C. ANIL CHANDRAN versus M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 30-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 144 : 2023 INSC 962
144
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 ﬁ led 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 ﬁ led 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 aﬀ ecting 
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 ﬁ nally 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 
145
that of Assistant Executive Engineer, he was likely to be aﬀ ected 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 diﬀ erent streams with diﬀ erent 
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.
C. ANIL CHANDRAN v.  M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS
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. ﬁ led 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 ﬁ led 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 eﬀ ect, from 
the date he was appointed as Overseer Grade-III. Vide judgment date
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.