C. ANIL CHANDRANversusM.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS

                  [2023] 14 S.C.R. 144 : 2023 INSC 962



                             CASE DETAILS

                          C. ANIL CHANDRAN
                                      v.
                   M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS
                     (Civil Appeal No. 8915 of 2012)
                           OCTOBER 30, 2023
             [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]

                              HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration: Appellant was aggrieved by the order dated
14.03.2005, passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration
vide which the private respondents No. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 were given seniority
from back date.
      Service Law – In the writ petition filed by the private respondents
in the year 2004, the High Court directed for consideration of their cases
of promotion in the quota reserved for their category – The matter was
considered by the Chief Engineer and disposed of vide order dated
14.03.2005 and after condsidering the representations, promotion as
Assistant Engineer was granted w.e.f 01.08.1993 – Thereafter in an
another writ petition filed by the appellant, order dated 14.03.2005
was set aside by the single judge of the High Court, however in the writ
appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that anti-dating of
the promotion of the private respondents was not adversely affecting
the appellant – Therefore, the order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the
Chief Engineer was restored – Propriety:
      Held: In the case in hand, the seniority list as such was not challenged
by the private respondents – They only made representations for correction
of their dates of promotion as Assistant Engineer, which was finally accepted
by the State on 14.03.2005 – No case made out for interferance in the instant
appeal for the reason that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate
that for the purpose of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to

                                     144
  C. ANIL CHANDRAN v. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS 145


that of Assistant Executive Engineer, he was likely to be affected by ante-
dating the date of promotion of the private respondents as separate quotas
had been prescribed for promotion to the next higher post for the categories
of Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders – The 2010 Rules have been
placed on record by the appellant along with IA No. 02 of 2017 in terms
whereof separate quotas have been prescribed for Degree Holders and
Diploma Holders in the ratio of 8:2 – The appellant undisputedly falls in
the category of Graduate Engineer, whereas the private respondents fall in
the category of Diploma Holders – Both are different streams with different
quotas. [Paras 19, 20]

      LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

     Vinod Prasad Raturi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2021 INSC
157 – referred to.
     R.M. Ramual vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC
285: [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 1009 – held inapplicable.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8915 of
2012.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2011 of the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No.1563 of 2010.
     Appearances:
      Dr. K. P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Sr. Adv., A. Venayagam Balan, Gaurav
Pal, Kiritkumar Govindlal Sheth, Ashray Behura, Deepak Parashar, Prakhar
Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., P. A. Noor Muhamed, Nishe Rajen
Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Abraham Mathew, Advs. for the
respondents.
146            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.



        JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                  JUDGMENT

       RAJESH BINDAL, J.
     1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order in a Writ Appeal1
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2 by which the judgment
of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 36424 of 2005, was set
aside.
     2. Challenge in the W.P. filed by the appellant was to the order dated
14.03.2005, passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration,
Thiruvananthapuram vide which the private-respondents No. 1 to 4, 7 and
8 were given seniority from back date.
      3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
was appointed as Overseer Grade-III in the Irrigation Department vide G.O.
(Rt.) No. 276/89/Co-op dated 16.06.1989, on compassionate basis. As the
appellant was an Engineering Graduate, he represented to the Government
for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). His representation
was rejected. O.P. No. 7647 of 1991 was filed praying for setting aside
of the order of rejection of his representation with a further prayer that he
should be appointed as Assistant Engineer with retrospective effect, from
the date he was appointed as Overseer Grade-III. Vide judgment dated
02.07.1992, the High Court directed the respondents therein to appoint the
appellant as Assistant Engineer instead of Overseer Grade-III from the date
he is appointed on that post. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court was challenged by the State by filing an intra-court
appeal3. The same was disposed of on 03.09.1994, directing the Government
to appoint the appellant as Assistant Engineer against the existing vacancy
or on the next arising vacancy. He further directed that the appellant was
to be given seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the date of his
appointment as such. In compliance to the aforesaid judgment of the High



1     Writ Appeal No. 1563 of 2010, decided on 27.06.2011
2     High Court of Kerala
3     Writ Appeal No. 1013 of 1992
    C. ANIL CHANDRAN v. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS 147
                  [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

