K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. versus RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 05-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 10 S.C.R. 397 
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. 
V. 
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8479-8482 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 05, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Seniority list - Preparing two separate seniority lists for 
A 
B 
c 
Diploma Holders and Degree Holders for the purpose of 
promotion in their respective quotas -
Held: Board can 
legitimately prepare separate eligibility lists of Project 
Engineer (Jr) holding degree and those holding diploma -
However, such eligibility list could not be mistaken for seniority D 
list which must remain common based upon merit assessed 
9t the time of selection for recruitment - Rajasthan Housing 
Board Employees Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion 
Regulations, 1976. 
Promotion - Seniority list - Dispute between diploma 
holder and degree holder engineers - Entitlement of Diploma 
Holder Project Engineers (Jr.) upon acquiring degree! 
qualification of 'AMIE' to count their experience of service prior 
E 
to acquisition of such qualification for the purpose of eligibility F 
of 3 years total experience of service for promotion to the post 
of Project Engineer (Sr.) in the quota fixed for Degree Holders 
- Held: Not entitled - In order to claim promotion against such 
quota 3 years experience of service must be acquired after 
obtaining the qualification/degree of AMIE. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Initially only diploma holders were 
appointed under the Regulations to the post of Project 
397 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Engineer (Jr.) and on their acquiring the certificate of 
AMIE while in service they were to be given benefit of their 
past service as diploma holders in the ratio of 3:7, i.e., 3 
years of their service with AMIE was treated as 7 years 
of service as diploma holder for the purpose of eligibility 
B for promotion. This benefit of past service in the 
prescribed ratio was on account of a Resolution of the 
Board dated 17.4.1979 which records that "the present 
practice of placing the Diploma Holder Engineers who 
have cleared AMIE examination in the bottom of the list 
c of Degree Holders, is appropriate. Clause (9)(A) which 
provides for promotion when read together with the 
Schedule Technical leaves no manner of doubt that in 
respect of first promotion to higher post, i.e., promotion 
from post of Project Engineer (Jr.) to Project Engineer 
0 
(Senior}, promoti9n of eligible person is required to be 
made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The High Court 
has rightly held that the cadre of Project Engineer (Jr.) 
cannot be bifurcated for the purpose of seniority alone, 
only on the ground that for promotion to the cadre of 
Project Engineer (Sr.) there is provision for 20% quota for 
E degree holders and 30% quota for diploma holders. The 
practical view of the High Court cannot be faulted that the 
Board can legitimately prepare separate eligibility lists of 
Project Engineer (Jr.) holding degree and those holding 
diploma. Such eligibility list could not be mistaken for 
F 
seniority list which must remain common based upon 
merit assessed at the time of selection for recruitment. 
Only if the selection process had been different, there 
could have been any scope to argue for separate 
seniority lists. In absence of any legal stipulation for 
G altering the initial seniority, pre-determined on the basis 
of merit at the time of initial selection and date of regular 
appointment, the seniority list cannot be altered only 
because some diploma holder Project Engineers (Jr.) 
acquired the qualification of AMIE equivalent to a degree. 
H The three years' or seven years' experience of service will 
K.K. DIXIT & ORS. ETC. v. RAJASTHAN HOUSING 399 
BOARD 
entitle the degree holders and the diploma holders A 
respectively only for inclusion of their names in the 
eligibility lists for promotion so as to work out 
satisfactorily the provision for different quota for the 
degree holders and the diploma holders. [Paras 8, 19] 
[ 405-E-G; 411-B-H] 
B 
2. Degree with three years' service experience and 
diploma with seven years' service experience by itself 
indicates qualitative difference in the service rendered as 
a degree holder and that rendered as a diploma holder. C 
The relevant regulation does not contemplate any 
reduced total experience for promotion for a diploma 
holder who may acquire degree or AMIE qualification 
while in service. In 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.