1999 (11) TMI 861 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Seniority dispute between promotee officers and direct recruits.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's review judgment.
3. Applicability of Rule 26 (seniority rule) and its amendments.
4. Eligibility of the appellant for promotion in 1972.

Summary

1. Seniority Dispute:
The appellant, holding an Engineering Degree, was appointed as an Overseer in 1965 and later redesignated as Junior Engineer. On 7.8.1972, he was promoted as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) on an ad hoc basis, which was regularized on 17.7.1976 after receiving the concurrence of the Orissa Public Service Commission. Respondents were directly recruited as Asstt. Engineers in 1972. A seniority dispute arose, leading the appellant to file a Petition before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal challenging the seniority list issued by the State Govt. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that promotee officers would rank senior to direct recruits if both were appointed in the same calendar year, per Rule 26 of the Orissa Service of Engineer Rules, 1941.

2. Validity of the Tribunal's Review Judgment:
The Tribunal's initial judgment was reviewed and reversed on 31.8.1995, following a judgment by the Orissa High Court. The review judgment held that the appellant and respondent No. 12 were juniors to the respondents, based on the interpretation that seniority should be counted from the date of substantive appointment. The appellant challenged this review judgment, arguing that it misinterpreted Rule 26 and ignored the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharashtra.

3. Applicability of Rule 26 and Its Amendments:
The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 26 in its original form and as amended in 1967 and 1974. The 1967 amendment stated that promoted officers would be senior to direct recruits if both were appointed in the same calendar year. The Tribunal, in its review judgment, ignored this amendment and relied on the unamended Rule 26, which counted seniority from the date of substantive appointment. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the 1967 amendment should have been considered.

4. Eligibility of the Appellant for Promotion in 1972:
The Tribunal initially found that the appellant was eligible for promotion in 1972 despite being designated as a Junior Engineer. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that the appellant's promotion was regular, though provisional, pending the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. The entire period of ad hoc service from 1972 to 1976 should be counted towards seniority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's review judgment, and restored the main judgment dated 4.1.1993. The appellant, who was promoted in 1972, was held to rank senior to the respondents, who were directly recruited in the same year. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's review exceeded its scope u/s 22(3)(f) of the Act, which aligns with the power of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC.