LI Network
Published on: November 02, 2023 at 12:28 IST
The Supreme Court, on the 30th of October 2023, rejected an appeal challenging the practice of antedating a seniority list, deeming it legally sound.
The appellant had contested an order from a division bench of the Kerala High Court, which declined to intervene in the seniority matters concerning private respondents.
The Supreme Court determined that antedating the seniority list did not harm the appellant since separate quotas were allocated for Degree Holders and Diploma Holders.
In this case, the appellant held a Graduate Engineering degree, while the private respondents held Diplomas, indicating distinct streams and quotas, as established by the Court.
The bench, composed of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Hima Kohli, considered the challenge against the Kerala High Court’s division bench order.
The appellant had challenged a 2005 order issued by the Chief Engineer of Irrigation and Administration in Thiruvananthapuram, which granted seniority to the private respondents retroactively. The appellant argued that this decision prejudiced him.
The appellant was initially appointed as Overseer Grade-III in the Irrigation Department in 1989, based on compassionate grounds. However, as he possessed an Engineering Graduate degree, he requested the Government for appointment as an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), which was denied.
In 1992, the Kerala High Court directed his appointment as an Assistant Engineer from the date he initially assumed the Overseer Grade-III position, a directive later contested by the State.
The High Court ordered that the appellant’s seniority in the Assistant Engineer cadre should be recognized from the date of his appointment. Consequently, the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department, effective from the 1st of March 1995.
The private respondents, who began their service as Overseer Grade-I with Diploma qualifications, were promoted to the position of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) with an effective date of the 15th of March 1995.
In 2004, they filed a writ petition, urging consideration for promotion within the quota set aside for their category. Subsequently, a 2005 order by the Chief Engineer granted them promotions as Assistant Engineers retroactively from the 1st of August 1993.
The appellant challenged this 2005 order in the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge granted the writ petition and determined that the seniority list of Assistant Engineers, last circulated on the 22nd of November 2001, was final and had not been disputed by the private respondents.
The High Court ruled that reopening the seniority list to the appellant’s detriment, without serving him notice, was inappropriate. Consequently, the previous order was set aside, and the appellant’s seniority was restored.
The private respondents appealed against the Single Bench’s decision, and the Division Bench sided with them.
The Division Bench contended that antedating the private respondents’ promotions did not harm the appellant. Therefore, the High Court reinstated the Chief Engineer’s 2005 order, granting seniority to the private respondents from a previous date. This decision was subsequently brought before the Supreme Court.
The appellant’s argument was centered on the fact that the private respondents had not raised objections when the final seniority list was last circulated in 2001, and their attempt to raise the issue occurred more than three years later.
The State asserted that there was an error in calculating the promotion quota for the private respondents from Overseer Grade-I to Assistant Engineer, and the impugned order rectified this. The State also argued that the appellant would not be prejudiced because separate quotas existed for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, accommodating both Engineering Graduates and Diploma Holders.
The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s order. It emphasized that the promotion of the private respondents did not affect the appellant, given the separate quotas established for promotion. With the appellant holding a Graduate Engineering degree and the private respondents holding Diplomas, there was no prejudice against the appellant.
The Supreme Court concluded, “…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 antedating 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.”
Case Title: C. ANIL CHANDRAN V. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS.
