Holding

Seniority among Sub‑Engineers for promotion must be determined on the basis of length of service, not the date of acquiring the engineering degree.

Summary

The case concerned Sub‑Engineers in the Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering Department, some of whom were diploma‑holders who later obtained a degree in engineering. Under the Service Rules, diploma‑holders required 12 years of service for promotion to Assistant Engineer, whereas those who obtained a degree during service qualified after 8 years, with a 10% quota reserved for the latter. The respondents argued that seniority for this quota should be calculated from the date of acquiring the degree, while the appellants and the State Government maintained that seniority must be based on length of service as Sub‑Engineer, irrespective of when the degree was obtained. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had held otherwise, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that in the absence of a specific rule seniority is determined by length of service and that the Government’s long‑standing practice was correct. Consequently, the Tribunal’s orders were set aside and the Government’s promotion orders were upheld.

Issues considered

Whether seniority for promotion of graduate Sub‑Engineers under the 10% quota should be counted from the date of acquiring the engineering degree or from the date of appointment as Sub‑Engineer.
Whether the Service Rules require the 8‑year period to be measured from the degree‑acquisition date.
Whether the established practice of the Government in counting seniority by length of service can be upheld despite the Tribunal’s contrary view.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980s. Schedule IV

Subjects

promotionseniorityservice rulespublic health engineeringMadhya Pradeshgraduate Sub‑Engineerlength of serviceadministrative tribunalservice jurisprudence

Judgment

M.B. JOSHI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
SATISH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

OCTOBER 15, 1992

(KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] B

Civil Service:

Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gautted) Service Rules, 1~:

Schedule W-Post ·of Assistant Engineer-Promotion--Eligibility-
c
Counting of 8 years of service-Whether from the date of acquiring degree of
engineering or on the basis of length of service.

Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gautted) Service Rules,
~ D
Schedule IV-Post of Assistant Engineer-Promotion-Eligibility
counting of 8 years of service-Procedure in the absence of provisions in the
Rules-Whether on the basis of length of service.

C.A. No. 425511992 (arising out of SLP No. 2507/1992) E
The appellants and the private respondents were Sub-Engineers In
Public Health Engineering Department of the Government.

The minimum period for Sub-Engineer to qualify for promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineer was 12 years for diploma-holders and 8 F
years for such Suh-Engineers who obtained the degree of graduation in the
course of service.

By an executive order dated 7.2.1989, quota of direct recruitment
was reduced to SO per cent and the quota by promotion from the Sub-En· G
gineers, Draftsman and Head Draftsman, increased to 50 per cent. The 50
per cent quota by promotion was sub-divided. The promotion quota for
the category of the Graduate Sub-Engineers completing 8 years of service
was 10%. The principle of counting the seniority was from the date of their
continuous officiation irrespective of tho date on which such diploma·
holder Sub-Engineer acquired degree of graduation in engineering. H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of 30
Graduate Sub-Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers
and by order dated 4.12.1989 it prepared a panel of 18 Graduate Sub-En-
gineers found suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. On
6.12.1989 the Government promoted one M.B. Joshi and sh others as
Assistant Engineer, who are appellants iii appeal arising out of Special
B Leave Petition No. 2507 of 1992. The private respondents in the appeal,
filed an application in the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the
orders dated 4.12.1989 and 6.12.1989. They contended that the seniority
for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in 10 per
cent quota of Graduate Sub-Engineers completing 8 years of service ought
C to have been considered from the date of attaining the graduate degree of
engineering and not from the date of appointment as Sub-Engineer.

The Tribunal allowed the petition placing reliance on its earlier
decision in Sanaulla Sunzani v. State of M.P. & 5 Ors., T.A. No. 771/88. The
D Tribunal held that the applicants (private respondents in the appeal)
having secured the degrees in engineering prior to respondenis 3 to 9 (the
appellants in the ap1ieal) would rank higher in the gradation list of
Graduate Sub-Engineers. It directed the State Government and Engineer-
in-Cbief, Public Health Engineering Department to convene a special
D.P.C. to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of Assistant
E Engineers as on 4.12.1989 and if found suitable for promotion, promote
them and give them seniority over respondents 3 to 9.

