M.A. Khan & Anr. vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5140 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                               Reserved on : 26.08.2011
%                                                          Date of decision : 19.10.2011

+                               LPA No.280 of 1997

M.A. KHAN & ANR.                                            ...APPELLANTS
                                Through:        Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                                                Mr. Pramod Gupta, Advocate.

                                           Versus

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ORS.     ...RESPONDENTS
                   Through: Ms. Madhu Tewatia & Ms. Sidhi
                            Arora, Advocates for Respondent
                            No.1/NDMC.

                                                Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Aditi Gupta
                                                & Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary,
                                                Advocates for Respondents 2 & 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1.        Whether the Reporters of local papers                 YES
          may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.        To be referred to Reporter or not?                    YES

3.        Whether the judgment should be                        YES
          reported in the Digest?

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The New Delhi Municipal Council (for short „NDMC‟)/respondent

No.1 has an Engineering Cadre. The line of promotion is from a

Junior Engineer (for short „JE‟) to an Assistant Engineer (for short

„AE‟) to an Executive Engineer (for short „EE‟) to a Superintendent

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Engineer (for short „SE‟) and then to the Chief Engineer (for short

„CE‟) and the Engineer-in-Chief. From the post of SE onwards only

such of the candidates who have degree are eligible. We are

concerned in the present dispute with the promotion from a JE to an

AE.

2. The entry point for an AE is both through direct recruitment and

departmental recruitment. 25 per cent posts are reserved for direct

recruitment. A Graduation in Civil Engineering is a qualifying

requirement for such recruitment. 75 per cent posts used to filled in

through promotion from the post of JE. The entry point for JE was

both for diploma holders and degree holders.

3. There were, however, some candidates who though were diploma

holders at the time of recruitment as JE acquired the degree during the

course of service. The JEs who were degree holders enjoyed a

quicker route of promotion as the qualifying service was less as

compared to a diploma holder. However, no preference was

apparently being given for such of the diploma holders who acquired

a degree during the course of service and in this behalf representations

were received by respondent No.1 for reserving 25 per cent quota

from 75 per cent quota of the promotees to the post of JEs. These

representations received a favourable response in a meeting held on

13.6.1990 of the Sub- Committee to review the Recruitment Rules for

the post of AE (Civil) and it was proposed that out of the 75 per cent __________________________________________________________________________________________

departmental quota for the promotion of JE to the post of AE (Civil),

25 per cent quota be reserved for departmental Graduate JEs. A

resolution No.44 dated 17.8.1990 was passed in terms whereof the

draft Recruitment Rules received the imprimatur of respondent No.1.

The relevant portion of the Rules is reproduced hereinunder:

"7. Educational & Other Qualification for:

a. Direct Recruitment 25 per cent. 1st Class or second high class Univ.

Graduate Civil Engg. From any recognized Institution or passed Section A & B examination of Institution of Engineers (India) with 3 years experience/service.

b. Departmental Recruitment (75% 1. Diploma Holder JE(C) with 8 yrs. post out of which 50% of posts for service in the grade. Diploma holders 25% for Graduate JE(C). 2. University Graduate JE (C) with 4 years service in the grade.

3. Jr. Engineer (C) who while in service pass section A & B of Institution of Engineers (India) or Graduate in Civil Engg. from any recognized Institution with 3 yrs.

service from the date of passing section A & B of AMIE or Graduation in Civil Engineering or 5 years service whichever is more beneficial to the officer."

4. The effect of the aforesaid modified Recruitment Rules was that out

of the 75 per cent posts meant for promotes, 50 per cent of the total

posts are for the diploma holders and 25 per cent were for Graduate

Engineers. A sub-classification was made for such of the diploma

holders who acquired the degree during the course of service. Thus,

__________________________________________________________________________________________

while a diploma holder was required to have a pre-requisite of eight

(8) years service before being considered for promotion to the post of

AE, and a University Graduate was entitled to be considered within

four (4) years of service in the grade, a JE who while in service

acquired the degree in Civil Engineering and served for a period of

three (3) years after acquiring such a degree, i.e., from the date of

possessing of the degree or five (5) years service whichever is more

beneficial to the officer became entitled for consideration for

promotion.

5. We may add at this stage that there were various litigations arising

from these Rules some because the period prescribed as qualifying

service for degree holders vis-à-vis diploma holders were less while

others related to the requirement of having a certain number of years

post acquiring the degree qualification but wanted the period of

service prior to acquiring the degree to be taken into account. All

these endeavours failed and to that extent the controversy stands

settled.

