SUDHAKAR BABURAO NANGNURE versus NORESHWAR RAGHUNATHRAO SHENDE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 05-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
SUDHAKAR BABURAO NANGNURE
v.
NORESHWAR RAGHUNATHRAO SHENDE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2468-2470 of 2019)
MARCH 05, 2019
 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Promotion – ‘Catch-up’ Rule – Appellant,
belonging to open category, joined service as Planning Assistant
in the Government of Maharashtra – Appellant and the first
respondent, Scheduled Caste, selected for the post of Town Planner
on 1st  July, 1992 – Appellant promoted as Deputy Director of Town
Planning (DDTP) on 1st  November, 2003– First respondent promoted
as DDTP on 3rd  August, 2006 – In the promotional cadre of Joint
Director of Town Planning (JDTP), the first respondent was promoted
on 11th  August, 2011 while the appellant was promoted as JDTP on
2nd  July, 2013 – Appellant filed OA before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal – In the meanwhile, the first respondent
was promoted as Director of Town Planning (DTP) on 30th  April,
2016 – OA allowed – High Court set aside the said decision –
Appellant filed Special Leave Petition – Withdrawn – Appellant filed
review before the High Court – Dismissed – Appellant’s case that
once he was promoted as JDTP, the ‘catch-up’ rule must govern
and consequently, he must gain seniority over the first respondent
and that the first respondent was not entitled to claim consequential
seniority on the basis of his earlier promotion in the cadre of JDTP
– Held: Preliminary objection to the present appeal that recourse
to Supreme Court was barred after the High Court decided the
review petitions, not accepted – Government Resolution dated 20th
October, 1997 was issued stipulating that an officer belonging to
Backward Class will retain seniority in the promotional cadre and
that it was not necessary to revise the seniority – GR dated 20th
March,  2003 was issued referring to the said GR clarifying that
the seniority between backward class and non-backward class
candidates in government service in the promotional cadre would
be governed by the regular date of promotion – Incorporating the
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 945
945
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
principle of consequential seniority, GR dated 20th  March, 2003
adverted to r.4, 1982 Rules which stipulated that seniority in a post
is determined by the length of continuous service – Further, GR
dated 20th  March 2003 has not been abrogated upon the enactment
of the 2004 Act – Said GR was not challenged before the Tribunal
– Such a challenge cannot be entertained at this stage – Further,
eligibility has to be considered on the date of the occurrence of the
vacancy – On 30th  April, 2016, the appellant did not fulfill the
eligibility of three years’ experience as JDTP, required for the post
of DTP – Seniority by itself cannot prevail where a senior lacks
eligibility for promotion – Even if accepted, the applicability of the
catch-up rule will also not obviate the requirement of the appellant
fulfilling the condition of eligibility for promotion, on the date when
the vacancy occurred – Appellant has also not challenged the
appointment of the first respondent as JDTP – Judgment of the High
Court does not call for interference – Maharashtra Civil Services
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 – r.4 – Maharashtra  State
Public Services Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward
Category and Other Backward Classes Act, 2001 [Act VIII of 2004]
– ss. 3-6, 11 - Directorate of Town Planning and Valuation
(Recruitment) Rules, 2011 - r-3 - Consitution of India - Art. 16.
Service Law – Promotion – Seniority and Eligibility – Held:
Seniority and eligibility are distinct concepts in service jurisprudence
– Seniority by itself cannot prevail where a senior lacks eligibility
for promotion to a higher post.
The appellant, belonging to open category, joined the service
as Planning Assistant in the Government of Maharashtra. The
appellant and the first respondent, Scheduled Caste, were
selected for the post of Town Planner on 1st  July, 1992. Appellant
was promoted as Deputy Director of Town Planning (DDTP) on
1st  November, 2003 and the  first respondent was promoted as
DDTP on 3 Aug. 2006. In the promotional cadre of Joint Director
of Town Planning (JDTP), the first respondent was promoted on
11th  August 2011 while the appellant was promoted as JDTP on
2nd July, 2013. The appellant filed OA before the Mahara

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