Court, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the
Irrigation Department vide G.O. (M.S.) No. 31/95/Co-op dated 01.03.1995.
      4. The private-respondents who joined service as Overseer Grade-I
and were holding the qualification of Diploma were promoted as Assistant
Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 15.03.1995 and 18.03.1995. The
next higher promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer is that of Assistant
Executive Engineer, which is stated to be filled up as per the 2010 Rules. 4
       5. It was further argued that the Chief Engineer5 vide order dated
26.04.1996, published the first provisional seniority list of Assistant
Engineers (Mechanical) as on 01.03.1996. It was directed to be circulated
to all concerned and they were given liberty to file objections if any, within
15 days. In the seniority list, the name of appellant finds mention at Sr.
No. 35 whereas that of the private-respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were at Sr. No.
37 to 41, respectively. The date of joining of the appellant as Assistant
Engineer (Mechanical) has been shown as 01.03.1995 whereas that of
private-respondents Nos. 4 to 8 was shown as 18.03.1995, 15.03.1995,
15.03.1995, 15.03.1995 and 15.03.1995, respectively. The respondent
No. 3 was not shown in the seniority list. The private respondents did not
file any objection to the aforesaid tentative seniority list. Vide order dated
18.10.1997, the respondent No. 2 circulated another provisional seniority list
of the Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) as on 01.09.1997. After considering
the objections raised by the affected persons, final seniority list of Assistant
Engineers (Mechanical) was circulated by the respondent No. 3 vide order
dated 22.11.2001 for the period from 01.04.1990 to 31.12.1998. It was clearly
mentioned in the communication that the same superseded all previous
seniority lists published for the period in this regard. The aforesaid seniority
list was prepared category wise, namely the Graduate Engineer, Diploma
Holders and Certificate Holders. It was for the reason that for the next higher
promotion, there were quotas meant for different feeder cadres. The appellant
was shown at Sr. No. 37 in the category of Graduate Engineers and his date
of promotion as such, was shown as 01.03.1995. The respondents No.1 to
4 were shown at Sr. No. 9 to 12 in the list of Diploma Holders with their



4    The Kerala Irrigation Engineering Service Special Rules, 2010
5    Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration, Thiruvananthapuram
148             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2023] 14 S.C.R.


date of promotion as 15.03.1995. The private respondents did not have any
grievance with the aforesaid seniority list as the same was never challenged
by them.
      6. The cases of the Assistant Engineers coming from three different
categories namely Graduate Engineer, Diploma Holders and Certificate
Holders were to be considered for further promotion as Assistant Executive
Engineer. The Chief Engineer vide letter dated 02.04.2003 addressed to all
the Chief Engineers, Executive Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers
called for a list of 20 senior most Assistant Engineers for furnishing their
confidential reports in Form-II B, for the last three years from 01.01.2000
to 31.12.2002 along with their service details. The information was required
for the purpose of consideration of their cases for next higher promotion to
the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The matter was to be placed before
the Departmental Promotion Committee. In the aforesaid list, there were
20 Assistant Engineers (Mechanical). From the list of Degree Holders, the
name of the appellant was mentioned at Sl. No. 18. From the list of Diploma
Holders, the candidates mentioned at Sl. No. 4 to 7 were shown at Sl. No.
2 to 4 and 20, respectively.
      7. It was further argued that in the year 2004, a writ petition6 was filed
by the private-respondents in which directions were issued by the High Court
for consideration of their cases for promotion in the quota reserved for their
category. The matter was considered by the Chief Engineer and disposed
of vide order dated 14.03.2005. While considering the representations
and referring to the relevant Rules, the Chief Engineer directed that K.K.
Subramanian, K.S. Badarudeen, M.K.Raghavan, K.Sureshan, C.Satheesan
and K.K. Chandrababu be granted promotion as Assistant Engineers with
effect from 01.08.1993. However, it was clarified that they will not be paid
any arrears on account of date of re-assignment of date of promotion, though
they will be eligible for fixation of pay.
      8. It was further argued that the private respondents knew that with
the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition filed by them, the appellant
will be adversely affected, hence, they had impleaded him as a party but the


6      Writ Petition (Civil) No. 37212 of 2004- (E) (M.K. Raghavan, Assistant Engineer III
      vs. State of Kerala)Decided on 21.12.2004.
  C. ANIL CHANDRAN v. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS 149
                [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

fact remains that he was never served with any notice of the writ petition.
Before even re-assigning the date of promotion of the private-respondents
from a back date, which had adversely affected the chances of promotion of
the appellant, he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the Chief
Engineer.
      9. Immediately after the appellant came to know about the passing of
the aforesaid order dated 14.03.2005, he filed a writ petition6 before the High
Court challenging the aforesaid order. The learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition opining that the seniority list of the Assistant Engineer, as
was circulated on 22.11.2001, was the final seniority list, which was never
challenged by the private-respondents 1 to 4, 7 and 8. The same could not
have been reopened to the prejudice of the appellant without even notice
to him. Hence, the same was set aside and a direction was issued for re-
assigning the seniority to the appellant.
      10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the respondents No.1 to 4 preferred writ appeal. The same was
allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that with anti-
dating of the promotion of the private respondents from different dates in
the year 1995, to 01.08.1993, the appellant was not adversely affected. The
order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division
Bench. The order of the Chief Engineer dated 14.03.2005 was restored. It
is the aforesaid order which is impugned in the present appeal.
      11. In the aforesaid factual matrix narrated by learned counsel for
the petitioner, the contention is that the private respondents never filed
any objections to the seniority list of Assistant Engineers as circulated 2-3
times between 1996-1997. When the final seniority list was circulated on
22.11.2001, even then the same was not challenged within a reasonable
time. The issue was sought to be raised more than three years later. That too
by challenging the final seniority list, when service records of the eligible
candidates for promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive
Engineer was called for.
      12. Further argument was that the private respondents knew that with
the change in the date of their promotion, the appellant was likely to be
affected, hence, they had impleaded him as a respondent in the writ petition6
filed initially. However, the High Court did not grant any opportunity to the
150           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


