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-
merit. The High Court has rightly held that the cadre of Project
Engineer (Junior) cannot be bifurcated for the purpose of
0
seniority alone, only on the ground that for promotion to the
cadre of Project Engineer (Senior) there is provision for 20%
quota for degree holders and 30% quota for diploma holders.
The practical view of the High Court cannot be faulted that the
Board can legitimately prepare separate eligibility lists of E
Project Engineer (Junior) holding degree and those holding
diploma. Such eligibility list could not be mistaken for seniority
list which must remain common based upon merit assessed
at the time of selection for recruitment. Only if the selection
process had been different, there could have been any scope
to argue for separate seniority lists. In absence of any legal F
stipulation for altering the initial seniority, pre-determined on the
basis of merit at the time of initial selection and date of regular
appointment, the seniority list cannot be altered only because
some diploma holder Project Engineers (Junior) acquired the
qualification of AMIE equivalent to a degree. The three years' G
or seven years' experience of service will entitle the degree
holders and the diploma holders respectively only for inclusion
of their names in the eligibility lists for promotion so as to work
out satisfactorily the provision for different quota for the degree
holders and the diploma holders. Hence, we find no good H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court in respect
of Question no.3.
20. Further dispute between the parties is in respect of
issues arising out of Question no.2. The primal question which
requires to be answered is whether the diploma holders who
8
acquired the qualification of AMIE during service should be
given the benefit of experience of service rendered by them as
diploma holders for promotion to the post of Project Engineer
(Senior) against the 20% quota for the degree holders or they
need to acquire further three years' experience of service after
C acquiring the qualification of AMIE for availing such benefit.
21. In the context of issue noticed above, the stand of the
appellants is that there is qualitative difference in the service
rendered by a degree holder and that rendered by a diploma
D holder and, therefore, the Regulations provide that the degree
holder Project Engineers (Junior) with three years' service and
diploma holder Project Engineers (Junior) with seven years'
service shall be eligible for promotion to the higher post of
Project Engineer (Senior). Their further case is that by providing
E 20% and 30% of the posts as quota for the degree holders and
diploma holders respectively, the Regulations have created a
water-tight compartment for the two classes because they are
entitled for promotion in their respective quota only. The fact
that separate quota for promotion has been fixed for two
F different channels of degree holders and diploma holders,
according to appellants, is a clear indication that the service
of three years must be rendered as a degree holder in order
to acquire the eligibility for promotion as is the case with a
diploma holder who acquires eligibility only upon rendering
G seven years' service as a diploma holder. The eligibility criterion
of service experience cannot be read differently when the claim
for promotion is made against ·a fixed quota. The aforesaid
stand of the appellants is based squarely upon judgment of this
Court rendered by a three Judges Bench in the case of
H Shailendra Dania & Ors. v. S.P. Dubey & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 413
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
535. For providing further support to,the conclusions in the case A
of Shailendra Dania (supra), reliance has been placed also
upon judgments in the case of N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v.
Union oflndia & Ors. 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 584; Indian Airlines
Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Gopalakrishnan (2001) 2 SCC 362; Challa
Jaya Bhaskar & Ors. v. Thungathurthi Surender & Ors. (2010) 8
13 SCC 348; Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. v. C.K. Saji & Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 734 and Vijay Singh Deora & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. (1997) 3 SCC 118.
