Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Rajive Kumar Guptha vs M/O Defence on 5 July, 2019
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00310/2018
Friday, this the 5th day of July, 2019
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member
Rajive Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late Shri Rajinder Kumar Gupta,
Age : 56 years, Superintending Engineer, Naval Base, Kochi,
Residing at 12/2 Alankar, Panampilly Nagar,
Ernakulam - 682 036. ..... Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. Kaleeswaran Raj &
Mr. Varun C. Vijay)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director General (Personnel), Engineer-in-Chief's Branch,
Military Engineer Services, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. Engineer in Chief (EIB), Military Engineering,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110 011.
4. Departmental Promotion Committee, For promotion to the post of
Chief Engineer, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
5. Pyare Lal (MES No. 440323) (Retired), 135 GC, Emerald Heights,
Tower 1, Ramprastha Green, Sector 7, Vaishali,
Gaziabad - 201 010.
6. Jagat Pal Ram (MES No. 19408), Engineer in Chief Branch,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 10011.
7. T. Sidhardha Reddy (MES No. 189713), TS to DG (PERS),
HQ MES, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110 011.
8. Man Singh (MES No. 425511), Director Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2
9. Ram Kala (MES No. 300225), Director Budget, Office of the
Chief Engineer (R&S), Delhi, Timarpur - 110 054.
10. C.P. Borkar (MES No. 165340), Director, Faculty of Construction
Management, College of Military Engineering, Dapodi,
Pune - 411 031.
11. R. Alagarsamy (196315), Director HQ, CE Chennai Zone,
Island Grounds, Chennai - 600 009.
12. R. Meena (MES No. 196315), Director MAP, HQ CE Jodhpur Zone,
ECHS Complex, Opposite MH Jodhpur, 342006. ..... Respondents
[By Advocates : Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr. PCGC (R1-4),
Mr. Thomstine K. Augustine & Mr. Thomas K.C.
(R6-8 & 10-12)]
This application having been heard on 27.06.2019 the Tribunal on
05.07.2019 delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member -
The relief claimed by the applicant are as under:
"(i) To set aside Annexure A7 to the extent to which it approves empanelment of officers for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer based on Annexure A1 seniority list as unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) To set aside Annexure A1 to the extent to which it includes respondents 5 to 12 above the applicant and ranks the applicant below them in the cadre of Superintending Engineer, as unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable.
(iii) To declare that seniority of the applicant in the cadre of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer is to be revised following the directions contained in the decision reported in M. Nagaraj & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others [2006 (8) SCC 212]
(iv) To declare that respondent 5 to 12 are not entitled to be included in Annexure A1 seniority list, by extending the benefit of reservation in the matter of promotion, as held in M. Nagaraj & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others [2006 (8) SCC 212] or in the alternative To declare that Annexure A1 seniority list is liable to be revised, by ranking the applicant above the respondents 5 to 12, by extending the benefit of the principle of catch up rule in the process.3
(v) To direct the respondents 1 and 2 to revise Annexure A1 seniority list by excluding the names of respondents 5 to 12 from it, on the basis of the decision in M. Nagaraj & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others [2006 (8) SCC 212] or in the alternative
(vi) To direct the respondents 1 and 2 include the name of the applicant in Annexure A1, above respondents 5 to12 applying the principles of catch up rule.
(vii) To direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure A2 representation submitted by the applicant within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(viii) To issue such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal would deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the Military Engineering Service as Assistant Executive Engineer on 20.12.1985. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in August, 1994 and later as Superintending Engineer on 21.9.2005. Applicant is presently working as Superintending Engineer in the office of Chief Engineer (Naval Works), Naval Base, Kochi. The applicant is aggrieved by the all India seniority list of Engineer cadre officers (Superintending Engineer) as on 1.4.2016 wherein the respondents 5 to12 are ranked above the applicant in the respective cadre, extending the benefit of reservation for promotion. The applicant feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the 1 st respondent. According to the applicant respondents 5 to12 are juniors to the applicant in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers. These juniors were given promotion to the post of Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers by extending the benefit of reservation for promotion based on roster points ahead of the applicant whereas the applicant was granted promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 22.9.2005. 4
3. The applicant submits that as per the law laid down in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. - 2006 (8) SCC 212 respondents 5 to 12 are not entitled to get promotion and seniority over and above the applicant in the posts of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. In M. Nagaraj's case (supra) the apex court held that the State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in the matter of promotion. If however, the State wishes to exercise its discretion and make such provision, it has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. However, the respondents have not collected any quantifiable data and therefore, they have no authority to promote persons like respondents Nos. 5 to 12 who belong to SC/ST community. The action of the respondents is unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable. Further as per the judgment of the apex court in Union of India v. Veerpal Singh Chauhan - JT 1995 (7) SC 2311, S. Panneer Selvam & Ors. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. - 2015 (10) SCC 292 and Ajit Singh-II & Ors. v. State of Punjab - 1999 (7) SCC 209, the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of 'catch up rule' for re-fixing the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer as well as Superintending Engineer. The non-consideration of Annexure A2 representation and the proposed move of the respondents to effect the promotion to the post of Chief Engineer from the post of Superintending Engineer, relying on Annexure A1 seniority list amounts to infringement of the applicant's fundamental right.