6. In the present case we have to examine another controversy, which is

an off shoot of providing for quota for promotion for diploma holders

who have acquired the degree during the course of service. The

appellants claim that this is a separate line of promotion and thus you

cross the entry point when you acquire a degree. Thus, the seniority

for being considered for promotion in this line should be based on the __________________________________________________________________________________________

date of acquisition of the degree. On the other hand, respondents 2 &

3 (original petitioners) had laid a challenge to the seniority list

prepared in this manner as it is their claim that so long as you acquire

a degree and complete the necessary years of service post acquisition

of degree, a common pool of such persons would arise and thus the

promotion would be based not on the date you acquire the degree but

your entry into the cadre of JE. It is, thus, their say that the seniority

list drawn at the entry point of JE would prevail amongst the diploma

holders who acquired a degree during the course of service subject to

their fulfilling the required number of years of service post the

acquisition of the degree.

7. Respondents 2 & 3 filed CW No.1570/1992. The submission of the

said respondents found favour with the learned single Judge who held

that the seniority of the JEs fixed on the basis of length of service

could not be changed. The amended Recruitment Rules were, thus,

held not to change the seniority from the length of service to date of

acquiring the degree. The principle of service jurisprudence that in

the absence of any specific rules the seniority amongst persons

holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the

basis of length of service and not on any other fortuitous

circumstances, was relied upon, with the observation that the

acquisition of a degree during the continuation of service simply

accelerated the entitlement to promotion to the post of an AE. The __________________________________________________________________________________________

seniority rules in question were held not to deal with the fixation of

seniority of the JEs which in the historical perspective of these JEs

were determined on the basis of length of service. The seniority list

framed vide Resolution No.44 dated 17.8.1990 was, thus, struck down

while placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in

M.B. Joshi Vs. Satish Kumar Pandey AIR 1993 SC 267.

8. The appellants were not parties to that writ petition. However, on

being affected they filed an appeal and leave was granted to them to

do so.

9. The preliminary submission of the appellants is that respondents 2 &

3 failed to implead them or their class of persons as a party and thus

the impugned order could not have been passed in their absence. In

this behalf, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the

judgement of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 167. It was held that the High

Court should not proceed to hear a writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India without insisting on such persons or some of

them in representative capacity, being made respondents. On the

other hand learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 referred to the case

of V.P. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 759

holding that the conclusion of the Tribunal that non-inclusion of the

affected parties is fatal to the appellants‟ case is unsustainable in law.

The appellants had not challenged the ad hoc appointments of the __________________________________________________________________________________________

promotee respondents in the writ petition but they did challenge the

position of the said ad hoc promotee respondents over the appellants

in the seniority list. Thus, the very principle of determination of

seniority made by the State Government was under challenge and for

such a case State is a necessary party who had been impleaded.

10. In the present case respondents 2 & 3 were only aggrieved by the

placement of the appellants ahead of them in the list for the

promotional quota of persons who acquired a degree during the

course of service and thus the observations in V.P. Srivastava & Ors.

case (supra) would apply. The promotions are stated to have been

made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and the

appellants, if they so chose could have got themselves impleaded. We

may also add that in any case the merits of controversy are being

examined in appeal and an interim stay has been operating in favour

of the appellants. We, thus, see no reason to set aside the impugned

judgement on the basis of the plea advanced by the appellants.

11. Now coming to the crux of the controversy. The appellants pleaded

that the carving out of the quota for such of the diploma holders who

acquired degree during the course of service was based on the need to

have accelerated promotional avenues so that more degree holders

were available for manning the higher posts of SEs and onwards for

which only a degree holder was eligible. There is stated to be

qualitative difference in the work and experience of a degree vis-a-vis __________________________________________________________________________________________

a diploma holder and thus the experience of one cannot be counted for

the other. Since the recruitment regulations mentioned only the

eligibility criteria two eligibility lists necessarily have to be prepared

at the time of making promotions in the quota of degree holders and

diploma holders and thus a combined seniority list loses its

significance. It is, thus, pleaded that acquisition of a degree has to be

at the entry point in the channel of degree holders and thus any

diploma holder who acquires a degree subsequently, even if he was

senior in service cannot be placed senior to a degree holder who

acquired the degree prior to him. A contrary view, as per the

submissions of the appellants, would defeat the entire purpose of

culling out a separate quota for the degree holders. The acquisition of

degree is, thus, pleaded to be a new birthmark in the cadre of a degree

holder as otherwise there would be a fluid situation.

