2010 (4) TMI 1045 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the service rendered by Section Officers before and after possessing the degree or equivalent can be taken into account for consideration for promotion under the degree holders quota? Whether their cases may be considered under the diploma holders quota as well for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.
2. Seniority considerations for promotion.
3. Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules.
4. Application of the principle of res judicata.
5. Validity of the past practice followed by the Government of Pondicherry.
6. Compliance with Article 141 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer:
The Supreme Court examined the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as per the Recruitment Rules. The Court noted that Rule 11 provides for two categories of eligibility: degree-holders with three years of service in the grade and diploma-holders with six years of service in the grade. The Court emphasized that the qualification or eligibility provided in Rule 11 is either three years of service in the grade after obtaining a degree or six years of service in the grade with a diploma.

2. Seniority considerations for promotion:
The Court held that seniority is not relevant for promotion to a selection post like that of Assistant Engineer. The Court referred to its earlier judgments, including Dr. Jai Narain Misra v. State of Bihar, to emphasize that for selection posts, merit is the sole criterion for promotion. The Court clarified that the practice of counting the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers from the date they passed the degree examination for promotion under Rule 11 was contrary to the Recruitment Rules.

3. Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules:
The Court interpreted Rule 11 to clarify that it does not provide for separate streams or channels of promotion exclusively for degree-holders and diploma-holders. Instead, it lays down the qualification or eligibility for consideration for promotion to 50% of the posts of Assistant Engineers. The Court rejected the argument that Rule 11 creates watertight compartments for promotion based on educational qualifications.

4. Application of the principle of res judicata:
The Court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply in this case because the issue of how eligible candidates would be considered for promotion was not decided in the earlier judgment of N. Suresh Nathan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. The earlier judgment only addressed the eligibility criteria for promotion but did not address the method of considering eligible candidates for promotion.

5. Validity of the past practice followed by the Government of Pondicherry:
The Court found that the past practice of the Government of Pondicherry, which counted the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers from the date they passed the degree examination for promotion, was contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules. The Court emphasized that the Recruitment Rules do not provide for seniority-cum-merit as the criterion for promotion to the selection post of Assistant Engineer.

6. Compliance with Article 141 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India:
The Court reiterated that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution. The Court also emphasized that the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry and the impugned judgment of the High Court violated the fundamental right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the Government of Pondicherry to consider the cases of all Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who have completed three years of service in the grade, for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer based on their merit. The Court clarified that promotions already made pursuant to the High Court's judgment would not be disturbed until the exercise for promotion based on merit is completed.