Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Anita Bala vs A P W D on 18 November, 2021
1 o.a. 251.01265.2019 & 0.a. 351.02293.2019 with m.a.351.00746.2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date cf order: [8« It; MA Present Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Adm:nistrative Member No. O.A. 351/01265/2019 1. Smt. Anita Bala, Wife of Shri Ajay Singh, Aged about 54 years, Residing at C/o. Detanipur Section Office, APWD, near Section APWD, Prem Nager, Port Blair, South Andaman - 744 101. 2. Shri V. Acdul Samad, Son of Shri V. Abdu Rehman, Aged about 53 years, Residing at Vilage - Mannarghat, Post Office - Wimberlygunj, Police Station ~ Barrbooflat, Andaman -- 744 20€. beneeee Applicants - VERSUS- 1. Union of Ind:a, . Service through the Secretary, Miristry of Urban Development & Employment, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi- 210 011. 2. The Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Isiands, Ra Niwas, 2 0,a. 351.01265.2019 & 9.4. 352.,01293.2019 with m.a.351.00746.2019 3. The Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Admznistration, Secretariat Complex, Port Blair - 744 101. 4, The Secretary, Public Works Departmer-~ (PWD), Andaman & Nicobar Acrrinistration, Secretariat Complex, Port Blair - 744 101. 5. The Chief Engineer, Andaman Public Works Department, Port Blair --- 744 101. bees Respondents No. O.A. 351/01293/2019 1. Shri G. Amvan, M.A. 351/00746/2019 Craughtsman Grade - Ht, APWD, Port Blair - 744 101. 9, Smt. Swarna Lara Singh, Draughtsman Grace -- Il, APWD, Port Blair - 744 101. 3, Shri V. Rajendran, Draughtsman Grade -- I, APWD, Port Blair - 744 103. 4, Shri Monikanta Mordal, Draughtsman Grade -- U, APWD, Pet Blair - 744 101. 5. Shri Gurudas, Draughtsman Grade -- i, APWD, Port Blair - 744 103. vee Applicants - VERSUS- 1. Urion of India, Service through the Secretary, ee Y ° Roy Cot CO ' pe For the Applicant For the Respondents 3 0.a. 351.01265,2029 & 0.a. 351.01293.2019 with m.a.351.00746,2019 Min:stry of Urban Development & Employment, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, Mauiana Azad Road, New Delhi - 1. . The Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Raj Niwas, A & N Islands, Port Blair --'7+4 101. . The Secretary (Personnel), A & N Admin:stration, Port Blair - 744 101. . The Secretary (PW), A&N Administration, Port Blair -- 744 201. . The Chief Engineer, APWD, A & N Administration, Pcrz Blair -- 744 101. . The Chief Engineer (Chairman), DPC/Selection Committee, Nirman Bhawan, APWTL, Por: Blair -- 744 1C1. .... Respondents Ms. A. Nag, Counsel Mr. R. Halder, Counsel ORDER
Per Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member:
The applicants in each of these O.A.s have approached this Tribunal primarily challenging orders bearing No. 920 dated 30.8.2019 neh.
4 0.a, 351.01265.2029 & 0.4. 351.01293.2019 with n.a.351.00746.2019 (vide which the applicants have been reverted to the entry grade post of Draughtsman Grade -- III (C)), Office Order No. 931 dated 30.8.2019 (vide which the applicants were promoted to the post of Dreughtsman Gr. IL, along with Office Order No. 932 dated 30.8.2013 (vide which tne applicants were transferred and posted as Draughtsman Gr. II agairst existing vacancies).
As the applicants seek sim:lar relief, and, as their cause of action are besed on similar set of facts and legal issues, botn O.A.s are taken up for disposal by a common order.
For the sake of adjudication, this Tribunal wouid proceed on tne basis of facts, points of law and relief as sought for in O.A. ho.