12. On the other hand it is the say of respondents 2 & 3 that the

controversy is not one of eligibility but inter se seniority of the parties

who were originally diploma holders but acquired the degree at

different points of time. Since the said respondents at the time of

promotion of the appellants in 1992 were already eligible in terms of

the eligibility rules and were senior to the appellants ought to have

been promoted earlier than the appellants. The position emerging

regarding the appointment, date of acquiring the degree and

promotion is set out as under:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Party Appointment as JE Date of acquiring Promotion as (diploma holder) degree AE Petitioner No.1 February, 1979 1983 7.5.1992 Petitioner No.2 August, 1976 1980 May, 1992 Respondent No.2 April 2, 1974 1988 1998 Respondent No.3 January, 1976 1986 1996

13. Respondent No.1 is stated to have prepared a seniority list on

31.7.1986 wherein respondent No.2 was at serial No.117, respondent

No.3 at serial No.141, appellant No.1 at serial No.206 and appellant

No.2 at serial No.151. The amendment to the Recruitment Rules by

the NDMC did not envisage any change in the seniority rules nor any

provision to draw a seniority list on the basis of acquiring the

degree/eligibility but despite this a new seniority list was prepared

which was impugned in the writ petition. This seniority list was also

contrary to the practice of respondent No.1 of operating a seniority

list on the basis of date of joining (an admission made by respondent

No.1/NDMC in an affidavit affirmed on 17.1.2004). Such a practice

was in conformity with the Delhi Administration (Seniority) Rules,

1965, where para 6(i) states as under:

"6. PROMOTIONS:-

(1) The relative seniority of persons promoted to the various grade shall be determined in the order of their selection for such promotions."

14. These seniority rules are stated to have been adopted by respondent

No.1 and not withdrawn.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

15. Learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 referred to the amended rules

to contend that out of the 75 per cent posts to be filled in through

departmental recruitment 50 per cent are meant for diploma holders

and 25 per cent for degree holders. The degree holders in turn may be

either degree holders who acquired such a degree prior to the entry

into the feeder grade of JE or those who acquired the degree in the

course of service. The qualifying services are, however, different

from all these. For a degree holder having a degree at the entry point

the qualifying service is four (4) years. For a diploma holder it is

eight (8) years. The requirement of qualifying service for a diploma

holder who acquires a degree during the course of service is a little

more complex as it requires three (3) years service post the date of

acquisition of the degree or five (5) years service whichever is more

beneficial to the officer. The requirement of five (5) years service is

not "post acquisition of degree". Thus, the intention of amendment of

the recruitment rules is clear, i.e. to give an additional avenue of

promotion to degree holders who acquired a degree while in service

but the same does not wash away the service rendered by diploma

holders JEs.

16. It is the submission of respondents 2 & 3 that the post is one, i.e., JE

where both diploma holders and degree holders were carrying out the

same function. The acquisition of the degree is, thus, an additional

factor for promotion to the post of an AE and gives a more __________________________________________________________________________________________

accelerated promotion as per the time period. It also provides a

minimum qualifying service post acquisition of degree of three (3)

years. Once all these qualifications are met, then on the date when the

promotion is made all eligible persons would stand together and their

inter se seniority of the degree acquiring diploma holders would be as

per their original seniority at the point of entry.

17. In the aforesaid factual matrix we now refer to various judgements

cited at the bar by learned counsels for the parties. The basic

judgement relied upon by the appellants is of the Supreme Court in

Shailendra Dania & Ors. Vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 535.

The Civil Appeal arose out of a judgement of a Full Bench of this

Court in WP (C) No.4696/1993 titled S.P. Dubey Vs. MCD and

connected matters decided on 25.1.2002. The questions referred to

before the Full Bench were answered and it was held that the

experience gained by the diploma holders as JEs has to be counted for

promotion to the post of AE in the event they are duly qualified as

degree holders. The Supreme Court analyzed various aspects. It

upheld the different periods of service attached to qualification as an

essential criterion for promotion, the same being based on

administrative interest in the service. It was held that the diploma

holders JE who obtained a degree during the tenure of service would

be required to complete three (3) years service on the post after

having obtained a degree to become eligible for promotion to the __________________________________________________________________________________________

higher post if they claim promotion in the channel of degree holder JE

there being a quota fixed for such graduate Engineers and diploma

holders JEs for promotion to the post of AE. Learned counsel for the

appellant emphasized on the question which was referred to the Full

Bench and was answered, i.e., the experience gained by diploma

holders as JEs is to be counted to the post of AEs in the event they are

qualified as degree holders. On the other hand learned counsel for

respondents 2 & 3 submitted that the only question examined by the

Supreme Court was the determination of eligibility and not the

seniority position of diploma holders after acquiring the degree

subsequently.

