T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. versus K. KANAGARAJ & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 08-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
v.
K. KANAGARAJ & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3466-3468 of 2023)
MAY 08, 2023
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA AND
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Electricity Department, Group B (Technical) Assistant Engineer
(Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 1979 – Promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer (Electrical) – Under the Rules, 80% of the
vacancies for the post of Assistant Engineer were to be filled up by
promotion and 20% by direct recruitment – Out of this 80%, 50%
were earmarked for those Junior Engineers who possessed Degree
in Engineering with regular service of 3 years and the other 50%
for those possessing Diploma with regular service of 7 years – Junior
Engineers-private respondents, who were originally Diploma holders
and had acquired degree during service, were promoted as Assistant
Engineers immediately after acquiring their degree without insistence
on 3 years of continuous service from the date of acquisition of the
degree – Challenged by appellants who had joined the service as
Junior Engineers, having already acquired an Engineering Degree
prior to the said appointment – CAT held partly in favour of the
appellants relying on Shailendra Dania case – High Court held in
favour of the Respondents relying on D. Stephen Joseph case – Issue
referred by two-Judges Bench opining that D. Stephen Joseph case
did not reflect the correct opinion as while construing almost
identical Rules, the three-Judges Bench in Shailendra Dania case
had opined to the contrary – Answering the reference, held: View
taken in D. Stephen Joseph case is the applicable law – Under the
Rules, the distinction is between the diploma holder and the degree
holder and the period of service rendered as a Junior Engineer
without any distinction between the years served prior to or after
having obtained the degree – View taken by High Court upheld –
Service Law.
Service Law – Seniority – Held: In the absence of any statutory
provision or rule made thereunder or under the proviso appended
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 456
456
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
457
to Article 309, once an incumbent is appointed to the post according
to rules, their seniority has to be counted from the date of
appointment – Constitution of India – Article 309.
Service Law – Promotion – Two channels for promotion –
Incentive to acquire the higher degree – Discussed.
D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 4
SCC 753 : [1997] 3 SCR 1040 – held applicable.
C. Chakkaravarthy & Ors. v. M. Satyavathy, IAS & Ors.
(2015) 16 SCC 652 – relied on.
Shailendra Dania & Ors. v. S.P. Dubey & Ors. (2007)
5 SCC 535 : [2007] 5 SCR 190; M. B. Joshi v. Satish
Kumar Pandey (1993) 2 Supp. SCC 419 : [1992] 2
Suppl. SCR 1; K. K. Dixit & Ors. v. Rajasthan Housing
Board & Anr. (2015) 1 SCC 474 : [2014] 10 SCR 397;
Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(2000) 1 SCC 128 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 553;
Chandravathi P. K. & Ors. v. C. K. Saji & Ors. (2004)
3 SCC 734 : [2004] 2 SCR 330; Satpal Antil v. Union
of India (1995) 4 SCC 419 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 1;
A. K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath (2000)
4 SCC 30 : [2000] 2 SCR 943; Pramod K. Pankaj v.
State of Bihar (2004) 3 SCC 723 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR
916 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 5 SCR 190
referred to
Para 7
[1997] 3 SCR 1040
held applicable
Para 7
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 10
[2014] 10 SCR 397
referred to
Para 12
[1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 553
referred to
Para 17
[2004] 2 SCR 330
referred to
Para 17
(2015) 16 SCC 652
relied on
Para 19
[1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 22
[2000] 2 SCR 943
referred to
Para 22
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 916
referred to
 Para 22
T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. v. K. KANAGARAJ & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3466-
3468 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2010 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP Nos. 26525 of 2009, 221 and 7165 of
2010.
Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Venkita Subramoniam T. R., Likhi Chand
Bonsle, Rahat Bansal, Ms. Komal Mundhra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Anurag Dubey, Bhupendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Ms. Anjali Tiwari,
Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Ms. Divya Bhardwaj, S. R. Setia, Aravindh S.,
Ms. Uma Bhuvaneswari C., Abbas B., Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellants herein joined the service as Junior Engineers in
the Electricity Department of the Gove
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.