In Civil Appeal No. 8915 of 2012 -SC- Supreme Court upholds ante-dating of seniority for Kerala Assistant Engineers, says separate quotas protected promotion prospects of graduate engineers & diploma holders
Justice Hima Kohli & Justice Rajesh Bindal [30-10-2023]

Read Order: C. Anil Chandran V. M.K. Raghavan and Others

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 6, 2023: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the seniority list of Assistant Engineers in Kerala. The Court held that the appellant had not been able to demonstrate that the ante-dating of the seniority of the private respondents would adversely affect his own promotion prospects.

In this case, the challenge revolved around an order in Writ Appeal, decided on 27.06.2011, passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. This order had set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, leading to the present legal dispute.

The appellant, in their writ petition, had contested an order, passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration, Thiruvananthapuram. This order had granted seniority from a back date to private-respondents No. 1 to 4, 7, and 8, thereby altering the seniority list of Assistant Engineers.

The petitioner's argument was that the private respondents had never objected to the seniority list of Assistant Engineers, despite it being circulated multiple times between 1996-1997. Even when the final seniority list was distributed on November 22, 2001, no challenge was raised in a reasonable time frame. The issue was brought up more than three years later, particularly when service records of candidates eligible for promotion from Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer were requested.

Furthermore, it was contended that the private respondents, being aware of the potential repercussions on the appellant due to alterations in their promotion dates, initially included him as a respondent in the writ petition. However, the High Court did not afford the appellant an opportunity to present his case. The High Court directed the consideration of the private respondents' representation, even though the Chief Engineer, to whom the directive was directed, lacked the authority to handle such matters. Reference was made to Rule 27-B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, to emphasize that such representations should be directed to the Government, not the Chief Engineer. The alteration in the private respondents' promotion dates from Overseer Grade-I to Assistant Engineer negatively impacted the appellant's prospects for promotion.

On the other hand, the State's counsel contended that the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, challenged by the appellant, did not justify intervention. It was clarified that the State merely complied with the High Court's directive in the writ petition filed by the private respondents. The correction in the calculation of the promotion quota for the private respondents from Overseer Grade-I to Assistant Engineer was necessitated by an error. Importantly, it was stressed that the appellant's promotion prospects remained unaffected, as separate quotas for Engineering Graduates and Diploma Holders were established for subsequent promotions to the position of Assistant Executive Engineer.

The division bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal determined that there was no basis for interference in the present appeal.

This was primarily because the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the private respondents' promotion date adjustments would adversely affect the appellant's own promotion from the position of Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer. The existence of distinct quotas for promotion to the next higher post, designated for two categories, Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders, was a key factor in this determination. The appellant fell under the category of Graduate Engineer, while the private respondents belonged to the category of Diploma Holders. These were two separate streams with distinct quotas.

As a result, the present appeal was dismissed.