351/C1265/2019. The relief in particular, as sough- for in O.A, No. 351/C1265/2019 is as follows:-
"{a)
(b) ic) Leave may be granted to the applicarts tc file this application jointty under Rule 4 (5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procecure) Rules, 1987 as the cause of action of both the applicants are similar:y and they are seriously aggrieved against the impugned Office Order No. 930 dated 30% August, 29.9 by whice the vespondent authority have cancelled the Office order No. 202 dated 26 February, 2010 by which your applicants have got the ad hoc promotion to the post of Jumor Engineer (C) and reverted the applicants from the post of Jumor Engineer (C) to the post of Draughtsman Grade -- II (C) after the lapse of 10 years wherein the names of the aprlicants appeared at Serial No. 2 and 5, therefore both the epplicants are similerly circumstanced persons and they have got the same grievances;
To quash and/or set aside the impugned Office Order No. 930 dated 30% August, 2019 by which the respondert aithor:ty have cancelled the Office Order No. 202 dated 26% February, 2019 by which your applican-s have got the adhoc promoticn to the post of Junior Engineers (C) and reverted the applicants from the post of Junior Eng-neer (C) to the post of Draughtsman Grade - III (C) after the lapse of 0 years wherein the names of the applicants appeared at Serial No. 2 and 5 being Annexure A-10 of this original applicahon;
To quash and/or set aside the impugned Office Order No. 932 dated 30 August, 2019 by which the -espondent authcrity compelled the present applicants to join in a reverted post to the post of Draughtsman Grade - Ill (C} by withdrawing the appointment orders tc the post of Jumor Engineer (C) after the lapse of 10 years being Annexure A-11 of this original application.
me ee te.
5 0.4. 351.01265.2019 & 0.a. 351.01293.2019 wits 7.4.351.00746.2019 To quash and/or set aside she impugned demotion order being Office Order No. 931 dated 30% August, 2019 issued by the Chief Engineer, APWD in respect of the applicants to the post of Draughtsman Grade - 1 (C) by withdrawing the promotion orders of the applicants to the post of Junior Engineer (C) after a lapse of 10 years be:ng Annexure A-12 of this original application.
(e} To pass an appropriate oraer directing zpon the respondent authoricy 70 regularize the services of the present applicants to the post of Jumior Engineer (C) which they have got vide Office Order No. 202 dated 25% February, 2010 being Annexure A-3 c= this original application along with all consequential benefits by setting asice and/or quashing the impugned office order No. 950 dated 30% Augus:, 2019, Office Order Io. 932 dated 30t August, 20:9 and Office Order No. 931 dated 30% August, 2019 being Annexure A-16, A-11 and A-12 of ~he original applicaticn in respect of the applicants only.
if) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to restore the Office Order No. 202 dated 26% February, 2010 be:ng Annexure A-3 of this original applicaz.on -n respect of the applicacts whereby they got the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (C) after regular DPC conducted by the respondent authority and on the basis of such order more than 10 years they are continuing to the post of Juror Engineer (C) and withdrawing of such crder is violation of the principle of natural justice equity and fair play.
'g\ Costs.
'hy Any other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and prope." 2 An MA. bearing No. 351/00746/2019 arising out of OA. 351/01293/2019 has been filed by the applicants cf tne O.A. praying "or liberty for joint prosecution. On being satisfied that the applicants shere a common grievance, commonality of interest anc common cause of action, such liberty is granted under Ruie 4(5)(a}) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, subject to payment of indiv:dual court fees.
The M.A. is hence allowed.
Liberty for join prosecution had been eariier granted to <ne applicants in O.A. No. 351/01265 2019 vide this Tritunal's orders dated 1.10 2019 thereby disposing of M.A. No. 351/0073C/2019 arising cut of O.A. No. 351/01265/2019.
hak 6 0.a. 351.01265.2029 & 0.a, 351.01293.2019 with n.a.351.00746.201¢ 3, The applicants' submissions, as advocated through their Lc. Counsel, is that, they had been appointed =o the pest of Draughtsman Gr. IC (C) on 9.7.1992, and, that, they were promoted to the post of Junioz Engineer (Civil) (in terms of Recriitment Fules, 1979) efter conduct of DPC and, vide Office Order No. 202 dated 26.2.2010, they had received adhoc promotions to <he post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- end were posted accordingly.