18. The Supreme Court noticed the judgement in M.B. Joshi case (supra)

in paragraph 27 which was relied upon by the learned single Judge

and concluded that the court in that judgement was considering the

experience/qualifying service of eight (8) years and twelve (12) years

amongst the diploma holders Sub-Engineers and not vis-à-vis the

degree holders Sub-Engineers. The reduction of qualifying service

from twelve (12) years to eight (8) years accelerated the entitlement to

promotion for the post of AE by Sub-Engineers from twelve (12)

years to eight (8) years and the qualifying service required to be

considered was of diploma holders Sub-Engineers which had no

relation with the Degree of Engineering. Thus, the equivalence of any

period of service with qualification of acquiring a degree in __________________________________________________________________________________________

Engineering was not in issue. The conclusions are contained in

paragraphs 44 & 45 of the said judgement, which read as under:

"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 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 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. 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 recognised as conferring eligibility for 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 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 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 cumulative requirement with certain educational 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 read to be any other thing because this quota is specifically 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 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-holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers."

(emphasis supplied)

19. The emphasis of learned counsel for the appellants is the observations

made aforesaid regarding the watertight compartments for graduate

JEs and diploma holder Engineers and they are being entitled to

promotion in their respective quotas. On the other hand learned

counsel for respondents 2 & 3 emphasised on the corollary in

paragraph 45 aforesaid that the completion of three (3) years service

on the post after having obtained a degree to become eligible for

promotion to the higher post if the claim for promotion was in the

channel of degree holder JEs.

20. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the judgement in

CW No.6048/1999 titled A.K. Kashyap Vs. Commissioner, DDA &

Ors. decided on 20.5.2002 by one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.). The

facts of the case are apposite inasmuch as the dispute involved the

seniority inter se diploma holders who had acquired the degree. It

was held that once a person acquired a degree and sought to come in

the channel of degree holders, he cannot claim seniority over persons

who are either senior to him in the line of degree holders or who may

be junior to him in the line of diploma holders but who happened to

have acquired a degree prior to him. This order was assailed in LPA

__________________________________________________________________________________________

No.473/2002. The LPA was dismissed on 14.2.2007 holding that

once the diploma holders acquires a degree the erstwhile inter se

seniority, if any, loses significance.

21. In State of Gujarat Vs. C.G. Desai & Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 188, it was

observed in paragraph 17 as under:

"17. If a person, like any of the respondents, to avoid the long tortuous wait leaves his position in the "never-ending" queue of temporary/ officiating Deputy Engineers etc. looking for promotion, and takes a short cut through the direct channel, to Class II Service, he gives up once for all, the advantages and disadvantages that go with the channel of promotion and accepts all the handicaps and benefits which attach to the group of direct recruits. He cannot, after his direct recruitment claim the benefit of his pre-selection service and thus have the best of both the worlds. It is well-settled that so long as the classification is reasonable and the persons falling in the same class are treated alike, there can be no question of violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment."

22. In PSE Board, Patiala & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Sehgal & Ors. 1990

Lab I.C. 249, a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has

looked into the question which inevitably arose as to who should get

the promotional post, i.e., the senior of the two even though the senior

acquired eligibility later than the junior or should it go to the one who

acquired the eligibility first. It was held that the seniority per se

cannot be intended to be taken as a basis for promotion as otherwise it

would lead to undesirable results of breeding manipulations,

machinations, calculations and caprice. The case of promotion of the

first eligible person can deliberately be kept delayed with oblique

motives so as to let suitable rivals come in and in this manner his

__________________________________________________________________________________________

acquired eligibility can be frustrated by someone senior acquiring

eligibility far far later. This Full Bench judgement was upheld by the

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1633/1989 decided on 14.9.1994.

The Full Bench was relied upon by a Division Bench of Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Pirthvi Singh Vs. HSEB 1993 (5) SLR 108

and the said judgement of the Division Bench received the imprimatur

of the Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP No.13782/1993 on

10.9.1993 against the said judgement.