Identical questions of law were involved in all the appeals (C.A. Nos.
4255-57 of 1992), which were preferred against the judgments of the
F Tribunal.

The appellants contended that so far as the post of Sub- Engineers
was concerned, the minimum qualification prescribed was diploma-holder
and the seniority was determined on the basis of the date of appointment
G on the post of Sub-Engineer irrespective of the fact that the person joining
such post was a degree-holder or a diploma-holder; that the scale of pay
was similar and the diploma-bolder and degree-holder Sub-Engineers
stood on the same footing and their gradation list was prepared on the
basis of length of service in the cadre of Sub-Engineers that in the service
jurisprudence where the rules were silent, th• seniority was always deter·
H mined on the basis of length of service amongst the employees appointed
M.B. JOSHI v. SATISH PANDEY 3

on a similar post in the same cadre; that obtaining a degree during the A
continuation of service as Sub-Engineer simply accelerated the entitle·
ment to promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer from 12 years to 8
years but it did not in any manner disturb the seniority which was already
settled on the basis of length of service on the post of Sub-Engineer; and
that the D.P.C. rightly prepared the. panel of selection and the Govern· B
ment took a correct decision in issuing the order dated 6.12.1989.

The respondents contended that It was necessary to obtain .the
degree of engineering for being qualified for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer within a period of 8 years instead of 12 years; that the
period of 8 years to be counted from the date when the diploma-holder C
Sub-Engineer acquired the degree of engineering and not prior to said
date.

Allowing the appeals, this Court,

HELD : 1.1. Itis a well settled principle of service jurispru<lence that D
in the absence of any specific rule, the seniority amongst persons holding
similar posts in the same cadre bas to be determined on the basis of the
length of service and not on any other fortuitous circumstance. [U-B]

1.2. The Government itself bas been adopting the practice and
making promotion as contended by the appellants. Sncb practice is E
upheld by the Court. [12-A]

1.3. The Rules do not contemplate any equivalence of any period of
service with the qualification of acquiring degree of graduation in en-
gineering. The Rules clearly provide that the diploma-holders having
obtained a degree of engineering while continuing in service as Sob-En· F
gineer shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in
8 years of service and quota of 10 per cent posts has been earmarked for
such category of persons. [11-C-D]

1.4. If the period of 8 years is counted from the date of acquiring G
degree then this incentive of adding the qualification during the continua·
tion of service and getting the. advantage of acceleration in promotion in
8 years would for all practical purposes become nugatory and of no
benefit. [11-G-H]

1.5. The Tribunal was wrong in determining the seniority from the H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A date of acquiring degre< of engineering and it ought to have been deter-
mined on the basis of length of service on the post of Sub-Engineer and
the State Government was right in doing so and there was no infirmity in
the orders passed by the Government. [12-D-E)

N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1992) Supp.1
B sec 584, explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4255c57
of 1992.

From the Judgment and Order. dated 15.10.1991, 28.11.1991 and
C 17.9.1991 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in
0.A. Nos. 140 of 1990 and 3024 of 1991 and T.A. No. 35 of 1988.

U.N. Bachawat, B.S. Banthia, G. Prakash, L.C. Agrawala, K.K.
Chagotra and Indra Makwana for the Appellants.
D S.S. Ray, A. Raghuvir, A.K. Sen, Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.K. Gambhir,
Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, R.B. Misra, N.D. B. Raju, Anand
Prasad, S.V. Deshpande and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted in all the above cases.