5
4. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents 1-4 entered appearance through learned counsel Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr. PCGC who filed a detailed reply statement contending that the OA is barred by limitation and as such is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The private respondents Nos. 5 to 12 were promoted much prior to the applicant on the basis of reservation, which is protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India - 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217. In Indira Sawhney's case (supra) the apex court held that the promotion accorded to the promotions on the basis of reservation in promotion, shall not affect promotions whether on temporary, officiating or regular/permanent basis. The applicant has challenged the seniority list of Engineers' cadre officers i.e. Superintending Engineering as on 1.4.2016 whereas the private respondents Nos. 5 to 12 were promoted as Superintending Engineer in 2003 and 2005 itself. The respondents have finalized the seniority list for the post of Superintending Engineer. They submit that in view of the judgment of the apex court in Indira Sawhney's case (supra) the reliance placed by the applicant in Nagaraj's case (supra), Veerpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra) and S. Panneer Selvam's case (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed, contends respondents Nos. 1-4.
5. Respondents 6-8 and 10-12 entered appearance through learned counsel Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Mr. Thomstine K. Augustine & Mr. Thomas K.C. who also filed a reply statement contending that these respondents are protected under the mandate of paragraph 829 of the Indira Sawhney's case 6 (supra). The respondents further submit that the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have expressly conferred right of representation by the express provision of the Constitution of India and the same could not be presumed to be denuded by way of interpretation. The promotions of the private respondents are not in pursuance of the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995 and therefore, the decision in Nagaraj's case (supra) is not relevant in the present case. Moreover the Parliament enacted the Constitution (85 th Amendment) Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 17.6.1995 to nullify the effect of the decision of the apex court in Veerpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra). The promotions of the private respondents are in accordance with the scheme of the Constitution and as per the policy of the Central Government. Respondents pray for dismissing the OA.
6. Heard Shri Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr. PCGSC appearing for respondents Nos. 1-4 and learned counsel Dr. K.S. Chauhan appearing for respondents Nos. 6-8 and 10-12. Perused the pleadings, records, judgments produced as well as the written submissions filed by the parties.
7. The point which is to be determined in the present O.A is whether applicant who belongs to the general category can regain his seniority vis-a- vis his junior who belongs to reserved category and got accelerated promotion on account of reservation roster or not ? If yes, then what are the repercussions ?
7
8. The applicant's juniors were promoted prior to him in the year 1992 as Executive Engineer and in the year 2003-2005 as Superintending Engineer on getting the benefit of reservation in promotion, based on roster points. However, the applicant being senior to them was initially appointed on 20.12.1985 as Assistant Executive Engineer and subsequently promoted as Executive Engineer on 18.5.1994 and as Superintending Engineer on 21.9.2005.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri. Kaleeswaram Raj in support of his argument had submitted that the applicant is entitled for regaining the seniority even though he has been promoted subsequent to respondent Nos. 5 to 12. He submitted that the Nine Judges Bench in Indira Sawhney's case (supra) had upheld that reservation can only be at the entry level and there shall be no reservations for promotions. As per the decision of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) applicant is entitled to get the benefit of 'catch up' rule and this was further clarified in Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. - (2018 SCC 1641). He had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.C. No.3490/2010, C.A.T. Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.254/2017 and Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 24671/2016 - Union of India & Ors. v. Shaneel Rana & Ors. and S. Panneer Selvam's case (supra).
8
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondent Nos.1 - 4 and party respondents have taken almost similar stand and submitted that the present O.A is contrary to the mandate laid down in the decision in Indira Sawhney's case (supra) and the O.A is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed.
