1999 (11) TMI 867 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents can justify the final order of the High Court on other grounds without filing an appeal in time.
2. Whether the experience gained while holding diplomas could be counted in addition to the experience gained after obtaining a degree.
3. Whether Justice Jain was right in excluding the period of experience gained before the publication of results or issuance of the certificate of experience.
4. Whether the respondents were eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineers based on the answers to Points 2 and 3.

Summary:

Point 1:
The Supreme Court held that respondents could attack adverse findings or observations made by the High Court even without filing a separate appeal, based on principles referable to Order 41, Rule 22 of the C.P.C. The delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (CC. 3960/99) was condoned, allowing respondents to challenge the finding that their appointments were "tainted."

Point 2:
The Court ruled that the experience gained while holding a diploma could be counted in addition to the experience gained after obtaining a degree. The relevant notification dated 30.6.89 required two years of "professional experience" without specifying that it must be post-degree. This interpretation was supported by previous rulings in M.B. Joshi Vs. Satish Kumar Pandey and D. Stephen Joseph Vs. Union of India, distinguishing it from N. Suresh Nathan Vs. Union of India.

Point 3 & 4:
The Court addressed the eligibility of 18 candidates, divided into two categories: those beyond the age limit and those lacking the required professional experience. For the first category, age relaxation was applicable as they were MCD employees, and there was consent for their continuance. For the second category, the Court upheld the High Court's findings regarding the genuineness of experience certificates and ruled that pre-degree experience could be counted. Specific candidates like Dalip Ramnani were found eligible based on the High Court's acceptance of their certificates, and their seniority was adjusted accordingly.

The appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 14160/98, 287-288/99, 289-292/99 were dismissed. The appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)..(CC 3960) was allowed with modifications regarding Dalip Ramnani's seniority. No order as to costs.