Supreme Court of India
RAMESH KUMAR CHOUDHA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1088
- Decided
- 20 September 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
Promotions made to candidates who did not satisfy the 1 January eligibility cut‑off are illegal, must be treated as ad‑hoc without seniority, and the Tribunal's orders are set aside.
Summary
The appellants and respondents were employees of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Engineering Service governed by the 1968 Recruitment Rules. The Rules stipulated that eligibility for promotion to Assistant Engineer be determined as of 1 January each year, requiring either 8 years of service for graduate engineers or 12 years for diploma engineers, with a provision for diploma holders who later obtained a degree. The respondents obtained their graduation in October 1992, after the 1 January cut‑off, and were nevertheless promoted by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which the appellants challenged. The Supreme Court examined Rules 15 and 16 and held that the cut‑off date is mandatory; therefore the respondents were not eligible for promotion for the 1992 cycle. Consequently, the Tribunal’s orders were set aside, the promotions were declared ad‑hoc without seniority, and the Departmental Promotion Committee was directed to meet annually to consider eligible candidates. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether candidates who acquire graduation after the 1 January eligibility cut‑off but before the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting are eligible for promotion under Rules 15 and 16 of the 1968 Recruitment Rules.
- Whether promotions effected by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in contravention of the eligibility cut‑off are valid or must be treated as ad‑hoc and without seniority.
- Whether the Departmental Promotion Committee is required to convene annually to consider promotion vacancies in accordance with the Rules.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 309
Subjects
service lawpromotion eligibilityrecruitment rulesseniorityad‑hoc promotionDepartmental Promotion CommitteeConstitutional article 309Madhya Pradesh
Judgment
A RAMESH KUMAR CHOUDHA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
-
SEPTEMBER 20, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Service Law :
y
M.P. Irrigation Engineering Services (Gazetted) Recrnitment Rules,
c 1968:
Rules 7, 15, 16--Promotion-Assistant Enginee,-.Eligibility as on 1st
January of the year-Graduate Engineers to have a minimum 8 years ex-
perience-Diploma Engineers to have a minimum of 12 years experience-If
the Diploma Engineers acquire graduation they become eligible for promo-
D tion after 8 years-But cut-off date being 1st January, even if they had acquired
degree, prior to that date, their eligibility would be taken into account after
the cut-off date-Those promoted prior to their eligibility 011 the basis of
T1ibunal's orders-To be treated ad hoc and de hors the 1Ules-Not entitled
to senimity from that date-DPC to sit every year in Febmwy or Marclt--DPC
to sit and consider the candidates for filling up the vacancies from 1992 to
E 1996.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12859-69
of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.94 of the Madhya Pradesh
F Administrative Tribunal at Bhopal Bench in OA. No. 180. of 1993.
S. B. Sanyal and R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants.
B.S. Banthia for the Respondents.
G S.K. Agnihotri and Sakesh Kumar for the State.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
}I Leave granted.
614
R.K. CHOUDHA v. STATE 615
- We have heard learned counsel on both sides. A
These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Madhya
Pradesh State Tribunal made on October 1, 1994 in O.A. No. 616/93 and
batch.
The admitted position is that the appellants as well as the respon- B
dents are governed by the provisions of M.P. Irrigation Engineering ser-
vices (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968 issued by the Governor in
exercise of the power under proviso to article 309 of the Constitution. Rule
7 of the Rules prescribes the mode of recruitment either by direct recruit-
ment or by promotion of substantive or officiating feeder cadre, i.e., c
sub-Engineers, or by transfer of person who held in a substantive capacity
such post as may be specified by the State Government in that behalf.
- Eligibility criteria has been prescribed under Rule 15 and procedure for
· conside~~tion under Rule 16 which read as under :
"15. Condition of eligibility for promotion: D
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the committee con-
. sider the cases of all persons who on the 1st day of January of that
year had completed the prescribed years of service (whether of-
ficiating or substantive) on the post/service mentioned in column E
2 of Schedule IV or any other post or posts declared equivalent
thereto by the Government as under and are within the zone of
consideration as per sub-rule (2): -
(i) Sub-Engineers Head Draftsman/Draftsman to the post of
Assistant Engineers minimum "Service of 12 years as Sub- F
Engineers, Head Draftsman/Draftsman.
Provided that a sub-Engineer head Draftsman/Draftsman who
completed a minimum of 8 years service and possessed degree in
Civil/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering from recognised Univer- G
sity or qualifications declared eq~ivalent thereto by the State
Government wiir also be eligible for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer and will be considered each time, just after the
zone of consideration and the final selection list shall be made
from both the groups on the basis of merits, for example, if ten
posts are vacant in the cadre of Assistant Engineer to be filled by H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A promotion of sub-Engineers then 10 x 5-50 diploma holders sub-
Engineers from working list be considered first and thereafter the If
eligible graduate sub-Engineers be considered in the order of their
seniority for promotion.
(ii) Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers
B minimum Service of 2 years as Junior Engineers. (iii)
Research Assistants to the post of Assistant Research
Officers-Minimum Service of 8 years as Research As-
sistant.
(iii) Embankment Inspector/Silt Analysts to the post of As-
c sistant Research Officers-minimum service of 8 years
as Embankment Inspector/Silt Analyst.
