http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: D. STEPHEN JOSEPH.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF LNDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/1997

BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.  The  short question that  arises for  decision in  this case is whether for promotion  to the  post of Assistant Engineer in the 5O% promotion quota  reserved for  the person possessing, degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognised University or an equivalent with three years regular service in the  grade of Junior Engineers, in the  electricity department, Government of Pondicherry, three years experience as Junior Engineer in the grade  is to be counted from the  date of acquisition of the degree  in  Electrical  Engineering  or  the  length  of service in  the grade  of Junior Engineers is to be reckoned if the  incumbent at  the time of promotion to the 30% quota also possesses degree in Electrical Engineering.      The Central  Administrative Tribunal,  Madras Bench  by the impugned  order has  held that  the respondents  who are holding the  post of  Junior Engineers and hare three years’ regular service  in that  grade and  also possess  degree in Electrical  Engineering   will  be   entitled  to  get  such promotion to  50% reserved  quota and  their  experience  of three  years  is  not  to  be  reckoned  from  the  date  of acquisition of  the degree  in Electrical  Engineering  Such decision of  the Central  Administrative Tribunal  is  being impugned in this case.      Mr.  Venkataramani,   learned  counsel   appearing  for appellant   has contended  that the   plain  language of the Rule need  not be  followed in all cases and in applying the rule  for   promotion  to  50%  quota  from  amongst  Junior Engineers  with   degree  in  Electrical  Engineering,  past practice is  required to be considered as held by this court in  N Suresh Nathan and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992 Suppl. (1) SCC page 484). If the past practice is taken into consideration for  the purpose of interpreting said Rule, it will be  quite evident  that experience  of three  years had always been reckoned from the date of the acquisition of the degree in Electrical Engineering. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal  cannot  be  sustained  and  the  promotion  of private respondents  in the  50%  quota  earmarked  for  the persons holding  degree in  Electrical Engineering could not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

have been given to the said private respondents.      It appears to us that the State Government is labouring under a wrong impression as to the applicability of the past practice as   indicated  that past  practice should  not  be upset provided  such  practice  conforms  to  the  rule  for promotion and  consistently for  some time past the rule has been made  applicable in  a particular  manner. In our view, the decision  in Nathan’s  case  only  indicates  that  past practice must  be referable to the applicability of the Rule by interpreting  it in  a particular manner consistently for some time. Any past practice dehors the Rule cannot be taken into consideration  as past  practice consistently  followed for long  by interpreting the Rule. It may be indicated here that a  similar question  also  came  up  for  consideration before this  Court in   M.B. Joshi and Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar Pandey and  Ors. (1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 419 ). The decision in Suresh Nathan’s  case was  distinguished in  the its of that case and it was indicated that when the language of the Rule is quite  specific that if a particular length of service in the feeder  post  together  with  educational  qualification enable a  candidate to  be considered for promotion, it will not be  proper to count the experience only from the date of acquisition of  superior educational  qualification  because such interpretation  will violate  the very  purpose to give incentive to the employee to acquire higher education.      In the  instant case, there is no dispute that the rule for promotion  to 5O%  quota came into effect in 1982 and in 1987  and thereafter only some ad hoc promotions were given, Therefore, there is no occasion to proceed to proceed on the footing that  the Rule  for promotion  since effective  from 1982  has   been   followed   differently   by   giving   an interpretation of  the Rule  as was noted in the decision in Suresh Nathan’s case. Therefor, in our view, the decision in Suresh Nathan’s  case, which is an exception to the accepted principle of  interpretation   of the  Rule on  the    plain language, only under special circumstances, has no manner of application in the facts of the case. We, therefore, find no reason to  interfere  with  the  ultimate  decision  of  the Tribunal. This  appeal, therefore  fails  and  is  dismissed without any order as to costs.