11. It is further submitted that the protection was granted for five years. Such reservation shall continue to be in operation for a period of five years from the date of the judgment i.e. 16.11.1992. Therefore promotions of party respondents are protected as these are prior to 15.11.1997. Moreover, these promotions are not in pursuance to the Constitutional 77 th Amendment Act, 1995. Therefore, the decision in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) and its interpretation is not relevant in the present case. It is further contended that the official respondents circulated the all India seniority list on 23.5.1997 whereby the name of the applicant figured at sl. No. 288 whereas respondent Nos. 5 to 12 were at sl. Nos. 225, 226, 230, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258 respectively. So he is estopped from raising a settled issue between the parties after lapse of long time.
12. Similarly the list of 2006-2007 with respect to Superintending Engineer was again circulated on 5.5.2006 wherein the name of the applicant figured at sl. No. 190 whereas party respondents' name figured between sl. nos.141 and 167. The applicant has never raised any issue after the promotion of the party respondents. Therefore, the contention of the applicant is against the settled principle of service jurisprudence. The 9 counsel for the party respondents also submitted that the apex Court's judgment in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) has no application in the present case as they have been promoted on 10.9.1992 and 24.12.1992 much prior to the decision in Indira Sawhney's case (supra) which was decided on 16.11.1992 with which the five years period and protection was granted by the judgment itself in para 829. The party respondents have not availed any benefit of the Constitutional Amendments post Indira Sawhney's case (supra).
13. Relying upon the judgment in Veerpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra) which states as under:
"33. .....the Constitution Bench in R.K.Sabarwal v. State of Punjab too has directed that the rule enunciated therein shall have only prospective operation."
the respondents submitted that the apex Court itself in the matter of State of Tripura v. Jayanta Chakraborty - 2018 (1) SCC 146 had referred to the Constitution Bench under Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India.
14. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the apex court in B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. - (2017) 4 SCC 620 wherein it is held as under:
"119. The Constitution does not define what the framers meant by the phrase "efficiency of administration". Article 335 cannot be construed on the basis of a stereotypical assumption that roster point promotees drawn from the SCs and STs are not efficient or that efficiency is reduced by appointing them. This is stereotypical because it masks deep rooted social prejudice. The benchmark for the efficiency of administration is not some disembodied, abstract ideal measured by the performance of a qualified open category candidate.........."10
15. Lastly relied upon O.M dated 15.6.2018 which reads as follows :
"It is directed that the pendency of Special Leave Petition shall not stand in the way of Union of India taking steps for the purpose of promotion from 'reserved to reserved' and 'unreserved to unreserved' and also in the matter of promotion on merits........."
16. Considering the rival contentions and legal position we are of the view that the ratio of Indira Sawhney's case (supra) to give protection for promotional post for five years from the date of judgment i.e. 15.11.1992, if applied to the present case then party respondents who were Executive Engineers during the said period get protection till 15.11.1997. Therefore, protection cannot be sought beyond that period. Thereafter law is well defined by the Apex Court in the following judgments one after another. In M. Nagaraj's Constitution Bench decision (supra), 'catch up' rule was made mandatory in the absence of quantifiable data because of the Nine Judges Bench decision in the matter of Indira Sawhney's case (supra) it was unequivocally made clear that the reservation should be at entry level alone. Thus M. Nagaraj's case (supra) has supplemented the ratio laid down by Indira Sawhney's case (supra).
17. In Veerpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra) it is further supplemented that Articles 16 (4-A) does not prevent the States from enacting laws to follow catch up rules and remove consequential seniority.
18. In S. Panneer Selvam's case (supra) again it is reiterated that in the absence of any provision for consequential seniority rules, the "catch up 11 rule" will be applicable and roster point reserved category promotees cannot count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their promotion and the senior general candidate if reached promotional level, general candidate regain the seniority. The apex court held as under:
"9. The concept of 'catch-up rule' and 'consequential seniority' is judicially evolved concepts to control the extent of reservation. The question of reservation and the associated promotion and the consequential seniority have been the matter of discussion in various decisions of this Court. The matter regarding reservation in promotions was considered by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney And Ors. vs. Union of India And Ors., (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217 and this Court held that the reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is confined only to initial appointment and cannot extend to reservation in the matter of promotion. In order to nullify the effect of the aforesaid dicta, there was an amendment to Article 16 by Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act with effect from 17.06.1995. Vide this Amendment, after Clause (4), Clause (4A) was inserted in Article 16 of the Constitution."