22. On the other hand, counsels appearing for the
respondents and representing the interest of the diploma C
holders who subsequently acquired the qualification of AMIE
while in service, have made a spirited attempt to distinguish
the facts of Shai/endra Dania's case (supra). According to
learned counsel appearing for the diploma holders there was
a difference in the qualification required of degree holders and D
diploma holders at the time of very entry into the service in
Shailendra Dania's case; while degree holders were eligible
to apply only with their educational qualification for the entry post,
the diploma holders were required to have additional two years'
experience and hence the two were treated to be qualitatively E
different in the matter of service experience. In other words, the
submission is that the qualitative difference in the services
rendered by degree holders and diploma holders in Shai/endra
· Dania's case was primarily on account of their having different
birthmarks which does not exist in the preserit case. It is also F
the case of diploma holders that the words used in the
Regulations laying down eligibility for promotion are different
in the present case because of use of the word 'total' before
the clause 'experience of service' and hence on a literal
interpretation, as is warranted in the present case, the G
appellants cannot derive any advantage from the judgment in
the case of Shailendra Dania (supra). Much emphasis has
also been laid on the word, 'with' used in the Schedule
Technical to contend that it be read as 'and' which will then not
permit the cumulative eligibility criteria to be read as three H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A years' total experience of service with degree but only as
degree and three years' total experience of service. It is further
case of the diploma holders that the use of the word 'total'
clearly indicates the intent of counting not only experience of
service with degree but also experience of service already
B gained with diploma. Mr. Manu Mridul, learned Advocate for
some of the respondents, in support of the aforesaid
contentions placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in the
case of Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi & Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 128; MB. Joshi & Ors. etc. v.
c Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. etc. 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 419
and AK. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopa/ Chandra Nath &
Ors. (2000) 4 sec 30. Appearing on behalf of another set of
respondents in one of the appeals, Mr. Abhishek Gupta,
Advocate placed reliance upon case of Roop Chand Ad/akha
& Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 1989 Supp.(1)
0
sec 116.
23. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Advocate appeared
for the Board and supported the case of diploma holders by
taking a stand that different service experience of three years
E and seven years for the purpose of eligibility have been
prescribed for degree holders and diploma holders respectively
not upon any qualitative difference in their experience but upon
difference in the educational qualification alone. Thus, the stand
of the Board before this Court which is diametrically opposite
F to its stand before the High Court is that a diploma holder who
has service experience of three years and acquires the
qualification of AMIE is qualified under the Regulations to claim
eligibility for promotion in the 20% quota reserved for degree
holders with three years'.experience. Learned advocate
G appearing for some of the proforma respondents made it clear
that the case of such proforma respondents who were degree
holders is same as that of the appellants.
24. Before adverting to the rival submissions on the main
issue noted above, in view oFsubmissions advanced on behalf
H
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 415
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
of some of the respondents as if the issue arising in these A
appeals relates to seniority position of individuals in the
seniority list, it is necessary to clarify that the High Court was
neither called upon to decide nor it actually decided any issue
directly relating to inter se seniority of Project Engineers (Junior)
or Project Engineers (Senior) and this Court is also not required B
to go into the correctness of any seniority list published by the
Board. As noticed earlier, the main issue falling for
determination in these appeals only relates to what value, if any,
is to be given to the service experience of a diploma holder -
turned degree holder - Project Engineer (Junior) rendered by c
him as a diploma holder for the purpose of claiming eligibility
for promotion as a degree holder Project Engineer (Junior)
against 20% quota allotted for the degree holders.
25. Initially there was a serious dispute raised on behalf
of appellants whether the word 'total' before the clause D
'experience of service' in the context of minimum experience
and qualification required for promotion of Project Engineer
(Junior) mentioned in the Schedule Technical is an illegitimate
insertion in this Schedule or whether it was actually existing in
the draft of the Schedule which was approved by the Board and E
the State Government. Learned senior counsel appearing for
the Board placed before us the original records and made it
clear that the word 'total' in the relevant clauses existed in the
original draft of Schedule Technical which was duly approved.
