M.B. JOSHI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus SATISH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 15-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M.B. JOSHI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
SATISH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 15, 1992 
(KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Service: 
Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gautted) Service Rules, 1~: 
c 
Schedule W-Post ·of Assistant Engineer-Promotion--Eligibility-
Counting of 8 years of service-Whether from the date of acquiring degree of 
engineering or on the basis of length of service. 
Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gautted) Service Rules, 
~ 
D 
Schedule IV-Post of Assistant Engineer-Promotion-Eligibility 
counting of 8 years of service-Procedure in the absence of provisions in the 
Rules-Whether on the basis of length of service. 
C.A. No. 425511992 (arising out of SLP No. 2507/1992) 
The appellants and the private respondents were Sub-Engineers In 
Public Health Engineering Department of the Government. 
The minimum period for Sub-Engineer to qualify for promotion to 
E 
the post of Assistant Engineer was 12 years for diploma-holders and 8 F 
years for such Suh-Engineers who obtained the degree of graduation in the 
course of service. 
By an executive order dated 7.2.1989, quota of direct recruitment 
was reduced to SO per cent and the quota by promotion from the Sub-En· G 
gineers, Draftsman and Head Draftsman, increased to 50 per cent. The 50 
per cent quota by promotion was sub-divided. The promotion quota for 
the category of the Graduate Sub-Engineers completing 8 years of service 
was 10%. The principle of counting the seniority was from the date of their 
continuous officiation irrespective of tho date on which such diploma· 
holder Sub-Engineer acquired degree of graduation in engineering. 
H 
A 
B 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the cases of 30 
Graduate Sub-Engineers for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers 
and by order dated 4.12.1989 it prepared a panel of 18 Graduate Sub-En-
gineers found suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. On 
6.12.1989 the Government promoted one M.B. Joshi and sh others as 
Assistant Engineer, who are appellants iii appeal arising out of Special 
Leave Petition No. 2507 of 1992. The private respondents in the appeal, 
filed an application in the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the 
orders dated 4.12.1989 and 6.12.1989. They contended that the seniority 
for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers in 10 per 
cent quota of Graduate Sub-Engineers completing 8 years of service ought 
C to have been considered from the date of attaining the graduate degree of 
engineering and not from the date of appointment as Sub-Engineer. 
The Tribunal allowed the petition placing reliance on its earlier 
decision in Sanaulla Sunzani v. State of M.P. & 5 Ors., T.A. No. 771/88. The 
D Tribunal held that the applicants (private respondents in the appeal) 
having secured the degrees in engineering prior to respondenis 3 to 9 (the 
appellants in the ap1ieal) would rank higher in the gradation list of 
Graduate Sub-Engineers. It directed the State Government and Engineer-
in-Cbief, Public Health Engineering Department to convene a special 
D.P.C. to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of Assistant 
E Engineers as on 4.12.1989 and if found suitable for promotion, promote 
them and give them seniority over respondents 3 to 9. 
Identical questions of law were involved in all the appeals (C.A. Nos. 
4255-57 of 1992), which were preferred against the judgments of the 
F 
Tribunal. 
The appellants contended that so far as the post of Sub- Engineers 
was concerned, the minimum qualification prescribed was diploma-holder 
and the seniority was determined on the basis of the date of appointment 
G on the post of Sub-Engineer irrespective of the fact that the person joining 
such post was a degree-holder or a diploma-holder; that the scale of pay 
was similar and the diploma-bolder and degree-holder Sub-Engineers 
stood on the same footing and their gradation list was prepared on the 
basis of length of service in the cadre of Sub-Engineers that in the service 
jurisprudence where the rules were silent, th• seniority was always deter· 
H mined on the basis of length of service amongst the employees appointed 
M.B. JOSHI v. SATISH PANDEY 
3 
on a similar post in the same cadre; that obtaining a degree during the A 
continuation of service as Sub-Engineer simply accelerated the entitle· 
ment to promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer

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