All the above appeals are disposed of by a common order, as
identical questions of law are involved in these cases. For the purpose of
understanding the controversy raised in all these cases, we are stating the
F facts of appeal arising out of special leave petition No. 2507 of 1992. The
appellants and the private respondents were Sub-Engineers in Public
Health Engineering Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh. They
are governed by Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gazetted)
Service Rules 1980 {hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Under Schedule
IV of the Rules, the next higher post for promotion from the post of
G Sub-Engineers in Civil or Mechanical is the post of Assistant Engineers.
The minimum period for Sub-Engineer to qualify for promotion to the post
of Assistant Engineer is 12 years for diploma-holders and 8 years for such
Sub-Engineers who obtain degree of graduation in the course of service.
Earlier 60 per cent quota for the posts of Assistant Engineers was fixed by
H direct recruitment and 40 per cent by promotion from the Sub-Engineers,
M.B. JOSHI v. SATISH PANDEY [KASLIWAL. J.] 5

Draftsman and Head Draftsman. By an executive order dated 7.2.1989, A
quota of direct recruitment was reduced to 50 per cent and the quota by
promotion increased to 50 per cent. This 50 per cent quota by promotion
with which we are concerned in the above cases has been sub-divided in
the following maoner: -

(i) Diploma holder Sub-Engineers completing B
12 years of service 35%

(ii) Draftsman & Head Draftsman completing
12 years of service 5%

(iii) Graduate Sub-Engineers completing
c
8 years of service 10%

In the above cases we are now concerned with the third category of
cases which deal with the promotion of Graduate Sub-Engineers complet-
ing 8 years of service. D
The State Government had been applying the principle of counting
the seniority of Graduate Sub-Engineers from the date of their continuous
officiation irrespective of the date on which such diploma-holder Sub-En-
gineer acqJJired degree of graduation in engineering. On this basis, the
Departmental Promotion Committee took into consideration 30 Graduate E
Sub-Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers. The
D.P.C. by order dated 4.12.1989 prepared a panel of 18 Graduate Sub-En-
gineers found suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The
Government by order dated 6.12.1989 promoted M.B. Joshi and six others
as Assistant Engineer who are appellants in appeal arising out of special F
leave petition No. 2507 of 1992. The private respondents in this appeal filed
application No. 140/90 in Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabal-
pur challenging the aforesaid orders dated 4.12.1989 and 6.12.1989. The
contention of these persons before the Tribunal was that the seniority for
the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in 10 per cent G
- quota of Graduate Sub-Engineers completing 8 years of service ought to
have been considered from the date of attaining the Graduate degree of
engineering and not from the date of appointment as Sub-Engineer. The
Tribunal placing reliance on its earlier decision in T.A. No. 771/88 Sanaul/a
Sunzani v. State of M.P. & 5 others, held that the seniority of diploma-holder
Sub-Engineers acquiring the degrees of graduation in engineering for H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A inclusion in the gradation list of Sub-Engineers should be counted from the
dates of acquisition of graduation in engineering or of any other equivalent
degree and not from the dates of their initial entries as Sub-Engineers.
Applying the aforesaid principle laid down in Sanaulla's case, the Tribunal
held that the applicants (private respondents in the appeal) having secured
B the degrees in engineering prior to respondents 3 to 9 (the appellants in
the appeal) will rank higher in the gradation list of Graduate Sub-En-
gineers. The Tribunal as such allowed the petition filed before them and
directed the State Government and Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health En-
gineering Department to convene a special D.P.C. to consider the ap-
plicants for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers as on 4.12.1989
C and if found suitable for promotion, promote them and give them seniority
over respondents 3 to 9 within 4 months of the date of receipt of the order.

The short controversy arising in these cases relates to the determina-
tion of seniority amongst the diploma-holder Sub-Engineers who acquired
D the degree of graduation in engineering during the period of service
qualifying them for promotion in 8 years to the post of Assistant Engineer.
...
It is an admitted position that there is no specific rule governing such
situation. Relevant extracts of Schedule IV of the Rules as published in the
Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 27.2.1981 issued in Hindi read as under:

