Holding

Seniority in Class I service is determined by the date of appointment made under the selection procedure of Rule 8, and eligibility alone does not grant promotion or seniority.

Summary

Kamlesh Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj, originally Section Officers in the Chandigarh Engineering Department, were promoted to Sub‑Divisional Engineer and later to Executive Engineer (Class I) with effect from 21 January 1986 after being selected by the committee prescribed under Rule 8 of the Punjab Service of Engineers (Class I) Rules. They filed petitions before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking seniority in the Executive Engineer cadre from the date they became eligible for promotion, 1 January 1985, arguing that eligibility under Rule 6(b) entitled them to such seniority. The Tribunal granted the relief, directing that their seniority be fixed from the eligibility date. The Chandigarh Administration appealed, contending that seniority can only arise after actual appointment under the selection procedure. The Supreme Court held that eligibility alone does not confer promotion or seniority; seniority in Class I service is determined by the date of appointment resulting from selection under Rule 8, as governed by Rule 12. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the respondents’ applications, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether eligibility under Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers Rules confers a right to promotion to Executive Engineer and seniority from the eligibility date.
Whether seniority in Class I service should be determined from the date of appointment under Rule 8 rather than the eligibility date.
Whether the Tribunal erred in directing seniority to be fixed from the eligibility date.

Legislation cited

Punjab Service of Engineers (Class I) Rules, 1961s. Rule 12, s. Rule 6(b), s. Rule 8

Subjects

promotionseniorityservice ruleseligibilityselection committeeadministrative lawPunjab Service of EngineersClass I serviceCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERING A
DEPARTMENT, U.T. CHANDIGARH
v.
--<
KAMLESH BABOO ETC. ETC.

FEBRUARY 25, 1993
B
(KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.]

A_
Civil Se1.:.:s:

Punjab Service of Engineers Class I (Buildings and Roads Branch)
Rules, 1961>-Rules 6(1), 8, 12-f'ost of Executive Engineer, Class I-Promo-
c
tion and Seniroity-Determination-1.1.1985 eligibility, date for promo-,
tion--Promotion w.ej. 21.1.1986-Whether legal.

The respondent in C.A. No.182 of 1993 joined service as Section
'r Officer under the appellant on 8.3.1971. On 29.12.1976 he was promoted
D
to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer and was confirmed on 13.8.1985.
With effect from 21.1.1986, the respondent was promoted as Executive
Engineer (Civil).

The service particulars or the respondent in C.A. No.183 or 1993 were
identical. E
The respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
'( to determine their seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers from the
date of eligibility, i.e. 1.1.1985 and not from 21.1.1986.
• F
The Tribunal allowed the applications of the respondents, against
which the presevt appeals were filed by the Administration.

Allowing the appeals, this Court,
,...
HELD: 1.01. The selection to the post of Executive Engineer was to be
done by following the procedure laid down under Rule 8 ofthe Punjab Service G
of Engineers, Class I (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 1960. Eligibility
under Rule 6(b) of the Rules by itself does not give a right to a member of
Class II service to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I
service. The promotion has to be made in accordance with the procedure laid
-I.,,
down under Rule 8 of the Rules. No member of Class II service can claim H
121
'

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on the ground of eligibility ~
alone. Unless a Class II officer has been selected in accordance with Rule 8 of
the Rules he cannot be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. [125C-E]

1.02. The question of assigning seniority in Class I service only arises
after a Class II officer has been selected and appointed to the said service.
B The seniority in class I is determined under Rule 12 of the Rules, keeping
in view the date of appointment as a result of selection under Rule 8 of the
Rules. [125F]

1.03. The respondents in these appeals were appointed to the post of
C Executive Engineer, as a result of selection held under Rule 8 of the Rules,
with effect from January 21, 1986. Their seniority has to be determined in
Class I service keeping in view the date of their appointments as January
21, 1986. [125F-G] '-.t

1.04 The Tribunal grossly erred in directing the Chandigarh Ad-
D ministration to giVll< seniority to the Respondents from the date of their
eligibility. The respondents can neither be given the date of appointment
as January 1, 1985 nor their seniority fixed from that date. The directions
of the Tribunal in this respect are patently violative of the Rules. [125G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 182 and
E 183 of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.86 of the Central Ad-
ii\inistrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in 0.A.rr.A. Nos.49 & 102 of 1986.

F
Raj Birbal for foe Appellant. -
Rajinder Sachher, Mahabir Singh and A.K. Mahajan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. Kamlesh Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj were
G promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from January 21, 1986
in the Engineering Department of the Chandigarh Administration. The
promotion was made on the basis of merit and suitability as determined )-
under the provisions of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I (Buildings
and Road Branch) Rules, 1960 (Rules) as applicable to the Cnandigarh
H Administration. Both of them approached the Central Administrative
ENGG. DEPTI. v. KAMLESH BABOO [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 123

.Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench seeking a direction to the effect that their A
·seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers be determined from the date
when they became eligible to be considered for promotion under the Rules.
In other words, they claimed January 1, 1985 - the eligibility date - as the
date of their promotion to the post of Executive Engineer instead of
January 21, 1986 when they were actually promoted. The Tribunal by its B
order dated June 6, 1986 granted the relief asked for by Kamlesh Baboo
and V.K Bhardwaj in the following terms:

"In view of the above discussion, we direct that the
- applicant, who was promote~ as Executive Engineer from
21.1.1986 (vide Office Order dated 20.1.1986 and 25.1986) c
shall be continued as Executive Engineer even if the
approval of the U.P.S.C. is not recieved within six months
from the date of his promotion. For the purposes of
seniority, the applicant shall be considered from the date
when he became eligible. The promotion of the applicant
D
as Executive Engineer, shall however, be subject to the
approval by the U.P.S.C. and without prejudice to the
decision of the competent court in the matter of seniority,
which is in dispute.11

These two appeals by the Chandigarh Administration are against the order E
of the Tribunal.