Matter has come to rest at that. F
26. Coming to the rival contentions, it will be useful to refer
to the concerned paragraphs from the judgment in the
Shailendra Dania's case (supra) along with the relevant facts
in order to appreciate the contention of the appellants that even G
in absence of the birthmark on account of two years'
experience fdr diploma holders to enter into the service, which
was peculiar to the facts of that case, the relevant facts and rule
position are materially similar and hence the law laid down in
that case is apt for deciding the present appeals on the same
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A lines. In Shailend~ Dania's case the rules provided for filling
up 50% of total vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer by
direct recruitment and the remaining were to be filled up by
promotion by providing specific quota for a graduate Junior
Engineer and a diploma holder Junior Engineer. The eligibility
B criteria for promotion of diploma holders Junior Engineers was
eight years' qualifying service and for graduate Engineering
degree holders three years' qualifying service. Further
promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer was to the post
of Executive Engineer. For this post, the minimum qualifying
c experience for graduate engineers was eight years as Assistant
Engineer and for diploma holders it was ten years in the grade
· of Assistant Engineer. However, for the initial post in the
hierarchy, that is, post of Junior Engineer, the selection was only
through direct recruitment and the qualification prescribed was
"diploma holders in civil engineering with two years'
0
experience". But there was no bar for persons having degree
in engineering in applying for the post of Junior Engineer and
they were not required to have any prior experience.
27. In Shailendra Dania's case this Court placed strong
E reliance upon judgment in the case of N. Suresh Nathan
(supra) and explained that the three Judges Bench decided that
case essentially on the interpretation of the rule and merely
found support to that interpretation from the past practice
followed in the Department. In N. Suresh Nathan (supra), the
F question involved was similar as in the case of Shailendra
Dania (supra) and the present case. The relevant rule provided
for recruitment by promotion from the grade o{ Junior Engineers
which consisted of two categories, viz., one of degree holder
Junior Engineers with three years' service in the grade and the
G other of diploma holder Junior Engineers with six years' service
in the grade. There, the quota was 50% from each category.
The Court interpreted the rule in the light of entire scheme to
conclude that the period of three years can commence only
from the date of obtaining the degree and not earlier. The
H service in the grade as a diploma holder prior to obtaining
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 417
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
degree cannot be counted as service in the grade with a degree A
for the purpose of three years' service as a degree holder.
Besides explaining and following the judgment in N. Suresh
Nathan's case (supra), the judgment in Shailendra Dania's
case (supra) also considered and distinguished some later
judgments on the basis of difference in facts and rules such as B
in the case of MB. Joshi (supra); D. Stephen Joseph v. Union
of India & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 753; Anil Kumar Gupta (supra)
and A.K. Raghumani (supra).
28. In the case of Shailendra Dania (supra), this Court also
took note of judgment in the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. (supra) C
on which the appellants have also placed reliance. Para 5 of
the judgment in the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. (supra) begins
by holding that "when in addition to qualification, experience is
prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after
obtaining the necessary qualification and not before obtaining D
such qualification". No doubt, in that case there was specific
general information/instruction that experience will be
computed after the date of acquiring the necessary
qualifications. Instead of dilating the point further it will be useful
to extract paragraphs 43 to 45 of the judgment in the case of E
Shailendra Dania (supra) which are as follows :
"43. Taking into consideration the entire scheme of the
relevant Rules, it is obvious that the diploma-holders would
not be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant F
Engineer in their quota unless they have eight years'
service, whereas the graduate Engineers would be
required to have three years' service experience apart
from their degree. If the effect and intent of the Rules were
such to treat the diploma as equivale_nt to a degree for the G
purpose of promotion to the higher post, then induction to
the cadre of Junior Engineers from two different channels
would be required to be considered similar, without
subjecting the diploma-holders to any further requirement
of having a further qualification of two years' service. At
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A the time of induction into service to the post of Junior
Engineers, degree in Engineering is a sufficient
qualification without there being any prior experience,
whereas diploma-holders should have two years'
experience apart from their diploma for their induction in
B the service. As per the service rules, on the post of
Assistant Engineer, 50% of total vacancies would be filled
up by direct recruitment, whereas for the promotion
specific quota is prescribed for a graduate Junior Engineer
