9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Seniority determination between Assistant Engineers (Class II) and Assistant Executive Engineers (Class I). 2. Application of the quota rule for promotions. 3. Timing of seniority reckoning (initial appointment vs. confirmation). 4. Validity of the rotational system for implementing the quota rule. 5. Impact of administrative instructions on seniority determination. Detailed Analysis: 1. Seniority Determination: The petitioners, confirmed Assistant Engineers in Class II, were promoted to officiate as Executive Engineers in Class I before their confirmation. The respondents, Assistant Executive Engineers in Class I, were promoted to Executive Engineers later. The primary grievance was against the seniority list showing petitioners as junior to respondents despite earlier promotions. 2. Application of the Quota Rule: The Central Engineering Service, Class I Recruitment Rules, initially set a promotion quota of 75% for Assistant Executive Engineers (Class I) and 25% for Assistant Engineers (Class II), later altered to 66-2/3% and 33-1/3%. The petitioners argued that this quota should apply at the time of initial promotion, not confirmation. 3. Timing of Seniority Reckoning: The court emphasized that seniority should be counted from the date of initial officiating appointment within the quota, not from the date of future confirmation. The principle was established that once Assistant Engineers are regularly appointed to officiate as Executive Engineers within their quota, their seniority in Grade I counts from that date. 4. Validity of the Rotational System: The respondents argued for a rotational system implied by the quota rule, suggesting seniority should be fixed at the time of confirmation. The court rejected this, stating the quota rule should be enforced at the time of initial recruitment to the grade of Executive Engineer, not at confirmation. The rotational system was deemed unnecessary and contrary to the rules. 5. Administrative Instructions: The court examined the Memoranda from the Home Ministry dated June 22, 1949, and December 22, 1959. The latter was deemed irrelevant as it applied only to appointments after its issuance. The former, applicable to the petitioners, established seniority based on the length of service in the grade. The court found that administrative instructions must align with the Recruitment Rules and the quota rule should apply to all vacancies, permanent or temporary. Conclusion: 1. Seniority Counting: Assistant Engineers' seniority in Grade I will count from their initial officiating appointment as Executive Engineers within their quota, not from confirmation. 2. Quota Rule Enforcement: The quota rule applies at the time of initial recruitment to the grade of Executive Engineer, considering all sanctioned posts, permanent or temporary. 3. Further Promotions: Once regularly appointed within their quota, Assistant Engineers are entitled to further promotions as Class I Officers. 4. Excess Quota Adjustments: If Assistant Engineers are recruited in excess of their quota, they will be adjusted in later years within their lawful quota. 5. Administrative Instructions: The court directed the revision of the seniority list in light of these principles, ensuring it does not affect those already promoted and confirmed in higher grades. The court allowed the writ petition and civil appeals, setting aside the Delhi High Court judgment and directing the revision of the seniority list accordingly. Costs were awarded to the petitioners and appellants.
|