E
"ll!if ~ mq;r, fc;.rtcn 27 'QiTc!fT 1981
3i1f!~.;1 'i:IR
(f.t<rir 13 ~)
F f«'ll'T wiPrr 'l<:: '!ii 3fTl1l1ft ~'li:: 'R WIT '1r 'li:: '!ii 'fTll f«'ll'im W"lft!
'!ii 'fTll 'fTll ~
~~· f;rn 'R~ q,'\ mllfu if; ~ if;
tRRfu q,'\ "ITT q,'\ '"" it '"" "!RT~ I 'fTll ~ ~
"!RT~ I 'fiTW!ft< R"l'l 13)
1 2 3 4 5
G ffi d11lffi (':!"!T- 12 ~ ~- M14'h>HI q-r\ m m
~ 00 ftWIB ~if;fWD3~ ~ (.fuflIB;
~ '1r qif;f1'hiii 6'! d441f~>!J if;~ qif;f1'hiii)
f«'ll'T ~it) it WIT it ~ m
Wi't l!T1<f <Ri\ ~
H
M.B. JOSHI v. SATISH PANDEY [KASLIWAL. J.] 7

Mr. S.S. Ray, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the A
appellants contended that so far as the post of Sub-Engineers is concerned,
the minimum qualification prescribed is diploma-holder. Initially, in the
Public Health Engineering Department till 1980, fresh degree-holders used
to get job directly as Assistant Engineers and the diploma-holders used to
be appointed as Sub-Engineers. Thereafter on account of unemployment, B .
the degree-holders a1'o started seeking appointments as Sub-Engineers.
However, so far as the post of Sub-Engineer was concerned, the seniority
was determined on the basis of the date of appointment on the post of
Sub-Engineer irrespective of the fact that the person joining such post was
a degree-holder or a diploma-holder. The scale of pay was similar and the
diploma-holder and degree-holder Sub-Engineers stood on the same foot-
c
ing and their gradation list was prepared on the basis of length of service
in the cadre of Sub-Engineers. The next higher post for promotion from
the post of Sub-Engineer is the post of Assistant Engineer. Every diploma-
holder Sub-Engineer became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer after having completed 12 years of service. The Government D
however, considered it proper to reduce this period of 12 years to 8 years
in case of such diploma-holder Sub-Engineers who obtained a degree of
engineering during the continuance of their service as Sub-Engineer as a
sort of incentive to improve the qualification while continuing in service. It
was thus, submitted by Mr. Ray that it is a well-settled principle of service E
jurisprudence that where the rules are silent, the seniority is always deter-
mined on the basis of length of service amongst the employees appointee\
on a similar post in the same cadre. It was thus, submitted that obtaining
a degree during the continuation of service as Sub-Engineer simply ac-
celerated the entitlement to promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer F
from 12 years to 8 years but it did not in any manner disturb the seniority
which was already settled .on the basis of length of service on the post of
Sub-Engineer. It was submitted that the D.P.C. rightly prepared the panel
of selection and the Government took a correct decision in issuing the
order dated 6.12.1989.
G

Mr. Ashok Sen, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents contended that it was necessary to obtain the degree of
engineering for being qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer within a period of 8 years instead of 12 years. It was further H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A argued that the period of s years can only be counted from the date when
the diploma-holder Sub-Engineer acquired the degree of engineering and
not prior to said date. Mr. Sen further placed reliance on N. Suresh Nathan
.& Another v. Union of India & Others, [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 584, and
submitted that this case clillches the issue raised in these cases and is no
longer open for consideration.
B
We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced
on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. We may first deal with N.
Suresh Nathan's case (supra) on which strong reliance is placed by Mr.
Ashok Sen. In this case, th" Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant
C Engineer in the Public Works Department, Pondicherry, prescribing the
educational and other qualifications for appointment by direct recruitment
and promotion came for consideration. For direct recuits, the qualification
prescribed was a Degree in. Civil Engineering of a recognised University
or Diploma i11 Civil Engineering from a recognised institution with three
years, professional experience. For appointment by promotion of Section
D Officers now called Junior Engineers, the qualification prescribed was as
under:

"l. Section Officers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil
Engineering or equivalent with three years' service in the
E grade failing which Section Officers holding Diploma in
Civil Engineering with six years' service in the grade - 50
per cent.