appellant to put forth his stand. A direction was issued by the High Court for
considering the representation of the private respondents. Even the Chief
Engineer to whom the direction was given, was not the competent authority
for dealing with any such representation. Learned counsel referred to Rule
27-B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 to submit
that such a representation could only be made to the Government and not
to the Chief Engineer. Further, the Chief Engineer had also not granted
any opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the order dated
14.03.2005. Change in the date of the promotion of the private respondents
from Overseer Grade-I to Assistant Engineer, had adversely affected the
promotional prospects of the appellant. He further argued that the direction
of the High Court was merely for consideration of the representation of the
private respondents and not to grant any relief to them. In case the claim was
belated, the same could have been rejected. At present only C. Satheesan –
Respondent no.3 is in service. All others have retired, including the appellant.
Reliance was placed upon the judgement of this Court in Vinod Prasad
Raturi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2021 INSC 157.
      13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which has been
impugned by the appellant does not call for any interference by this Court.
He further submitted that the State had merely complied with the direction
issued by the High Court in the writ petition6 filed by the private respondents.
As there was an error in the calculation of quota for grant of promotion to the
private respondents from the post of Overseer Grade-I to Assistant Engineer,
the said error was corrected. The appellant was not going to suffer in any
manner for the reason that for subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer, there were separate quotas meant for the Engineering
Graduates and Diploma Holders.
     14.With reference to the argument of the appellant that the private
respondents had not raised any objection regarding their placement in the
seniority list, it was submitted that they had made numerous representations
requesting for re-assignment of their date of promotion as Assistant
Engineer. As their claim was found to be meritorious, Chief Engineer had
only corrected the error. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in R.M.
Ramual vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 285.
  C. ANIL CHANDRAN v. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS 151
                [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

      15. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that wrong
benefit was granted to the appellant after he was appointed on compassionate
basis in 1989. Three years later, he was directed to be appointed as Assistant
Engineer which was a promotional post from the Overseer Grade-III. He
further submitted that there are no allegations by the appellant that respondent
no.3 had not filed any representation against the seniority list. In fact, he had
filed several representations which were not given due consideration. That
is why a writ petition had to be filed. He referred to one such representation
dated 26.03.1994 and also the admission made by the State in its counter
affidavit filed before the High Court. He further submitted that the grant of
promotion to the respondent no.3 along with other private respondents from
a back date was nothing else but correction of the error. The next promotion
to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was not going to be affected.
He relied upon a judgment of this Court in R.M. Ramual’s case (supra)
to submit that promotion can be given from back date and the seniority list
can be challenged even after 11 years.
      16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred records.
      17. The fact that presently only the respondent No. 3 is in service and
all others have retired, was not disputed by learned counsel for the parties
at the time of hearing.
      18. In our view, if the impugned order is examined on the principles
laid down by this Court regarding a challenge laid to a seniority list, the same
may not be legally sustainable The judgment of this Court in R.M. Ramual’s
case (supra) will not be applicable as it was a case on its own facts where
this Court found that there was no unreasonable delay in challenging the
seniority. In the said case, though the seniority list was prepared in 1971,
however, on acceptance of the representation made by some of the employees
later on, it was changed, as a consequence of which cause of action arose in
favour of the appellant therein and reckoned from that date onwards, there
was no unreasonable delay.
      19. In the case in hand, the seniority list as such was not challenged by
the private respondents. They only made representations for correction of
their dates of promotion as Assistant Engineer, which was finally accepted
by the State on 14.03.2005.
152            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      20. Be that as it may, even otherwise, we do not find that any case has
been made out for interference in the present appeal for the reason that the
appellant has not been able to demonstrate that for the purpose of promotion
from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer,
he was likely to be affected by ante-dating the date of promotion of the
private respondents as separate quotas had been prescribed for promotion to
the next higher post for the categories of Graduate Engineers and Diploma
Holders. The 2010 Rules have been placed on record by the appellant
along with IA No. 02 of 2017 in terms whereof separate quotas have been
prescribed for Degree Holders and Diploma Holders in the ratio of 8:2. The
appellant undisputedly falls in the category of Graduate Engineer, whereas
the private respondents fall in the category of Diploma Holders. Both are
different streams with different quotas.
     21. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as meritless while leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.


Headnotes prepared by:                                       Appeal dismissed.
Ankit Gyan