In B.K. Pavitra's case (supra) the Apex Court observed that catch up rule fully applies. The exercise for determining "inadequacy of representation, backwardness and overall efficiency is must for exercise of powers for consequential seniority for the promotional post. Further the apex court held as under:
"26. It is clear from the above discussion that exercise for determining 'inadequacy of representation', 'backwardness' and 'overall efficiency', is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given promotion later on account of reservation policy. It is for the State to place material on record that there was compelling necessity for exercise of such power and decision of the State was based on material including the study that overall efficiency is not compromised. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken. The High Court erroneously observed that it was for the petitioners to plead and prove that the overall efficiency was adversely affected by giving consequential seniority to junior persons who got promotion on account of reservation. Plea that persons promoted at the same time were allowed to retain their seniority in the lower cadre is untenable and ignores the fact that a senior person may be promoted later and not at same time on account of roster point reservation. Depriving him of his seniority affects his further chances of promotion. Further plea that seniority was not a fundamental right is equally without any merit in the present context. In absence of exercise under Article 16(4A), it is the 'catch up' rule which is fully applies. It is 12 not necessary to go into the question whether the concerned Corporation had adopted the rule of consequential seniority.
27. In view of the above, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and declare the provisions of the impugned Act to the extent of doing away with the 'catch up' rule and providing for consequential seniority under Sections 3 and 4 to persons belonging to SCs and STs on promotion against roster points to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment will not affect those who have already retired and will not affect financial benefits already taken. Consequential promotions granted to serving employees, based on consequential seniority benefit, will be treated as ad hoc and liable to be reviewed. Seniority list may be now revised in the light of this judgment within three months from today. Further consequential action may be taken accordingly within next three months."
In Jarnail Singh's case (supra) in 2018 the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court held as under:
"39. .........Since the object of Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) is to do away with the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra) when it came to reservation in promotions in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, that object must be given effect to, and has been given effect by the judgment in Nagaraj (supra). This being the case, we cannot countenance an argument which would indirectly revisit the basis or foundation of the constitutional amendments themselves, in order that one small part of Nagaraj (supra) be upheld, namely, that there be quantifiable data for judging backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts. We may hasten to add that Shri Dwivedi's argument cannot be confused with the concept of "creamy layer" which, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove, applies to persons within the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes who no longer require reservation, as opposed to posts beyond the entry stage, which may be occupied by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.
40. The learned Attorney General also requested us to lay down that the proportion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining whether they are adequately represented in promotional posts for the purpose of Article 16(4-A). He complained that Nagaraj (supra) ought to have stated this, but has said nothing on this aspect. According to us, Nagaraj (supra) has wisely left the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts to the States for the simple reason that as the post gets higher, it may be necessary, even if a proportionality test to the population as a whole is taken into account, to reduce the number of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts, as one goes upwards. This is for the simple reason that efficiency of administration has to be looked at every time promotions are made. As has been pointed out by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.'s judgment in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra), there may be certain posts right at the top, where reservation is impermissible altogether. For this reason, we make it clear that Article 16(4-A) has been couched in language which would leave it to the States to determine adequate representation depending upon the promotional post that is in question..........."13
As has been pointed out by Shri. B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J's judgment in Indira Sawhney's case (supra) there may be certain posts right at the top, where reservation is impermissible altogether. In the present case seniority list of Superintending Engineers is considered as the feeder category list for the topmost post of Chief Engineer where reservation can be said to be impermissible.
19. As regards the point raised on limitation the impugned seniority list is issued on 26.4.2016 and after exhausting the departmental remedies the applicant has approached this Tribunal which gives him a fresh cause of action. However, the point raised, that the party respondents have been promoted as Executive Engineer prior to Constitution (77 th Amendment) Act, 1995 and Constitution (85 th Amendment) Act, 2001, they were protected till five years but subsequently catch up principle comes into play because the Apex Court held in S. Panneer Selvam's case (supra) held that in the absence of any provision of consequential seniority rule, catch up principle would be applicable. At best, the party respondents get protection up to the level Executive Engineer post but not subsequently.
20. Resultantly, we hold that the present O.A has merit on its side and the impugned seniority list at Annexure A1 to the extent it affects the applicant is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we direct that the applicant is eligible to regain his seniority though promoted subsequently and assigned the seniority in terms of catch up rule, because the protection to the party respondents is available only for five years and thereafter catch up rule will 14 be applicable. The respondents are directed to revise the seniority list of Superintending Engineer by applying the catch up rule and place the applicant above his juniors respondents Nos. 5-12.
