The Supreme Court propounded that seniority should be calculated from the date of appointment. The Apex Court held that there was no distinction between the period served before or after acquiring the degree, based on the wording of the rules and the Electricity Department's understanding and implementation of the Electricity Department, Group B (Technical) Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”).
Brief Facts:
The Appellants and private Respondents were employed as Junior Engineers in the Government of Puducherry Electricity Department. The Appellants had an Engineering Degree prior to their appointment, while the private Respondents had a Diploma and later obtained an Engineering Degree during their service. The Puducherry administration interpreted the Rules to mean that the period spent in service as a Junior Engineer before acquiring an Engineering Degree would be counted as long as the Diploma holder acquired a degree.
The Appellants have preferred the present Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the impugned order and judgement of the High Court. The High Court held that if a Rule is particular, it would be inappropriate to consider the experience from when the employee acquired the superior educational qualification. Such an interpretation would go against the purpose of incentivizing employees to acquire higher education. Hence, the present appeal.
Brief Background:
The Appellants contested a decision that allowed Junior Engineers, who had originally obtained a Diploma but later acquired a degree during their service as Assistant Engineers under the Degree quota, to be promoted without fulfilling the three-year continuous service requirement from the date of acquiring the degree. They filed a case with the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled partly in their favour. The Tribunal held that qualifying service for such Junior Engineers should be counted from the date they obtained their degree. They relied on a previous case, Shailendra Dania & Ors. v. S.P. Dubey & Ors [(2007) 5 SCC 535], and opined that Degree and Diploma holders are distinct and entitled to promotion in their respective quota. However, they did not consider the D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 4 SCC 753] and required fresh consideration in light of the Shailendra Dania & Ors.
The Respondents challenged this decision by filing multiple writ petitions before the High Court. The Court ruled in their favour by relying on Shailendra Dania & Ors. (supra) and the judgment in M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey [(1993) Supp. (2) SCC 419], which stated that specific rules should not be interpreted to count experience only from the date of acquiring a higher educational qualification, as it would undermine the purpose of incentivizing employees to obtain higher education. The Court also noted that the Department's past practice of considering the tenure of Junior Engineers as a whole had become a departmental rule. The Court distinguished the Shailendra Dania & Ors. a later judgment of three judges, from the earlier judgment of two judges in the D. Stephen Joseph, regarding the correct interpretation of the rule in question.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the rule requiring a certain educational qualification and the number of years of experience for promotion is a cumulative requirement and that a higher educational qualification makes a qualitative difference in the service rendered by the employee. It was also argued that the distinction between employees with different qualifications is necessary to achieve efficiency at work and that allowing diploma holders to be promoted to the same quota as degree holders would violate this distinction.
It was further contended that the Appellants had qualified for a longer period than the Respondents.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Respondents argued that the view taken in the case of D. Stephen Joseph (supra) is not at variance with the view taken in the case of Shailendra Dania case (supra). In addition, the respondents further cited two other judicial pronouncements of the Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. v. C.K. Saji & Ors. had also endorsed the view taken in the D. Stephen Joseph case, so that case cannot be considered sub-silentio. These two judgments stated that diploma holders could count their service period before acquiring their degree for eligibility for promotion as Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department of the Union Territory of Puducherry.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court stated that a two-judge bench has already addressed the controversy regarding seniority in promotions based on merit alone in C. Chakkaravarthy & Ors. v. M. Satyavathy, IAS & Ors [(2015) 16 SCC 652]. Even though the promotion to Assistant Engineer was based on merit, there was a qualifying prescription for candidates to be considered.
The Department of Personnel and Training’s “Instructions and Guidelines on Seniority” were also presented, and the relevant portion was discussed. In the absence of any statutory provision or rule, the seniority of incumbents is counted from their date of appointment. The importance of past practice was highlighted in the case of Shailendra Dania & Ors. (Supra). The interpretation of the rules was determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the wording of the rules and past practices.
The wording of the rule itself requires three years of regular service and a degree in Electrical Engineering for 50% of promotions. In comparison, the other 50% require seven years of regular service and a diploma in Electrical Engineering. The service period rendered as a Junior Engineer without distinction between the years served before or after obtaining the degree is not considered. The rules have been uniformly implemented in the Electricity Department over time, and the view of the framers of the rules must be given due weightage.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court. The Court reiterated that seniority should be counted from the date of appointment, and past practice was a significant aspect when interpreting service rules. Based on the wording of the rule and the department's understanding and implementation, the Court held there was no distinction between the period served before or after acquiring the degree.
Therefore, the Apex Court held that the view taken in the D. Stephen Joseph case (supra) was applicable law, and the appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: T. Valsan thr. Legal Representatives & Ors. v K. Kanagaraj & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3466-3468 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 454 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Justice Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR, Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Adv., Mr. Likhi Chand Bonsle, Adv., Mr. Rahat Bansal, Adv., Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv., Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv., Ms. Anjali Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Adv., Ms. Divya Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR, Mr. Aravindh S., AOR, Ms. Uma Bhuvaneswari C., Adv., Mr. Abbas B., Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/files/images008/graduation.preview.jpg
