http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENT, U.T. CH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KAMLESH BABOO ETC.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/02/1993

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (2) 121        1993 SCC  Supl.  (2) 628  JT 1993  Supl.     25    1993 SCALE  (1)716

ACT: Civil Services : Punjab  Service  of Engineers Class I (Buildings  and  Roads Branch)  Rules,  1960-Rules 6(1), 8,  12-Post  of  Executive Engineer,  Class  I-Promotion  and  Seniroity-Determination- 1.1.1985  eligibility  date for  promotion-Promotion  w.e.f. 21.1.1986-Whether legal.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent  in C.A. No.182 of 1993  joined  service  as Section   Officer  under  the  appellant  on   83.1971.   On 29.12.1976  he  was promoted to the post of  Sub  Divisional Engineer  and was confirmed on 13.8.1985. With  effect  from 21.1.1986,   the.  respondent  was  promoted  as   Executive Engineer (Civil). The service particulars of the respondent in C.A. No.183  of 1993 were identical. The   respondents  approached  the  Central   Administrative Tribunal  to  determine  their seniority  in  the  cadre  of Executive  Engineers  from  the  date  of  eligibility,  ie. 1.1.1985 and not from 21.1.1986. The  Tribunal allowed the applications of  the  respondents, against  which  the  present  appeals  were  riled  by   the Administration. Allowing the appeals, this Court, HELD:1.01.  The  selection  to the  post  of  Executive Engineer was to be done by following the procedure laid down under  Rule  8 of the Punjab Service of Engineers,  Class  I (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 1960.  Eligibility  under Rule 6(b) of the Rules by itself does not give a right to  a member  of  Class 11 service to be promoted to the  post  of Executive Engineer in Class I service.  The promotion has to be  made  in accordance with the procedure laid  down  under Rule  8  of the Rules.  No member of Class  11  service  can claim 122 promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the ground of eligibility  alone.   Unless  a Class II  officer  has  been selected in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules he cannot be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. [125C-E] 1.02.     The  question  of assigning seniority in  Class  I service  only  arises  after a Class  11  officer  has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

selected and appointed to the said service. The seniority in class I is determined under Rule 12 of the Rules, keeping in view the date of appointment as a result of selection  under Rule 8 of the Rules. [125F] 1.03.     The respondents in these appeals were appointed to the  post  of Executive Engineer, as a result  of  selection held under Rule 8 of the Rules, with effect from January 21, 1986.   Their  seniority  has to be determined  in  Class  I service  keeping in view the date of their  appointments  as January 21, 1986. [125F-G] 1.04 The Tribunal grossly erred in directing the  Chandigarh Administration to give seniority to the Respondents from the date  of their eligibility.  The respondents can neither  be given  the date of appointment as January 1, 1985 nor  their seniority  fixed  from  that date.  The  directions  of  the Tribunal  in  this  respect are patently  violative  of  the Rules. [125G-H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 182 and  183 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.86 of the Central  Ad- ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A./T.A. Nos.49 &  102 of 1986. Raj Birbal for the Appellant. Rajinder  Sachher,  Mahabir Singh and A.K  Mahajan  for  the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP  SINGH,  J.  Kamlesh Baboo  and  V.K.  Bhardwaj  were promoted  as  Executive Engineer (Civil)  with  effect  from January  21,  1986  in the  Engineering  Department  of  the Chandigarh  Administration.  The promotion was made  on  the basis  of  merit  and suitability as  determined  under  the provisions  of  the  Punjab Service of  Engineers,  Class  I (Buildings   and  Road  Branch)  Rules,  1960   (Rules)   as applicable  to the Chandigarh Administration.  Both of  them approached the Central Administrative 123 Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench seeking a direction to the effect that their ’seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers be determined  from  the date when they became eligible  to  be considered  for promotion under the Rules.  In other  words, they  claimed January 1, 1985  the eligibility date  as  the date  of their promotion to the post of  Executive  Engineer instead  of  January  21,  1986  when  they  were   actually promoted.   The  Tribunal by its order dated  June  6,  1986 granted  the  relief  asked for by Kamlesh  Baboo  and  V.K. Bhardwaj in the following terms:               "In  view of the above discussion,  we  direct               that  the  applicant,  who  was  promoted   as               Executive Engineer from 21.1.1986 (vide Office               Order  dated 20.1.1986 and 2.5.1986) shall  be               continued  as Executive Engineer even  if  the               approval  of  the  U.P.S.C.  is  not  received               within  six  months  from  the  date  of               his promotion.  For the purposes of seniority,               the  applicant  shall be considered  from  the               date  when he became eligible.  The  promotion               of the applicant as Executive Engineer,  shall               however,  be  subject to the approval  by  the               U.P.S.C. and without prejudice to the decision               of  the  competent  court  in  the  matter  of               seniority, which is in dispute."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