2. Section Officers possessing a recognised Diploma in
Civil Engineering with six years' service in the grade - 50
F per cent."

The dispute in the above case was whether a diploma-holder Junior
Engineer who obtains a degree while in service becomes eligible for
appointment as Assistant Engineer by promotion on completion of three
G years' service including therein the period of service prior to obtaining the
degree or the three years' service as a degree-holder for this purpose is to
be reckoned from the date he obtains the degree. The Central Administra-
tive Tribunal held that the applicants diploma-holders were entitled to be
considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on par with the
other degree-holder Junior Engineers taking due note of their total length
H of serviee rendered in the grade of Junior Engineer. Such a consideration
M.B. JOSHI v. SATISH PANDEY [KASLIWAL J.] 9

should be alongside other Junior Engineers who might have acquired the A
necessary degree qualification earlier than the applicants, while holding the
post of Junior Engineer. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the
above order of the Tribunal. While allowing the appeal, this Court held
as under:

"In our opinion, this appeal has to be allowed. There is B
sufficient material including the admission of respondents
diploma-holders that the practice followed in the depart-
ment for a long time was that in the case of diploma-holder
Junior Engineers who obtained the degree during service,
the period of three years' service in the grade for eligibility c
for promotion as degree-holders commenced from the date
of obtaining the degree and the earlier period of service as
diploma-holders was not counted for this purpose. This
earlier practice was clearly admitted by the respondents
diploma-holders in para 5 of their application made to the
Tribunal at page 115 of the paper book. This also appears
D
to be the view of the Union Public Service Commission
contained in their letter dated December 6, 1968 extracted
at pages 99-100 of the paper book in the counter-affidavit
of respondents 1 to 3. The real question, therefore, is
whether the construction made of this provision in the rules E
on which the past practice extending over a long period is
based is unten_able to -require upsetting it. If the past
practice is based on one of the possible constructions which
can be made of the rules then upsetting the same now would
not be appropriate. It is in this perspective that the ques-
F
tion raised has to be determined."

This Court then considered the Recruitment Rules applicable in the
said case and then held that the entire scheme did indicate that the period
of three years' service in the grade required for degree-holders according
to Rule 11 as the qualification for promotion in that category must mean G
three years' service in the grade as a degree-holder, and therefore, that
period of three years can commence only from the date of obtainiog the
degree and not earlier. It was further held that the service in the grade as
a diploma-holder prior to obtaining the degree cannot be counted as
service in the grade with a degree for the purpose of three years' service H
JO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A as a degree-holder. This Court then observed:-

"In our opinion, the contention of the appellants degree-
holders that the rules must be construed to mean that the
three years' service in the grade of a degree-holder for the
purpose of Rule 11 is three years from the date of obtaining
B the degree is quite tenable and commends to us being in
conformity with the past practice followed consistently. It
has also been so understood by all concerned till the raising
of the present controversy recently by the respondents.
The Tribunal-was, therefore, not justified in taking the
c contrary view and unsettling the settled practice in the
11
department.

A perusal of the above observations made by this Court clearly show
that the respondents diploma-holders in that case had admitted the prac-
D tice followed in that department for a long time and the case was mainly
decided on the basis of past practice followed i11 that department for a long
time. It was clearly laid down in the above case that if the past practice is
based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules
then upsetting the same now would not be appropriate. It was clearly said
"it is in this perspective that the question raised has to be determined." It
E was also observed as already quoted above that the Tribunal was not
justified in taking the contrary view and unsettling the settled practice in
the department. That apart the scheme of the rules in N. Suresh Nathan's
case was entirely different from the scheme of the Rules before us. The
rule in that case prescribed for appointment by promotion of Section
F Officers/Junior Engineers provided that 50 per cent quota shall be from
Section Officers possessing a recognised degree in Civil Engineering or
equivalent with three years' service in the grade failing which Section
Officers holding Diploma in Civil Engineering with six years' service in the
.grade. The aforesaid rule itself provided in explicit terms that Section
Off'icers possessing a recognised Degree in Civil Engineering was made
G eqtiivalent with three years' service in the grade. Thus, in the scheme of
such rules the period of three years' service was rightly counted from the
date of obtaining such degree. In the cases in hand before us, the scheme
of the rules is entirely different.

