2015 (10) TMI 376 - SC - Indian Laws

Promotion criteria - Diploma Holder Project Engineers (Junior) upon acquiring degree / qualification of AMIE - whether would be entitled to count their experience of service prior to acquisition of such qualification for the purpose of eligibility of 3 years total experience of service for promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Sr.) in the quota fixed for Degree Holders? - Held that - The relevant regulation does not contemplate any reduced total experience for promotion for a diploma holder who may acquire degree or AMIE qualification while in service. Even on acquiring such higher qualification the concerned diploma holder is neither given any advantage vis- -vis other diploma holders nor is he ousted from the right of consideration against 30% quota provided for diploma holders. In such a situation in order to enter into the water-tight compartment of 20% quota for the degree holders with three years experience of service, a diploma holder with AMIE qualification must show that he fulfills the entire eligibility criterion, i.e., he is a degree holder with three years experience of service as a degree holder. Such water-tight compartment and separate quotas cannot be rendered meaningless so as to affect the prospect of promotion of the degree holders by inducting into that category a diploma holder who does not have three years experience of service as a degree holder. In the absence of any such provision in the Regulations, no equivalence can be permitted in such a situation because even a diploma holder with seven years experience of service is confined to a prospect or chance of promotion only against 30% quota for the diploma holders. So far as the word total occurring before the words experience of service is concerned, from the circumstances and past history relating to the service, it must be understood in the context of service rendered in regular capacity along with service rendered on ad-hoc or officiating or temporary basis. The word total cannot be construed to mean service rendered either as diploma holder or degree holder. If this had been the intention, the word total would have been included only in the context of three years total experience of service of degree holders and not in the context of seven years experience of service as diploma holders. A diploma holder in any case is required to have seven years experience of service for being eligible for promotion and hence the word total would be otiose or redundant in the aforesaid context. No doubt, the High Court has now clarified and held that service rendered on adhoc or officiating basis prior to regularization cannot be counted for acquiring eligibility for promotion and that aspect is no longer under controversy. Hence the use of the word with or total in the relevant regulation does not make any difference and the judgment in the case of Shailendra Dania (2007 (4) TMI 689 - SUPREME COURT) applies to the present case, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants. We find merit in these appeals and they are accordingly allowed to the extent of reversing the views of the High Court in respect of Question no.2 as noted by the Division Bench in the common judgment under appeal. We hold that the Project Engineers (Junior) recruited on the basis of diploma, upon their acquiring the qualification of AMIE , are not entitled to count their experience of service prior to acquisition of such qualification for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Senior) against the 20% quota fixed for promotion of degree holder Project Engineers (Junior). In order to claim promotion against such 20% quota the three years experience of service must be acquired after obtaining the qualification or degree of AMIE. We direct the Board and its authorities to treat the writ petitions filed in the High Court as disposed of in the light of our aforesaid views and to determine the controversies raised in the writ petitions in that light by granting relief to the eligible persons expeditiously and preferably within 4 months, without upsetting the transactions which had taken place earlier and were not under challenge in the writ petitions. In other words, the regular promotions made in the past prior to 1992, which were not subject matter of writ petitions filed in 1992 will not be re-opened on account of views expressed in this judgment.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility of Diploma Holders with AMIE for Promotion.
2. Separate Seniority Lists for Diploma and Degree Holders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Diploma Holders with AMIE for Promotion:

The central question was whether Diploma Holder Project Engineers (Junior) who later acquired the AMIE qualification could count their experience prior to acquiring the degree for eligibility for promotion to Project Engineer (Senior) in the quota reserved for Degree Holders. The Supreme Court examined the relevant regulations under the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976. The regulations stipulated different eligibility criteria for promotion: three years of service for Degree Holders and seven years for Diploma Holders. The appellants argued that service experience must be acquired after obtaining the degree, citing the precedent set in Shailendra Dania v. S.P. Dubey, which emphasized qualitative differences in service rendered by degree holders and diploma holders.

The Court agreed with the appellants, holding that the three years of experience required for promotion in the degree holder quota must be acquired after obtaining the AMIE qualification. This interpretation aligns with the intent of maintaining separate quotas and ensuring that the qualitative difference in service experience is respected. The Court found that the word "total" in the regulations referred to the sum of regular and ad-hoc service, not a mix of diploma and degree holder experience. Thus, diploma holders who acquired AMIE must have three years of experience post-qualification to be eligible for promotion in the degree holder quota.

2. Separate Seniority Lists for Diploma and Degree Holders:

The issue was whether separate seniority lists should be maintained for Diploma Holders and Degree Holders for promotion purposes. The learned Single Judge had directed the preparation of separate seniority lists, but the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this, holding that the regulations did not support such bifurcation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the regulations and Schedule Technical provided for a common seniority list since both diploma and degree holders were recruited through the same process. The Court emphasized that the difference in academic qualifications alone did not justify separate cadres or seniority lists. The regulations only provided for different quotas and eligibility criteria for promotion, not separate seniority lists.

The Court clarified that the term "category of employees" in Clause (9)(B) referred to different posts, not different educational qualifications. The seniority list should remain common, based on merit assessed at the time of initial recruitment. Separate eligibility lists could be prepared for promotion purposes, but these should not be mistaken for seniority lists. The Court found no merit in the appellants' argument for separate seniority lists and affirmed the High Court's practical approach.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent of reversing the High Court's decision on the eligibility of diploma holders with AMIE for promotion. It held that such diploma holders must have three years of experience post-qualification to be eligible for promotion in the degree holder quota. The Court directed the Rajasthan Housing Board to dispose of the writ petitions in light of this judgment and to grant relief to eligible persons within four months, without reopening past promotions not challenged in the writ petitions. The Court upheld the High Court's decision on maintaining a common seniority list and found no basis for separate seniority lists based on educational qualifications.