Subsequently, a semority 'ist was also publisred on 16.1.2019 wherein applicant No. 1 in O.A. No. 351/01265/2019 figured at Srl. No. 67 in acknowledgement o7 the fact that the said applicant No. 1 was holding the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) during pudiication of the said seniority list.
That, the applicants thereafter made several representatiors praying for regularization of their services to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil} but, the respondent authcrities, instead of considering such representations, issued a reversion order No. 930 dated 30.8.2019 (Annexure A-10 to the O.A. No. 351/C1265/20_9), whereby the applicants were reverted to the post of Draughtsman Gr. III (C) in their entry grades.
That, vide another office order No. 931 dated 3C.8.2019 (Annexure A-12 to O.A. No. 351/01265/2019), the responden: authorities issued another order promoting the applicants to the post of Draughtsman Gr. Il anc, on the very same day, posted the applicants as Draughtsmar. Gr. II against existing vacancies.
The applicants would claim <hat such reversior is arbitrary given the fact that they had been promoted to che post cf Junior Engineer 7 0.a. 351.01265.2019 & 0.a. 351.01293.2019 with m.a.351,00746.2019 (Civil) (Annexure A-5 to O.A. No. $51/01265/'2019},as per then prevailing recruitment rules, and, on the reccmmendations of DPC, and, that they had been continuing for more than 10 years in their adhoc posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). The applicants are also furtner aggrieved tkat their prayers for regularization was ignored ty the respondent authcrities.
4. The primary grounds advanced by the apzlicants in support of their claim, inter alia, are as fo_lcws:-
(i) That, the applicants were found suitable in terms of recruitment rules of 1979 (Annexure A-2 to O.A. No. 351/01265/2019) and were accordingly grantec adhoc promoticn H in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the pay scale of Rs. 93C0-
34800/- and were posted accordingy vide Cffice Order dazed 4.5.2010 (Annexure A-4 to O.A. No. 351/01265/2019).
| (ii) Further, that vide Cffice Order datec 15.9.2014, <he applicants were directed te nandover and takeover charge in <he post of Junior Engineer (Civil.
| (iii) That, the applicants are continuzng in the said post of Junior Engineer (Civil) for more than 10 years curing which the respondent authorities had not taken any steps for regularization of their services to the post cf Junior Engineer (Civil). And, that, a seniority list was published by the respcndert authorities vide order dated 16.1.2019 wherein the name of the applicant No. 1 kad appeared in Srl. No. 67 of <he said list.reflecting her present place of posting in Junior Zngineer (Civil. eo, : hog.
a wes 8 0.4. 351.01265.2019 & o.a. 351.01293.2029 wit m.a.351.00746.2019 That, having functioned for 10 years in such adhoc capacity ¢y) the applicants made a prayer Zor regularization cf their services as cr. Engineer (Civil) to ventilate the:r rightfti claims to the substantive post of Jr. Engineer (Civil). The respcncent authorities, however, instead of regularizing their services, issued a reversicn erder No. 930 dated 30.8.2019, posted ther. to che reverted posts vide orders dated 932 dated 30.8.2019, demoted the applican-s from post of Jr. Engineer (Civil) to the post cf Draughtsman Gr. I vide orders dated 30.8.2019. and, thereafter, -ssued promoticn orders to the post of Draughtsman Gr. Il fom the post of Draughtsman Gr. III after concucting a DPC towards such purpose, and that such action of the responcent euthcrities are illegal arbitrary and barred by limitation.