(iv) Assistant Engineers promoted from sub-Engineers
Head Draftsman/Draftsman cadres to the post of E.E.
D minimum 18 years of total service out of which at least
6 years should be as Assistant Engineers.
(v) Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive- Engineers
minimum 6 years as Assistant Engineer.
E (vi) Superintending Engineers to the post of Chief En-
gineers-Minimum Service 6 years as Superintendent
Engineers.
(2) The field of selection shall ordinarily be limited to five times
the number of officers to be included in the select list, provided
F that if the required number of suitable officers are not available
in the field so determined the field may be enlarged to the extent
considered necessary by the Committee by mentioning the reasons
in writing.
16. Preparation of list of suitable officers :
G
(1) The committee shall prepare a list of ~uch persons as satisfy
the condition prescribed in the Rule 15 above and are held by the
committee to .be suitable for promotion to the service. This list
shall be sufficient to cover the anticipated vacancies on account of
H retirement and promotions during the course of one year from the
R.K.CHOUDHAv. STATE 617
date of preparation of the select list. A reserve list consisting of A
25% of the number of persons included in the said select list shall
be prepared to meet the unforeseen vacancies occurring during
the course of the aforesaid period.
(2) The selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit
and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority. B
(3) The names of the officers included in the list shall be arranged
in order of seniority in the (as in column II Schedule IV service
at the time of preparation of each select list; provided that any
Junior Officer, who is in the opinion of the committee, is of an C
exceptional merit and suitability, may be assigned iri the list a
higher place then that of officers senior to him.
Explanation : A person whose name is excluded in the select list
but who is not promoted during the validity of the list shall have
no claim to seniority over those considered in a subsequent selec- D
tion merely by the fact of his earlier selection.
(4) The list" so prepared shall be reviewed and revised every year.
(5) If in the process of the selection, review or revision, it is
proposed to supersede any member of the service or members of E
Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department (non-gazetted) Service,
the committee shall record its reasons for the proposed superses-
sion." •
A resume of these Rules would clearly indicate that the eligibility is
considered as on 1st of January of the year. the incumbent must have F
completed the prescribed years of service, namely, 8 years of service for
the Graduation Engineers and 12 years of service for the sub-Engineers. It
is not in dispute that the appellants as on January 1992 had not acquired
the Graduation qualification but some of them had completed 8 years of
service. Similarly, the respondents who were promoted as per the direc- G
tions of the Tribunal had admittedly acquired the qualifications of Gradua-
tion in October 1992. When the DPC met in December 1992 for filling up
of the vacancies for the year 1992 their claims did not come up for
consideration. So, the respondents filed OAs and the Tribunal has held
that since they had completed 8 years of service and also acquired the
graduation, they should be considered if found fit to be promoted. Thus H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A they came to be promoted.
The case of the appellants is that though the respondents had com-
pleted the eligibility criteria as on January 1 of the year 1992, a fact that
the graduation qualifications acquired subsequent to that date but before
B the DPC had considered their cases are not entitled to be promoted. The
approach adopted by the Tribunal is illegal and contrary to Rules 15 and
16 of the Rules referred to hereinbefore. We find force in the contention.
As seen Rule 15 is a clear mandate as to the eligibility criteria. Firstly, the
diploma-holders should have minimum of 12 years qualifying service for
eligibility to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers. If a
C diploma holder acquires graduation, he should complete minimum of eight
years of service then only he becomes eligible for consideration for promo-
tion as Assistant Engineer. He should hold the post as sub-Engineer in a
substation or continuous officiating capacity as prescribed. But the cut off
date for eligibility is 1st January of the year in which the eligibility was to
D be considered. Since the respondents acquired the qualifications in Oc-
tober 1992, They did not become eligible for consideration for promotion
for the year 1992 though the DPC had met in December 1992. Consequent-
ly, the direction issued by the Tribunal and the appointments of the
respondents made pursuant to the contempt orders are clearly illegal. We
are informed that they have been already promoted. Therefore, their
E promotions should be treated to be ad hoc and de horse the rules. Though
as per the orders of the Tribunal, they came to be promoted, such promo-
tions do not confer any right to seniority over any other eligible candidates
who acquired the qualifications as on January 1, 1992. Therefore, the DPC
is directed to sit every year either in the month of February or March for
F consideration of respective claims of the candidates provided if any vacan-
cy exists or is anticipated. As regards this year is concerned, they should
sit in this year to consider the vacancies that had arisen between 1st
January 1992 to 1st January 1996. The DPC should get identified the
vacancies having arisen in each year and consider the cases of respective
G eligible candidates diploma-holders as well as Engineers, who have com-
pleted U years of service by the diploma holders or the diploma holders
who acquire graduation before first day of January each year for promotion ·
in accordance with rules. Such of the candidates found fit and recom-
mended fit be given regular promotion provided they are substantive or
substantively in officiating capacity in the lower ranking. It would appear
H that some of the candidates who approached the Government taking
R.K. CHOUDHA v. STATE 619
advantage of the orders of the Tribunal and got promoted, also came to A
be considered and were promoted. All appointments are also to be treated
as ad hoc.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. The orders of the Tribunal
are set aside. No costs.
B
G.N. Appeals disposed of.
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