H In the cases before us 50 per cent of the posts of Assistant Engineers
M.B. JOSHI v. SATISH PANDEY [KASLIWAL. l.J 11

has to be filled by direct recruitment of persons having degree of gradua- A
tion in engineering. The remaining 50 per cent of the vacant posts are to
be filled by promotion from the lower cadre of Sub-Engineer and
Drafts~an. Out of this 50 per cent, 35 per cent quota is fixed for diploma-
holders who have completed 12 years of service on the post of Sub-En-
gineer, 5 per cent quota for Draftsman who have completed 12 years of
service and the remaining 10 per cent with which we are concerned has
B
been kept for such Suh'Engineers who during the continuation of their
service obtained a degree of graduation or equivalent in engineering and
in that case the period of service is reduced from 12 years to 8 years. The
Rules in our case do not contemplate any equivalence of any period of
service with the qualification of acquiring degree of graduation in engineer- c
ing as was provided in express terms in N. Suresh Nathan's case making
three years service in the grade equivalent to degree in engineering. In our
opinion, in the rules applicable in the cases before us clearly provide that
the diploma-holders having obtained a degree of engineering while con-
tinuing in service as Sub-Engineers shall be eligible for promotion to the D
post of Assistant Engineer in 8 years of service and quota of 10 per cent
posts has been earmarked for such category of persons.

If we accept the contention of Mr. Ashok Sen, it would defeat the
very scheme and the purpose of giving incentive of adding educational
qualification by diploma-holders while continuing in service in case the E
period of 8 years' is counted from the date of obtaining graduate degree
in engineering. It may be noted that no such argument was raised even
from the side of the respondents before the Tribunal. If such interpreta-
tion as now sought to be advanced by Mr. Ashok Sen, learned senior
counsel is accepted, no relief could have been granted to the respondent
Satish Kumar Pandey. We would illustrate the above position on admitted F
facts that Shri Satish Kumar Pandey had joined as Sub-Engineer on
23.8.1980, but had acquired the degree of engineering in May, 1987. In
that situation, Mr. Satish Kumar becomes eligible only in May 1995 and he
could not be considered as eligible in December 1989 when these Sub-En-
gineers were considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers. Even G
otherwise, if this period of 8 years is counted from the date of acquiring
degree then this incentive of adding the qualification during the continua-
tion of service and getting the advantage of acceleration in promotion in 8
years would for all practical purposes become nugatory and of no benefit.

H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A It is further important to note that in the cases before us, the
Government itself has been adopting the practice and making promotion
as contended by the appellants and we are upholding such practice. In N.
Suresh Nathan's -case also this Court had upheld the practice followed by
the Government. It is also well settled principle of service jurisprudence
that in the absence of any specific rule, the seniority amongst persons
B holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis
of the length of service and not on any other fortuitous circumstance.

Though, in the cases of special leave petitions filed by Shri Ram
Sharan Gupta & Others v. The State of M.P. & Others and Shri N.N.
C Asthana & Another v. Shri Harish Kumar Ahuja & Others, the parties
belonged to the Irrigation Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and
were governed with different set of rules, but the controversy arising in
these cases is amply covered with the view taken by us and determined in
the manner indicated above.

D In these circmnstances mentioned above, we are clearly of the view.
that the Tribunal was wrong in determining the seniority from the date of
acquiring degree of engineering and it ought to have been determined on
the basis of length ofservice Oil the post of Sub-Engineer and the State
Govemment was right in doing so and there was no infirmity in the orders
·E passed by the Government. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside
the orders of the Tribunal dated 15.10.1991, 28.11.1991 and 17.9.1991 and
upheld the orders passod by the Govemment in all these cases. In the
fact~ and circmnstances of the case, no order as to costs.
V.P.R. Appeals allowed.