5. The respondents, per contra, would argue that the applicants hare no right to claim regularization in regular posts of Jun-or Engineer (Cive) as because the recruitment rules for Junior Engineer (Civil) have been amended in 2009. In terms of sucn recruitment rujes dated 9.10.2005, the pest of Junior Engineer (Civil) would no longer be filled up by 25% promotion. Further, non-diploma candidates frcm the cadre Draughtsman Gr. III (C) / Surveyor would rot be considered as eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Civl). Accordingly, as the applicants are non-diploma candicates, anc, as -he promotional quota had been withdrawn, the earlier recommendations to promote the applicants on ad hoc basis was decided to De withcrawn. Order dated 930 cated 30.8.2019 was issuec to suck effect. According to the Sina ty We ese NS respondents, the post of Draughtsman Gr. III/ Surveyor Was the feeder we ae A ; oes ONS og be rn ve . ws i 9 09,a, 351.01265.2029 & 0.a. 351.01293.2019 with 1.a.351.00746,2012 post to Draughtsman Gr. II, and, accordingly. the applicants were rightly premcted on 30.8.2019 as Draughtsman Gr. II and, thereafter, posted in availazle vacancies. Hence, there is no irregularity in the orders of the respondent authorities as challenged by the applicacts in the instart O.A.s.
6. Ld. Counsel for the responcents would furrish before us tue minutes of the DPC meeting held on 24.11.2017 whereby the applicants were decided to be promoted in the post of Draughtsman Gr. il as per extant recruitment rules, Ld. Counsel would also refer to an O.A. filed by one Shri S. Rajendran, a similarly placed apzlicant who had approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 351°1083/2018. This Tribunal, while adjudicating upon the same, had observed as follows:-
"A As per the DPC meeting "eld on 24.11.2017 che reversion of the applicant has already been proposed to the post of Draughtsman Grade ~ II (Civil). The applicant apprehends that in case he is transferred as Junior Engineer to Rangat, it may create further complications. Therefore, the applicant does not have any objection, if he is transferred after implementation of the reversion order."
Further, while deciding to drep contempt proceedings bearing No. 351/79/2018 arising out of O.A. No. 351,/1083/2C728, this Tribunal observed as follows:-
"2. Since the review DPC met on 17.6.2019 & 18.€6.2019 to review the promotion cases for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil; and Draughtsman Grade-II (Civil) from the inter-se seniority Draughtsmer Grade -III (Civil) and Surveyor as per the recommendation of the DPC meeting held on 26.2.2010, 24.6.2015 and 24.11.2017 and since the applicant's name figure at Serial Mo 3 to be given promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade -- II (Civilj, tne cirection of this Tribunal has been culy complied with.
c. Hence, we do not find any wilful deliberation of the Tribunal's order. Accordingly, Contempt Proceedings are dropped. Notices, issued if any, ere cischarged."
The respondent authorities have also brought befcre us, in the form of Annexure R-3 to their reply to O.A. No. 351/01265/2019, tke 10 0.a. 351.01265.2019 & 0.4, 351.01223.2019 with 7.a.351.00746.2019 recruitment rules for the post of Jr. Engineer (C:vil) :n the Andaman Public Works Department, 2009 that reveals that, wirle such posts cf Junior Engineer (Civil) are to be filled up 100% by direc: recruitment, the mandaczory educational qualifications call for a degree , diploma in Civil Engineering from recognized University /Board/Insttation or hav-ng passed part (a) and (b) examination from the Instituzon of Engineers (India). Aspiring candidates to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) also have to qualify in a routine professional test to be conducted by che respondent authorities for this purpcse.
9. The main contentions of the applicants ir these O.A.s are 2s follows:-
(1)That, having served in adhoc capacity to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) for a period of 10 years, the applicants are entitled to regularization.
(2) That, the orders of the respondent authorities in reverting them initially to the post of Draughtsmen Gr "IC from the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) vide the orders, as impugned, are illegal and arbitrary as >ecause the applicants were granted adhec promotion on the basis c= recruitment rules 1979 and after having been recommended by a DPC constituted for such purpose.
10. In order to adjudicate on the first issue, namely, whether tne applicants have an inherent right to regularizac.on after having functioned in the adhoc capacity of Junior Engineer (C:vil) for a pericd of 10 years, we would be guided, prima facie, by Webster's New pe TS YN tf 11 o.a, 351,01265,2079 & 0,a, 351.01293.2019 with m,a.351.00746.2015 International Dictionary (vol. 1, 2°¢ Ed.) wnere:n adhoc has been defired as "pertaining to, or for the sake of 2 particular case alone."