23. In Challa Jaya Bhaskar & Ors. Vs. Thungathurthi Surender & Ors.

2010 XI AD (SC) 97, the Supreme Court examined the plea of Civil

Assistant Surgeons in the Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health Services

who had acquired the post graduate degree and were subsequently

included in the teaching cadre claiming the benefit of their past

service as non-teaching staff for reckoning seniority. This plea was

negated taking note of the judgement in Shailendra Dania & Ors. case

(supra).

24. In Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. Vs. C.K. Saji & Ors. AIR 2004 SC

2717, it was observed in paragraph 43 as under:

"43. The State as an employer is entitled to fix separate quota of promotion for the degree-holders separately in exercise of its rule-making power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such a rule is not unconstitutional. The state may, therefore, in our opinion, cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily by giving an option to such diploma-holders who acquired a higher qualification so as to enable them to either opt for promotion in the category of degree holder or diploma-holder. Such option was to be exercised by the concerned officer only.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

He, in a given situation, may feel that he would be promoted in the diploma-holders quota earlier than degree-holders quota and vice versa but once he opts to join the stream of the degree- holders, he would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list."

(emphasis supplied)

25. Learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3, on the other hand, relied upon

the three pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In R. Prabha Devi

& Ors. Vs. Government of India, through Secretary, Ministry of

Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms & Ors. 1988) 2 SCC

233, it was observed that where a rule making authority has laid down

conditions for promotion to a higher post in the service rules, it cannot

be said that a direct recruitee who is senior to the promotee is not

required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to

be considered for promotion to a higher post merely on the basis of

seniority. The seniority will be relevant only amongst persons

eligible and seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can

over ride it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. It was,

thus, the submission that a distinction must be drawn between the

seniority and eligibility and once respondents 2 & 3 are eligible, the

seniority must prevail. In R.B. Desai & Anr. Vs. S.K. Khanolker &

Ors. AIR 1999 SC 3306, the accepted principle of service

jurisprudence that once persons from different sources enter a

common cadre their seniority will be counted from the date of their

continuous officiation in the cadre to which they are appointed was

recognized. At the time of consideration for promotion the candidates __________________________________________________________________________________________

concerned who have acquired the eligibility, unless rule specifically

gives an advantage to a candidate to an earlier eligibility the date of

seniority should prevail over the date of eligibility. Since the rule

under consideration did not give any such priority to the candidates

acquiring earlier eligibility, the seniority ought to count. The

judgement of the High Court was over ruled on the ground that the

rule did not specifically contemplate such an advantage of having

acquired eligibility first as against seniority.

26. In A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors.

2000 (4) SCC 30 the requirement of having minimum years of service

specified in the rule was held to be independent of educational

qualification eligibility criteria. Thus, if the requisite experience had

been obtained before obtaining educational qualification, the

professional experience need not entirely be gained after obtaining

education qualification.

27. We have set out all the aforesaid judgements because of the principle

of law which is sought to be urged in the present proceedings, of

course, qua the rule in question.

28. The catena of judgements cited by learned counsel for the appellants

proceed on one fundamental principle. There can be more than one

channel of promotion requiring different periods of service and

different educational qualifications. If it is so, a person with lesser

educational qualification becomes eligible under the rules to be __________________________________________________________________________________________

promoted albeit after a delayed period of time. This does not make

the rule arbitrary and the benefit can accrue to a person with higher

qualification. Thus, the choice is with the candidate to avail of the

route which is more beneficial to him but once he opts to join a

stream of the degree holders he would be placed at the bottom of the

seniority list as observed in Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. case (supra).

29. Nothing prevented respondents 2 & 3 from acquiring the

qualifications first. They chose to continue as diploma holders and

would, thus, have been considered for promotion only as diploma

holders but for the opportunity made available by amendment of the

promotion rules giving another fast track for promotion for such of

the diploma holders who acquired a degree. The moment they

acquired a degree they come in a different category and stream and

thus have obviously a chance for faster promotion because that would

be the only reason for them to seek promotion in that channel. This is

also obvious from the minimum time period required of service

before a diploma holder or degree holder gets promoted. It is, in fact,

to encourage diploma holders to acquire a degree and thus they

become eligible for holding higher posts which are reserved for

degree holders that such an amendment to the rules came into force.

No doubt there is a minimum period of service required post

acquiring the degree before a person becomes eligible. But then such

eligibility will be acquired at different points of time depending on __________________________________________________________________________________________

when a diploma holder obtains a degree as a person obtaining a

degree later would come into the eligibility stream later, the three (3)

years period starting post acquiring the degree. The person obtaining

the degree first, thus, comes into the eligible pool earlier and is ranked

higher for purposes of consideration for promotion, the date of his

having acquired the degree becoming material.

