On Monday, October 30, 2023, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against the antedating of a seniority list, deeming it legally unsustainable.
In this case, the Appellant contested a Kerala High Court division bench order declining to intervene in favor of the private respondents' seniority. The Supreme Court determined that antedating the seniority list did not harm the Appellant, given distinct quotas for Degree and Diploma Holders. The Appellant, a Graduate Engineer, and the private respondents, Diploma Holders, belonged to different categories, the Court concluded.
A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Hima Kohli reviewed a challenge to a Kerala High Court division bench's order, which had declined to alter the seniority of private respondents. The Appellant contested a 2005 order issued by the Chief Engineer of Irrigation and Administration in Thiruvananthapuram, which granted the private respondents seniority retroactively. The Appellant argued that this decision adversely affected him.
The Appellant originally joined the Irrigation Department in 1989 as Overseer Grade-III on compassionate grounds. However, as an Engineering Graduate, he requested the Government to appoint him as an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), but this request was denied. In 1992, the Kerala High Court ordered his appointment as an Assistant Engineer, replacing his position as Overseer Grade-III from the initial appointment date. The State challenged this decision. The High Court later directed that the Appellant's seniority in the Assistant Engineer cadre should begin from the date of his appointment. Consequently, the Appellant was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department on March 1, 1995.
The private respondents, initially appointed as Overseer Grade-I with Diplomas, were promoted to the position of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) starting from March 15, 1995. In 2004, they filed a writ petition, and the High Court ordered their promotion cases to be evaluated in the reserved category quota. Following this, in a 2005 order, the Chief Engineer granted the private respondents promotions to the rank of Assistant Engineers, retroactively to August 1, 1993.
The Appellant contested the 2005 order in the Kerala High Court. A Single Judge ruled in favor of the Appellant, stating that the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers, circulated on November 22, 2001, had never been challenged by the private respondents. The High Court determined that reopening the seniority list to the Appellant's detriment, without notifying him, was improper. Consequently, the 2005 order was nullified, and a directive was issued to reassign seniority to the Appellant.
The private respondents appealed the Single Bench's decision. The Division Bench, in their favor, determined that the antedating of the private respondents' promotions did not harm the Appellant. Consequently, the High Court reinstated the Chief Engineer's 2005 order, granting seniority to the private respondents retroactively. This decision was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Appellant's argument was that the private respondents did not raise any objections when the final seniority list was circulated in 2001 and attempted to bring up the issue more than three years later.
The State contended that the impugned order corrected an error in the promotion quota calculation for the private respondents, specifically from Overseer Grade-I to Assistant Engineer. The State further argued that the Appellant would not face any prejudice since there were separate quotas for Engineering Graduates and Diploma Holders for future promotions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no justification to intervene in the High Court's decision.
The Supreme Court observed that the promotion of the private respondents did not harm the Appellant as they had separate promotion quotas. The fact that the Appellant was a Graduate Engineer and the private respondents were Diploma Holders meant that no prejudice would befall the Appellant, as the Court determined.
The Supreme Court stated, "We do not find any basis for intervening in this appeal, as the Appellant has not proven that the antedating of the private respondents' promotion would affect his promotion from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer. Separate promotion quotas exist for Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders in the next higher position."
TAGS: interference appeal promotion Assistant Engineer Assistant Executive Engineer