Hence, this definition leads to the logical -nference that whenever an appointment is stated to be an adhoc appointment, it is a stop gap, fcrtuitous or purely temporary aprointmenz. As held :n Pooswamy M. v. Union of India, 1978 (2) SLR 334, such adhoc appointments are not regu.ar appointments and do not confer an indefeasi=le right to hold che post.
The Hon'ble Court went on to hold that adhoc appointees canmot rightfully claim continuity in service.
In State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49, the Hon'ble Court ruled chat "an adhoc appointment is made to 2 post but not to a cadre/service, and is also not made ir. accordance with the provisions of recruizment rules for regular appointment."
In Santosh Kumar v. State of A.P, (2003} 5 SCC 511, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that a person appointed temporarily on adkoc basis has no right to the post.
This was reiterated in Meera Massey (Dr.) v. S.R. Mehrotra, (1998) 3 SCC 88, in the Hon'ble Court's mandate that the mere fact of adhoc appointment does not vest in sucn persons any right to be absorbed in regular or permanen: service, namely, no right accrues :n their favour to be regularized in service.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (3) SCC 485, went on to hold that successive extensions of temporary appointment does not give rise to legitimeze expectations of regularization.
12 0.a. 351.01265.2019 & o.a. 351.02293.2019 with m.a.351.00746.2019 In the instant matter, the respondents would annex at R-2 to their reply an undertaking by the applicant No. 1 in OA. ko.
351/01265/2019 which states as follows:-
" CERTIF: CATE I, Anita Bala, D/o. Late Pratap Simgh, hereby declare that I give my consent to occupy the post of Junior Ergineer (Civ:l) in adhoc capacity in che vacancy of ST quota till the said vacancy are either filled up by regular ST i candidate or I get regular promotion in Draughtsmar Grace II (Civil).
-Sd/-
Name : Anita Bala Designation: Draughtsman Gr. II Date: 26.2.2010"
Accordingly, the applicant No. 1 was aware chat her adhoc promotion to the post of Junior Ergineer (Civil) was subject to filling 2p such position by a regular candidate or upto her regular promotion in the pest of Draughtsman Gr. II.
't transpires, that, vide orders dated 30.8.201¢S (Annexure A-10 to O.A. No. 351/01265/2019), the applicants were reverted to the post of Draughtsman Gr. II] implying that their furctions -r the post of Juncer Engineer (Civil) in adhoc capacizy autcmatically came to an end vice Office Order No. 930 dated 30.8.29-9.
We also note that, while the applicants were excluded from the final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil} of APWD as on 1.8.20-4 (annexed at R-4 to the reply to O.A. No. 351/ 91265/2019) the applicarts have not brought forth before us ary claims or cbjections made by them against such final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civ=) as on 1.8.2014 Accordingly, we infer that the applicants were <c Junction strictly :n terms of adhoc capacity of Jr. Ergineer (Civil} upto such time when, pee Oa, either they would be regularly promoted to tne post cf Draughtsman Cr.
t a, Mo 13 0.a. 351.01265.2019 & 0.4. 351.01293.2019 with m.a.351.00746.2018 II or when the post of Junior Engineer 'Civil) would be filled up by reguiar recruitment. The applicarts are substantively Draughtsman Gr. lll, and, accordingly, their regular promotion to tne post of Draughtsman Gr. II would bring a closure to any further functions in adhoc capacity as Jr. Engineer (Civil}. The applicants were aware of this condition as per the undertaking at Annexure R-2 to the reply to O.A. No. 351/01265/2019 as well as disclcsure of the fact that their names were not reflected in the final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) as on 1.8.2014.