Kamlesh Baboo joined service as Section Officer under the Chan-
digarh Administration on March 8, 1971. He was promoted to the post of
Sub Divisional Engineer on December 29, 1976 and was confirmed as such
on August 13, 1985. The service particulars of V.K. Bhardwaj are identicai. F

The conditions of service of the respondents are governed by the
Rules. Rules 6(b) and 8 (1)(3)(4)(8)19)(10)(11) which are relevant arc
reproduced hereunder:
G
"6 (b) in the case of an appointment by promotion from
Class II Service has 8 years completed service, in that class
and has passed the departmental examination, as provided
in rule 15;

8(1) A committee consisting of the Chairman of the Public H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 2 S.C.R.

A Service Commission or where the Chairman is unable to
attend, any other member of the Commission representing
it, the Secretary, P.W.D. (Buildings and Roads Branch),
and the Chief Engineers, Punjab, P.W.D. Buildings and
Roads Branch, shall be constituted.

B (3) The Committee shall meet at intervals, ordinarily not
exceeding one year, and consider the eases of all eligible
officers for promotion to the senior scale of the Service,
as on the first day of January of that year.

(4) The Committee shall prepare a list of officers suitable
c for promotion to the senior scale of the Service. The
selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit
and suitability in all respects with due regard to seniority.

(8) The list prepared or revised in accordance with sub-
D rules (4), (5) and (6) shall then be forwarded to the
Commission by Government along with -

(i) the records of all officers included in the list;

(ii) records of all officers proposed to be superseded as
E a result of the recommendations made by the Commit-
tee;

(iii) the reasons, if any, recorded by the Committee for
the proposed supersession of any officer;

F (iv) the observations, if any of the Stale Government on
the recommendation of the Committee.

(9) The Commission shall consider the list prepared by
the Committee along with other documents received from
the State Government and, unless it considers any change
G
necessary, approve the list.

(10) If the Commission considers it necessary to make any
changes in the list received from Government, the Com-
mission shall make the changes it proposes and forward
H the list it considers suitable to the State Government.
ENGG. DEPTI. v. KAMLESH BABOO IKULDIP SINGH, J.) 125

(11) Appointments to the Service shall be made by A
Government from this list in the order in which names
have been placed by the Commission."

It is not disputed that the respondents in these two appeals com-
pleted eight years of service in Class II cadre. by the end of December 1984
B
and as such they were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post
of Executive Engineer on January 1, 1985. The selection to the post of
Executive Engineer was to be done by following the procedure laid down
under Rule 8 of the Rules, reproduced above. Rule 8 of the Rules envisages
a Selection Committee presided over by Chairman/Member of the Public C
Service Commission. The Committee considers the cases of eligible officers
on the basis of merit and suitability, the list of the selected officers is sent
to the Commission for final approval and thereafter the appointments are
made out of the approved list in accordance with the merit assigned
therein. It is thus obvious that eligibility under Rule 6(b) of the Rules by D
itself does not give a right to a member of Class II service to be promoted
to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service. The promotion has to
be made in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the
Rules. No member of Class II service can claim promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer on the ground of eligibility alone. Unless a Class II E
officer has been selected in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules he cannot
be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. The question of Assigning
seniority in Class I service only arises after a Class II officer has been

- selected and appointed to the said service. The seniority in class I is
determined under Rule 12 of the Rules, keeping in view the date of
appointment as a result of selection under Rule 8 of the Rules. Both the F
respondents in these appeals were appointed to the post of Executive
Engineer, as a result of selection held under Rule 8 of the Rules, with effect
from January 21, 1986. Their seniority has to be determined in class I
service keeping in view the date of their appointments as January 21, 1986.
The Tribunal grossly erred in directing the Chandigarh Administration to G
give seniority to the respondents from the date of their eligibility. The
respondc11ts can neither be given the date of appointment as January 1,
1985 nor their seniority fixed from that date. The directions of the Tribunal
in this respect are patenily violative of the Rules and cannot be sustained.
Even otherwise both Kamlesh Baboo and V.K. Bhardwaj were working as H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R.

A Sub Divisional Engineer on January 1, 1985 and as such treating them to
have been appointed to Class I service from that date and giving them
benefit towards seniority on that basis would be wholy erroneous.

The question as to whether the deputationists from Punjab and
Haryana should be permitted to continue to serve the Chandigarh Ad-
B ministration has no relevance to the controversy involved in these appeals.
That is a matter of policy between the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union
Territory of Chandigarh. The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in seeking
support from the non-existent fact that because of the presence of many
deputationists the respondents in these appeals were not being considered
c for promotion. As a matter of fact the respondents got their promotion at
the earliest possible opportunity. They became eligible on January 1, 1985
and thereafter within a period of one year the procedure under Rule 8 was
completed and they were promoted with effect from January 21, 1986.

We allow the appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal dated June
D 6, 1986 and dismiss the applications filed by respondents Kamlesh Baboo
and V.K. BJardwaj before the Tribunal. No costs.

V.P.R. Appeals allowed.

-