These  two  appeals  by the  Chandigarh  Administration  are against the order of the Tribunal. Kamlesh  Baboo joined service as Section Officer  under  the Chandigarh Administration on March 8, 1971.  He was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on December 29,  1976 and  was confirmed as such on August 13, 1985.  The  service particulars of V.K. Bhardwaj are identical. The conditions of service of the respondents are governed by the  Rules.  Rules 6(b) and 8 (1)(3)(4)(8)(9)(10)(11)  which are relevant are reproduced hereunder:               "6  (b)  in  the case  of  an  appointment  by               promotion  from Class 11 Service has  8  years               completed  service,  in  that  class  and  has               passed   the  departmental   examination,   as               provided in rule 15;               8(1) A committee consisting of the Chairman of               the Public               124               Service  Commission or where the  Chairman  is               unable  to  attend, any other  member  of  the               Commission  representing  it,  the  Secretary,               P.W.D.  (Buildings and Roads Branch), and  the               Chief Engineers, Punjab, P.W.D. Buildings  and               Roads Branch, shall be constituted.               (3)The  Committee  shall  meet  at  intervals,               ordinarily   not  exceeding  one   year,   and               consider  the cases of all  eligible  officers               for  promotion  to  the senior  scale  of  the               Service,  as  on the first day of  January  of               that year.               (4)The  Committee  shall  prepare  a  list  of               officers suitable for promotion to the  senior               scale  of  the  Service.   The  selection  for               inclusion in such list shall be based on merit               and  suitability  in  all  respects  with  due               regard to seniority.               (8)The fist prepared or revised in  accordance               with  subrules (4), (5) and (6) shall then  be               forwarded  to  the  Commission  by  Government               along with               (i)  the records of all officers  included  in               the list;               (ii)  records  of all officers proposed to  be               superseded as a result of the  recommendations               made by the Committee;               (iii)the  reasons,  if any,  recorded  by  the               Committee for the proposed supersession of any               officer;               (iv)  the  observations, if any of  the  State               Government   on  the  recommendation  of   the               Committee.               (9)   The  Commission shall consider the  list               prepared  by  the Committee along  with  other               documents  received from the State  Government               and,unless it considers any change  necessary,               approve the list.               (10)  If the Commission considers it necessary               to make any, changes in the list received from               Government,  the  ’Commission shall  make  the               changes  it proposes and forward the  list  it               considers suitable to the State Government.               125               (11)  Appointments  to  the Service  shall  be               made by Government from this list in the order               in  which  names  have  been  placed  by   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             Commission." It is not disputed that the respondents in these two appeals completed  eight years of service in Class 11 cadre, by  the end  of December 1984 and as such they were eligible  to  be considered  for promotion to the post of Executive  Engineer on January 1, 1985.  The selection to the post of  Executive Engineer was to be done by following the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules, reproduced above.  Rule 8 of  the Rules  envisages  a  Selection Committee  presided  over  by Chairman/Member  of  the  Public  Service  Commission.   The Committee  considers the cases of eligible officers  on  the basis  of  merit and suitability, the list of  the  selected officers  is sent to the Commission for final  approval  and thereafter  the  appointments are made out of  the  approved list  in accordance with the merit assigned therein.  It  is thus  obvious that eligibility under Rule 6(b) of the  Rules by,  itself  does not give a right to a member of  Class  II service to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer  in Class I service.  The promotion has to be made in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules.   No member  of Class 11 service can claim promotion to the  post of  Executive Engineer on the ground of  eligibility  alone. Unless  a Class 11 officer has been selected  in  accordance with  Rule 8 of the Rules he cannot be promoted to the  post of Executive Engineer.  The question of Assigning  seniority in Class I service only arises after a Class 11 officer  has been  selected  and  appointed to  the  said  service.   The seniority  in  class I is determined under Rule  12  of  the Rules,  keeping in view the date of appointment as a  result of   selection  under  Rule  8  of  the  Rules.   Both   the respondents  in these appeals were appointed to the post  of Executive Engineer, as a result of selection held under Rule 8  of the Rules, with effect from January 21,  1986.   Their seniority has to be determined in class I service keeping in view  the  date of their appointments as January  21,  1986. The  Tribunal  grossly  erred in  directing  the  Chandigarh Administration to give seniority to the respondents from the date  of their eligibility.  The respondents can neither  be given  the date of appointment as January 1, 1985 nor  their seniority  fixed  from  that date.  The  directions  of  the Tribunal in this respect are patently violative of the Rules and cannot be sustained.  Even otherwise both Kamlesh  Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj were working as 126 Sub  Divisional  Engineer  on January 1, 1985  and  as  such treating them to have been appointed to Class I service from that date and giving them benefit towards seniority on  that basis would be wholly erroneous. The  question as to whether the deputationists  from  Punjab and  Haryana  should be permitted to continue to  serve  the Chandigarh   Administration   has  no   relevance   to   the controversy involved in these appeals.  That is a matter  of policy  between  the  States of Punjab,  Haryana  and  Union Territory   of   Chandigarh.   The   Tribunal   was   wholly unjustified  in seeking support from the  non-existent  fact that  because  of the presence of  many  deputationists  the respondents  in these appeals were not being considered  for promotion.   As a matter of fact the respondents  got  their promotion at the earliest possible opportunity.  They became eligible  on January 1, 1985 and thereafter within a  period of  one  year the procedure under Rule 8 was  completed  and they were promoted with effect from January 21, 1986. We  allow the appeals, set aside the order of  the  Tribunal dated  June  6, 1986 and dismiss the applications  filed  by respondents  Kamlesh  Baboo  and V.K.  Bhardwaj  before  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Tribunal.  No costs. V.P.R. Appeals allowed. 127