(2) The next issue is based on the applicant's claim that they cannot be cenied substantive postings as Junior Engineer (Civil) as their promotions were made in terms of the recommerdaczions of the DPC end in the context of recruitment rules, 1979. It is on record tha: the respondent authorities had amended the recruitment rules in 2009, The recruitment rules for the post o7 Junior =ngineer Civil}, 2009 in che Andeman Public Works Departmert is quoted as below:-
" SCHEDULE -I RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR ENGINEER (CIVIL) IN ANDAMAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. Name of the post Junior =ngineer (Civil)
2. No. of post 297* (Two hundrec and ninety seven cnly (2009) *Subject to variation dependant on workload
3. Classification Generai Central Service Group "B" Men- Gazetted, Non-Ministerial
4. Pay Band & Grade Pay PB-2 (9300-34800) + GP Rs. 4200/-
5. Whether selection post or non- | Not appticable selection post
6. Whether benefit of added years | No of service admissible under Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972
7. Age limit for direct recruits 18-33 years for Mase 18-38 years for Fermale (Relaxaple for Govt. Servant upto 5 years 14 0.a. 354.01265.2079 & 0.4, 351.01293.2019 with m.a.351.00746.201¢ in accezrdance wit the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government) Note:-
The crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the ciosing date for reca:pt of application from the candidate name sponsored by the Imployment Exchange, A&N Islands ard other required = for Educational Qualifications direct recruits Essential:
{i) Degree or Diploma in Ccvil Engineering from a recognized University /Board/Institution or having passed Part A & B Examinauon of Institution of Engineers (India) (it) Should oualify in the written professional test to be concuctec. by Administration or any authorized = recruitment agency fer direct recruitment Whether age & educaticnal qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promotees Not applicable 10, Period of probation, if any
2 years li.
Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation /transfer & percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods 100% by Direct Recruitment
12. In case of recruitment by promotion / deputation /transfer, grades from which promotion , deputation/transfer to be made.
Not Applicable
13. Ifa DPC exists, what is the composition?
Group '8B' DPC /Selection Committee consisting of:-
1, Chief Engineer - Chairman APWD, A&N Admn.
2. Superintending - Member
3. Engineer, APWD, AN Adim-.
4. EOD (C-vill, - Member Folytechn-c
14. Circumstances in which UPSC is to be consulted in making recruitment.
Not applicable
15. Job Description Attached as Annexure to Schedule - = It is settled law that recruitment rules are a matter of policy and the policy decision of Governmert regarding recruitment, [as held in State of Orissa v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia, (2003) 10 SCC 144,/ is 15 0.4, 351.01265.2013 & 0.4. 351.02293.2019 with m.a.351.00746.2019 not amenable to judicial review unless the same is arbitrary. Further, -n Banarsidas v. State of UP, AIR 1956 SC 520, the Eon'ble Apex Court ruled that it is now well settled that it is open to the appointing author-ty to lay down requisite qualifications for recruitment to government service. In Commissioner, Corpn. of Madras v. Madras Corpn. Teachers' Mandram, 1997 (2) SLR 468 (SC) the ccurt reiterated that recru:tment qualifications ,ertains <o the domain of policy.
It is also a _ settled principle of governance that requisite qualifications should be expressly published and made known to tre public. This has obviously been abided by the author-t:es when they have apriori advertised the requisite cualificaticns for the post of Jumor Engineer (Civil) in terms of Recruitment Rules of 2009.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in, M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N., (2009) 5 SCC 625, ruled, that it is for the gcvernment to decice whether qualifications have a reasonable relation tc the nature of duties and responsibilities of a promotional post and the ccurt, not being an exper: in administrative matters, cannot sit in appeal over decisions of executive authorities unless they are arbitrary or shocking.
The Hon'ble Apex Court had earlier held ir J Ranga Swamy v. Government of AP, 1991 (3) SLR 86, that, for being eligible, a candidate must possess the currently prescribec qualification, anc, in Union of India v. Ravi Shankar, (1998) 3 SCC 146, it was further highlighted that a person whc does rot possess the requiste qualification has no right to be appointed.
The respondent authorities were well witn:n their rights to prescribe recruitment rules for che post of Junior Engineer (Civil) 16 0.a, 351.01265.2015 & 0.a, 351.02293,2C19 with m.a.351.00746.2029 through the process of direct recruitment and in laying down qualification of degree or diploma in Civil Engineering as the essential qualification along with the need to qualify in examination to be held 'or this purpose in cognizance to the fact that the post of Junior Engineer is the foundation in the structure of execucion of Engineering Works. Hence, it is only reasonable that meritorious candidates wich specialization in concerned discipline and who qual:fy in a competitive selection process would be found fit to be Junior Engineer (Civil}.