and a diploma-holder Junior Engineer. When the quota is
c prescribed under the Rules, the promotion of graduate
Junior Engineers to the higher post is restricted to 25%
quota fixed. So far as the diploma-holders are concerned,
their promotion to the higher post is confined to 25%. As
an eligibility criterion, a degree is further qualified by three
years' service for the Junior Engineers, whereas eight
D
years' service is required for the diploma-holders. Degree
with three years' service experience and diploma with eight
years' service experience itself indicates qualitative
difference in the service rendered as degree-holder Junior
Engineer and diploma-holder Junior Engineer. Three
E years' service experience as a graduate Junior Engineer
and eight years' service experience as a diploma-holder
Junior Engineer, which is the eligibility criterion for
promotion, is an indication of different quality of service
rendered. In the given case, can it be said that a diploma-
F holder who acquired a degree during the tenure of his
service, has gained experience as an Engineer just
because he has acquired a degree in Engineering. That ·
would amount to say that the experience gained by him in
his service as a diploma-holder is qualitatively the same
G as that of the experience of a graduate Engineer. The Rule
specifically made difference of service rendered as a
graduate Junior Engineer and a diploma-holder Junior
Engineer. Degree-holder Engineer's experience cannot be
substituted with diploma-holder's experience. The
H distinction between the experience of degree-holders and
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 419
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
diploma holders is maintain.ad under the Rules in further A
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer also, wherein
there is no separate quota assigned to degree-holders or
to diploma-holders and the promotion is to be made from
the cadre of Assistant Engineers. The Rules provide for
different service experience for degree-holders and B
diploma-holders. Degree-holder Assistant Engineers
having eight years of service experience would be eligible
for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, whereas
diploma-holder Assistant Engineers would be required to
have ten years' service experience on the post of Assistant c
Engineer to become eligible for promotion to the higher
post. This indicates that the Rule itself makes differentia
in the qualifying service of eight years for degree-holders
and ten years' service experience for diploma-holders. The
Rule itself makes qualitative difference in the service D
. rendered on the same post. It is a clear indication of
qualitative difference of the service on the same post by
a graduate Engineer and a diploma-holder Engineer. It
appears to us that different period of service attached to
qualification as an essential criterion for promotion is
E
based on administrative interest in the service. Different
period of service experience for degree-holder Junior
Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers for
promotion to the higher post is conducive to the post
manned by the Engineers. There can be no manner of
doubt that higher technical knowledge would give better F
thrust to administrative efficiency and quality output. To
carry out technical specialized job more efficiently, higher
technical knowledge would be the requirement. Higher
educational qualifications develop broader perspective
and therefore service rendered on the same post by more G
qualifying person would be qualitatively different.
44. After having an overall consideration of the relevant
Rules, we are of the view that the service experience
required for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A the post of Assistant Engineer by a degree-holder in the
limited quota of degree-holder Junior Engineers cannot be
equated with the service rendered as a diploma-holder nor
can be substituted for service rendered as a degree-
holder. When the claim is made from a fixed quota, the
B condition necessary for becoming eligible for promotion
has to be complied with. The 25% specific quota is fixed
for degree-holder Junior Engineers with the experience of
three years. Thus, on a plain reading, the experience so
required would be as a degree-holder Junior Engineer.
c 25% quota for promotion under the rule is assigned to
degree-holder Junior Engineers with three years'
experience, whereas for diploma-holder Junior Engineers
eight years' experience is the requirement in their 25%
quota. Educational qualification along with number of years
of service was recognized as conferring eligibility for
D
promotion in the respective quota fixed for graduates and
diploma-holders. There is watertight compartment for
graduate Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior
Engineers. They are entitled for promotion in their
respective quotas. Neither a diploma-holder Junior
E Engineer could claim promotion in the quota of degree-
holders because he has completed three years of service
nor can a degree-holder Junior Engineer make any claim
for promotion quota fixed for diploma-holder Junior
Engineers. Fixation of different quota for promotion from
F different channels of degree-holders and diploma-holders
itself indicates that service required for promotion is an
essential eligibility criterion along with degree or diploma,
which is service rendered as a degree-holder in the
present case. The particular years of service being the
G cumulative requirement with certain a8ucational
qualification providing for promotional avenue within the
specified quota, cannot be anything but the service
rendered as a degree-holder and not as a diploma-holder.