21. The Original Application is allowed as above. No order as to costs.
(ASHISH KALIA) (E.K. BHARAT BHUSHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER "SA" 15 Original Application No. 180/00310/2018 APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 - True copy of the proceedings No. B/41023/ASISL/SE/01 Apr 16/E1 (DPC) dated 26.4.2016 along with the seniority list. Annexure A2 - True copy of the appeal dated 14.12.2017 submitted by the applicant. Annexure A3 - True copy of the judgment dated 23.8.2017 in WP No. 3490/2010. Annexure A4 - True copy of the Office Memorandum dated 2.2.2018. Annexure A5 - True extract of the order dated 9.2.2018 in OA No. 060/00254/2017 passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. Annexure A6 - True copy of the judgment dated 17.1.2017 in CWP No. 2467/2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Annexure A7 - True copy of the Information Note No. 12/15/2018-EO (SM-II) dated 26.3.2018. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) - True copy of the letter No. A/41023/1/90/EIR(O) dated 10.9.1992. Annexure R1(b) - True copy of the letter bearing No. A/41023/1/91-92/EIR(O) dated 10.9.1992. Annexure R1(c) - True copy of the letter bearing No. A/41023/AEE/92-93/EIR(O) dated 24.12.1992. Annexure R1(d) - True copy of the letter bearing No. A/41023/AEE/93-94/EIR(O) dated 18.5.1994. Annexure R1(e) - True copy of the all India seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers. 16
Annexure R1(f) - All India seniority list of Executive Engineer -
1997-98 circulated as per letter A/41024/EE/97-98/EIR(O) dated 23.5.1997.
Annexure R1(g) - True copy of the relevant part seniority list of Superintending Engineers circulated as per letter bearing No. B/41023/AISL/IDSE/2006- 07/EI(DPC-I) dated 5.5.2006.
Annexure R1(h) - True copy of order dated 8.5.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 11386 of 2018.
Annexure R1(i) - True copy of the reference order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Tripura vs. Jayanta Chakraborty, reported as 2018 (1) SCC 146. Annexure R1(j) - True copy of the relevant extract of Swamy's Compilation on seniority and promotion, 15th edition, 2012 (pages 1 to 13) (incorporating orders received upto May 2012).
Annexure R1(k) - True copy of the interim order dated 17.5.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (SLP No. 30621/2011) Annexure R6(a) - True copy of the promotion order No. A/41023/1/91-92/E1R(O) dated 10.9.1992 of respondent No. 5 to 7.
Annexure R6(b) - True copy of the promotion order No. A/41023/AEE/92-93/E1R(O) dated 24.12.1992 of respondent No. 8 to 12.
Annexure R6(c) - True copy of the promotion order No. A/41023/AEE/93-94/E1R(O) dated 18.05.1994 of the applicant.
Annexure R6(d) - True copy of Office Memorandum No. 20011/5/90-Estt. Dated 4.11.1992.
17Annexure R6(e) - True copy of Office Memorandum No. 36012/18/95-Estt. (Res.) Pt.-II Dated 13.08.1997.
Annexure R6(f) - True copy of Office Memorandum No. 20011/1/96-Estt.(D) Dated 21.01.2002.
Annexure R6(g) - True copy of the legal opinion dated 16.11.2006 along with OM dated 17.11.2006.
Annexure R6(h) - True copy of Office Memorandum No. 36036/2/2007-Estt. (Res.) Dated 29.03.2007.
Annexure R6(i) - True copy of Office Memorandum No. 20011/1/2006-Estt. (D) Dated 3.3.2008.
Annexure R6(j) - True copy of the all India seniority list of Executive Engineer 1997 - 1998 of Military Engineer Services vide letter No. A/41024/EE/97-98/EIR (O) dated 23.5.1997.
Annexure R6(k) - True copy of promotion order No. B/41023/SE/2003-2004/E1R dated 23.7.2003.
Annexure R6(l) - True copy of promotion order No. B/41023/SE/2004-2005/E1(DPC-1) dated 7.12.2004.
Annexure R6(m)- True copy of the promotion order No. B/41023/SE/2005-2006/E1(DPC-1) dated 10.5.2005.
Annexure R6(n) - True copy of the all India seniority list of Superintending Engineer 2006-2007 of the Military Engineer Services vide letter No. B/41023/AISL/IDSE/2006-2007/EI(DPC-I) dated 5.5.2006.
Annexure R6(o) - True copy of the order dated 14.11.2017 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4562-4564 of 2017.
Annexure R6(p) - True copy of the order dated 8.5.2018 in Civil Writ Petition No. 11386 of 2018.
18Annexure R6(q) - True copy of order dated 17.5.2018 of Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP (Civil) No. 30621 of 2011.
Annexure R6(r) - True copy of order dated 5.6.2018 of Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP (Civil) No. 31288 of 2017.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-