30. In PSE Board, Patiala & Anr. case (supra), the Full Bench cautioned

the possibility of breeding manipulations, machinations, calculations

and caprice, which would arise if a view to the contrary is adopted as

the promotions may not be given effect to, so as to permit more

seniors to acquire the eligibility of the degree with three (3) years of

service and they would get promotion first despite a person who was

junior but took the initiative to acquire the degree first. Thus, the

system would permit suitable rivals to come into the pool from which

promotion has to be made and then claim that they have a prior right

of promotion arising from the initial date of appointment even if they

have acquired the qualifying degree later, a mischief best avoided!

31. We fully agree with this reasoning and this judgement has received

the imprimatur of the Supreme Court by dismissal of the Civil Appeal

as referred to aforesaid.

32. The aforesaid principle has been followed in A.K. Kashyap case

(supra) and, once again, received the imprimatur of the Division

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Bench of this Court in LPA No.473/2002 and to our minds there can

really be no doubt about this proposition.

33. The most material aspect is the judgement which has been rendered in

Shailendra Dania & Ors. case (supra). The judgement of the Full

Bench of this Court rendered on a reference holding the view that the

experience claimed by the diploma holders as JEs has to be counted

for promotion to the post of AEs in the event they are duly qualified

as degree holders was itself called into question in this case. In fact,

the hearing in this appeal was deferred on a number of occasions on

account of the interim orders granted in the appeal before the

Supreme Court arising from the Full Bench decision. We may notice

that on 13.1.2005 the question whether this appeal should await the

decision of the Supreme Court was examined and the interim order

passed by the Supreme Court in Appeal on 1.11.2004 was noticed.

The Supreme Court had observed that the impugned order had been

stayed which necessarily meant that the experience gained by diploma

holders prior to their obtaining a degree could not be counted and

their seniority must necessarily start from the date the degree is

obtained. Thus, it is hardly permissible for respondents 2 & 3 to

plead that the controversy in the present case was not actually

examined in Shailendra Dania & Ors. case (supra). The question

answered by the Full Bench is noticed at the end of paragraph 21 and

the judgement in M.B. Joshi case (supra) relied upon by the learned __________________________________________________________________________________________

single Judge has been explained away in paragraph 28 of the

judgement. Paragraph 22 specifically states that the court was

concerned with the rule relating to promotion from the post of JE to

the post of AE. Merely because this judgement now does not favour

respondents 2 & 3 does not imply that it should not apply to the facts

of the case when the judgement arises from the same rules and the

same controversy.

34. In so far as the judgements referred to by respondents 2 & 3 are

concerned, in our considered view, R. Prabha Devi & Ors. case

(supra) is not of much assistance to respondents 2 & 3. It only lays

down a proposition that a person must be eligible for promotion

having regard to qualifications presented for the post before he can be

considered for promotion and that seniority cannot be substituted for

eligibility. This does not imply that the inter se seniority of the same

category of degree holders cannot be fixed on the criteria of who

acquired the degree first. R.B. Desai & Anr. case (supra) and A.K.

Raghumani Singh & Ors. case (supra) were in the context of the rules

in question.

35. No doubt the earlier norms being adopted as per an affidavit filed by

respondent No.1 was of seniority having precedence but then that was

not when this rule providing for accelerated possibility of promotion

to the diploma holders on acquiring a degree was in question. The

promotion rules were amended in pursuance to the representations __________________________________________________________________________________________

received from the diploma holders who wanted to shift the stream by

acquiring a degree and thus a quota was carved out for them. If they

want to get promotion through this quota then their seniority in this

quota would alone be the criteria, the date of acquiring the degree and

not the period rendered in service as a diploma holder. That is why

some period of service has to be post acquiring the degree.

36. We are, thus, of the considered view that the impugned judgement of

the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in view of the aforesaid

legal position and more specifically in view of the pronouncements in

Shailendra Dania & Ors. case (supra).

37. The impugned order is set aside and the modified seniority which has

now been made applicable in terms whereof the appellants are senior

to respondents 2 & 3 are upheld, the date of acquiring the degree

being the material date with requisite period of service post acquiring

the degree.

38. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their

own costs.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

OCTOBER 19, 2011                                        RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
b'nesh

__________________________________________________________________________________________