The service experience as an eligibility criterion cannot be
H
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 421
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
read to be any other thing because this quota is specifically A
made for the degree-holder Junior Engineers.
45. As a necessary corollary, we are of the view that the
diploma-holder Junior Engineers who have obtained a
degree in Engineering during the tenure of service, would
B
be required to complete three years' service on the post
after having obtained a degree to become eligible for
promotion to the higher_post if they claim the promotion in
the channel of degree-holder Junior Engineer, there being
a quota fixed for graduate Junior Engineers and diploma- C
holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineers."
29. On behalf of respondents the difference in qualification
at the time of induction into the service to the post of Junior
Engineers as indicated in paragraph 43 was highlighted to D
distinguish the present case on the ground that for induction into
the service on the post of Project Engineer (Junior) there is no
requirement that the diploma holders should. have two years'
experience apart from their diploma. Literally, that distinction
is valid but in our considered view the other considerations E
which were discussed in paragraph 43 are of much greater
significance, particularly there being specific quota prescribed
for graduate Project Engineers (Junior) and diploma holder
Project Engineers (Junior). In the presentcase also, as an
eligibility criterion, a degree is further qualified by three years' F
service whereas a diploma is further qualified by seven years'
service. These distinctions are of much more vital significance
than the birthmark at the time of induction into service. Absence
of such birthmark in the present case is not ma'cerial. Such
birthmark was only an additional ground available in the case G
of Shai/endra Dania (supra) but that, in our considered view,
would not make any material difference in coming to the same
conclusion that degree with three years' service experience and
diploma with seven years' service experience by itself indicates
qualitative difference in the ser.1ice rendered as a degree
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A holder and that rendered as a diploma holder.
30. As held in paragraph 36 of Shai/endra Dania's case
(supra) we are required to decide the matter on the basis of
the entire scheme of the rules, the facts and circumstances at
the relevant time and the rules called in question, for
8
independently giving meaning to the words, the principle
involved and the past practice, if any. In that view of the matter,
the word 'with' occurring before the words, "three years' service"
or "seven years' service" has to be given a natural meaning as
understood in the common parlance and in the light of two water
C tight compartments created for the two classes for promotion
with respective quotas of 20% and 30%, it must be held that
three years' total experience of service must be service as a
degree holder. This view is fortified by the provision in the
Regulations that for similar promotion a diploma holder has to
D have seven years' total experience of service. The relevant
regulation does not contemplate any reduced total experience
for promotion for a diploma holder who may acquire degree
or AMIE qualification while in service. Even on acquiring such
higher qualification the concerned diploma holder is neither
E given any advantage vis-a-vis other diploma holders nor is he
ousted from the right of consideration against 30% quota
provided for diploma holders. In such a situation in order to
enter into the water-tight compartment of 20% quota for the
degree holders with three years' experience of service, a
F diploma holder with AMIE qualification must show that he fulfills
the entire eligibility criterion, i.e., he is a degree holder with
three years' experience of service as a degree holder. Such
water-tight compartment and separate quotas cannot be
rendered meaningless so as to affect the prospect of promotion
G of the degree holders by inducting into that category a diploma
holder who does not have three years' experience of service
as a degree holder. In the absence of any such provision in the
Regulations, no equivalence can be permitted in such a
situation because even a diploma I
holder
.
with seven years'
H
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 423
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
experience of service is confined to a prospect or chance of A
promotion only against 30% quota for the diploma holders.
31. So far as the word 'total' occurring before the words
'experience of service' is concerned, from the circumstances
and past history relating to the service, it must be understood 8
in the context of service rendered in regular capacity along with
service rendered on ad-hoc or officiating or temporary basis.
