1984 (5) TMI 269 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority dispute between promotees from the grade of Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers in the Central Public Works Department.
2. Application and interpretation of the Central Engineering Service (Class I) Recruitment Rules, 1954.
3. Validity and application of the seniority list dated 1st July 1971.
4. Impact of the quota rule on promotions and seniority.
5. Validity of the Rules of 1976 and their retrospective effect.
6. Constitutional validity of the Rules of 1976 under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Dispute Between Promotees:
The writ petition involved a long-standing dispute between two groups of Executive Engineers in the Central Public Works Department: promotees from the grade of Assistant Executive Engineers and those from the grade of Assistant Engineers. The contention revolved around the determination of seniority, which had caused considerable discord affecting the efficiency of the Service.

2. Application and Interpretation of Recruitment Rules:
The Central Engineering Service (Class I) Recruitment Rules, 1954, outlined the methods of recruitment, including competitive examination, promotion, and transfer. Assistant Executive Engineers were recruited through competitive examinations and required to undergo probation, while Assistant Engineers were recruited either directly or through selection from a subordinate service. Promotions to the grade of Executive Engineers were made from both Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers, with different eligibility criteria and methods of promotion.

3. Validity and Application of the Seniority List Dated 1st July 1971:
The seniority list dated 1st July 1971 was challenged as it placed Executive Engineers promoted from Assistant Engineers as junior to those promoted from Assistant Executive Engineers, based on a rotational system implied by the quota rule. This list was upheld by the Delhi High Court but later quashed by the Supreme Court in A.K. Subraman's case, which directed that seniority should be based on the length of continuous officiation.

4. Impact of the Quota Rule on Promotions and Seniority:
The quota rule prescribed a ratio for promotions from the grades of Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers. However, the rule was not adhered to, leading to an excess of promotions from Assistant Engineers and a shortfall from Assistant Executive Engineers. The Supreme Court held that the quota rule should be applied at the stage of initial promotion in an officiating capacity and not at the stage of confirmation, and seniority should be determined based on the length of continuous officiation.

5. Validity of the Rules of 1976 and Their Retrospective Effect:
The Rules of 1976, which were brought into force with retrospective effect from 10th December 1974, sought to give en bloc seniority to Assistant Executive Engineers promoted to fill carried forward vacancies and applied a rotational formula for subsequent promotions. The Supreme Court held that these rules could not override the decision in A.K. Subraman's case, which mandated that seniority should be based on the length of continuous officiation.

6. Constitutional Validity of the Rules of 1976:
The Supreme Court found that Rules 2(iii) and 2(iv) of the Rules of 1976 violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rules gave artificial seniority to Assistant Executive Engineers promoted to carried forward vacancies, adversely affecting the promotional opportunities of Assistant Engineers. The Court held that the rotational rule of seniority could not be applied where there was massive deviation from the quota rule, as it would result in gross discrimination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the seniority list dated 14th August 1975 and the Rules of 1976, directing the government to prepare a new seniority list based on the length of continuous officiation. The Court also ordered that promotional opportunities for Assistant Engineers should be reconsidered based on the revised seniority. The judgment aimed to resolve the long-standing dispute and restore fairness in the determination of seniority and promotions within the Central Public Works Department.