9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of seniority for promotion among diploma-holder Sub-Engineers who acquire a degree during service. 2. Interpretation of service rules regarding the eligibility period for promotion. 3. Validity of past practices in determining seniority and promotion eligibility. Summary: Issue 1: Determination of Seniority for Promotion The primary issue in these appeals is the determination of seniority among diploma-holder Sub-Engineers who acquire a degree during their service. The appellants and private respondents were Sub-Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department of Madhya Pradesh, governed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules 1980. The controversy centers on whether seniority for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer should be counted from the date of continuous officiation as Sub-Engineer or from the date of acquiring the degree. Issue 2: Interpretation of Service Rules The Tribunal had ruled that seniority should be counted from the date of acquiring the degree, relying on its earlier decision in T.A. No. 771/88 Sanaulla Sunzani v. State of M.P. & Others. However, the Supreme Court found that the Rules do not explicitly provide for such a determination. The appellants argued that seniority should be based on the length of service as Sub-Engineer, irrespective of when the degree was obtained. The Court agreed, noting that the Rules reduce the qualifying period for promotion from 12 years to 8 years for diploma-holders who obtain a degree, but do not alter the basis of seniority. Issue 3: Validity of Past Practices The Court also considered the past practice of the State Government, which had been promoting Sub-Engineers based on their length of service rather than the date of acquiring the degree. The Court upheld this practice, citing the principle that in the absence of specific rules, seniority should be determined by the length of service. The Court distinguished the present case from N. Suresh Nathan & Another v. Union of India & Others, where the rules explicitly required counting the period of service from the date of obtaining the degree. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and upholding the State Government's practice of determining seniority based on the length of service as Sub-Engineer. The Court emphasized that the incentive for diploma-holders to obtain a degree during service was to accelerate eligibility for promotion, not to alter the established seniority. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
|