The word 'total' cannot be construed to mean service rendered
either as diploma holder or degree holder. If this had been the
intention, the word 'total' would have bee11 included only in the C
context of three years' total experience of service of degree
holders and not in the context of seven years' experience of
service as diploma holders. A diploma holder in any case is
required to have seven years' experience of service for being
eligible for promotion and hence the word 'total' would be
__otiose or redundant in the aforesaid context. No doubt, the High D
Court has now clarified and held that service rendered on ad-
hoc or officiating basis prior to regularization cannot be counted
for acquiring eligibility for promotion and that aspect is no longer
under controversy. Hence the use of the word 'with' or 'total' in
the relevant regulation does not make any difference and the E
judgment in the case of Shailendra Dania (supra) applies to
the present case, as contended by learned counsel for the
appellants.
32. The other judgments of this Court in the case of Challa F
Jaya Bhaskar (supra); Chandravathi P.K. (supra) and Vijay
Singh Deora (supra) also support the view which we have taken
on the basis of Shai/endra Dania's case (supra). Para 29 of
the judgment in the case of Challa Jaya Bhaskar (supra) clearly
shows that in the said case this Court followed the views G
expressed in N. Suresh Nathan's case (supra) and Shailendra
Dania's case (supra). In the case of Chandravathi P.K. (supra)
rules for shifting by exercise of option from the category of
diploma holders to that of degree holders on acquiring AMIE
qualification was in place. In that context, in paragraph 30 this
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R.
A Court held that diploma holder officer on acquiring higher
qualification during service could opt for promotion from the
degree holders' quota or from diploma holders' quota but once
he opts for promotion in the degree holders' quota, rule of
seniority would apply as he acquired the qualification therefor
B subsequently. He would be placed at the bottom of the seniority
list and his case could be considered only after the cases of
promotion of those who had been holding such degree
qualification had been considered. In the case of Vijay Singh
Deora (supra) the rule position was different but in paragraph
c 9 this Court permitted only a limited recognition of service
rendered as diploma holder Junior Engineers for purposes of
eligibility and justified the permitted procedure on the ground
that it would do justice to all the three groups (as existed in that
case) and no one would j1.,1mp over the other and would not
D illegitimately steal a march d\ler the legitimate right of the other,
"otherwise, in effect the qualified graduates would be pushed
downwards and unqualified late entrants on acquisition of
qualification would steal a march over the qualified."
33. The judgments relied upon by learned advocate for the
E respondents have been noticed above. All those cases were
noticed and distinguished or explained in the case of
Shai/endra Dania (supra) and we find that none of those cases
are of any help to the respondents. In those cases, either there
was no water-tight compartment and fixed quota for different
F categories or the advertisement and rules related only to initial
recruitment or the contest was only between two groups of
diploma holders. The judgment in the case of Roop Chand
Adlakha (supra) in fact helps the case of the appellants
because in that case this Court held that different service
G experience could be prescribed for conferring eligibility for
promotion to the degree holders and diploma holders and such
classification on the basis of educational qualification is
permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
34. In the light of aforesaid discussions, we find merit in
H
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 425
BOARD [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
these appeals and they are accordingly allowed to the extent A
of reversing the views of the High Court in respect of Question
no.2 as noted by the Division Bench in the common judgment
under appeal. We hold that the Project Engineers (Junior)
recruited on the basis of diploma, upon their acquiring the
qualification of 'AMIE', are not entitled to count their experience B
of service prior to acquisition of such qualification for the
purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Project
Engineer (Senior) against the 20% quota fixed for promotion
of degree holder Project Engineers (Junior). In order to claim
promotion against such 20% quota the three years' experience c
of service must be acquired after obtaining the qualification or
degree of AMIE.
35. We direct the Board and its authorities to treat the writ
petitions filed in the High Court as disposed of in the light of
our aforesaid views and to determine the controversies raised D
in the writ petitions in that light by granting relief to the eligible
persons expeditiously and preferably within 4 months, without
upsetting the transactions which had taken place earlier and
were not under challenge in the writ petitions. In other words,
the regular promotions made in the past prior to 1992, which E
were not subject matter of writ petitions filed in 1992 will not
be re-opened on account of views expressed in this judgment.
36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs. F
Devika Gujral Appeals partly allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search