"he 1979 recruitmert rules (Annexure A-1 to the O.A. No. O.A. No. 391/01265/2019 as relied upon by the applicants state as follows:-
" SCHEDULE I-
RECRUITMENT RULES 1, Name or Designation of the post Junior Engineer (Tivil) or Draftsman Grade I (Civil). The vost of Draftsman Grade - (Civil) is merged with the post of Junisr Eng-neer (Civil).
2. Classification of the post whetkez Group 'C' Non-Ministerial Non-Gazetted Gazetted Non-gazetted and whether Ministerial
3. Scale of Pay Rs. 425-15-600-EB-15-660-20-700 for Degree sr Diploma olders. Rs, 380-12-419-EB-20-660-EB-20-68C for others. ee
4. No of posts 189 Ae
5. Percentage of posts to be filled " pee a A (1) Direct recruitment 75% ee
(ii) Promotion : Selection-cum- 25% ma Seniority-cum-fitness
6. Age Limit 18 to 28 years. Relaxable in eligible.
7. Educational and other qualifications A Degree or Diplome Civil Engineering ha, a \O 09
17 0.a. 351.01265.2019 & 0.a. 351.01293.2013 with n.a.351.00746.2019 Required from a recognizec. =ngineering Institution or any other recognized Equivalent qualification.
. Period of probation 2 years Whether age & educational Qualifications prescribed for No
10. Ll.
Direct recruitment will apply in Case of appointment or promotion Or transfer Grades and sourzes from which By selection from departmental Promotion is to be made candidates in the grade of Draftsman Grade II (Civil) whe have put in Minimum of 12 years combined service In the Grade of Draftsman Gr. II (Civil) And Grade IT] (Civil or Surveyors wko Have pat in mirinram of 12 years Combined service <n the grade of Draftsman Grade JI and Surveyors or in individual grace.
If a DPC exists, what is its Group 'C' DPC Constitution Note -- In case requisite number of candidates under categories 'direct recruitment' and 'promotion' are not available vacancies will be filled by deputation from 2ther Govt. departments. However, such deputationists will be 'reverted to their parert department' as soon as candidates under the categories mentioned abcve become available."
Upon a close scrutiny of the recruitment rules of -979, we infer as follows:-
C) That, while 75% of suck posts were to be Alied up by direct recruitment, 25% posts will be filleé from promoticn selection-cum-seniority-cum-fitness. The mandatory educational qualifications were a degree cf diploma in Civil Engineering for direct recruits and the rromotional norms require selection from departmental cand:cates in the grace of Draughtsman Gr. II who have put in a minimum of -2 years combined service in the grace of Draughtsman Gr. II ard 18 0.a. 351.01265.2019 & o.a, 351.01293.2019 with m.a.351.00746.2019 those functioning as Draughtsman Gr. II (Civil) who have put in a minimum of 12 vears combined service in individual grade.
(ii) The applicants are admittedly appointed -n the substantive posts of Draugktsman Gr. III in July, 1992, and obtainec the substantive grade of Draughtsman Gr. II only in 2019. Hence, they would have to put :n a minimum of 12 years of combined service to have been eligible as per 1979 Rules, which, however, has lost currency as the 2009 Recruitment Rules have come into force much prior to the substantive appointment of applicants as Draughtsmar. Gr. II.
11. Hence, having ascertained facts, having examined the applicabilizy of judicial ratio, and, having inspected the annexec documents, ard upon hearing both sides, we are, hence, of the considered view, that the applicants cannot rightfully claim regularizacion of the:r adhoc service as Junior Engineer (Civil) in terms of ratio contained ir Pooswamy M. v. Union of India, 1978 (2) SLR 334 (supra) and in State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 (supra).
12. We also find that the applicants did not possess the educational qualifications as demanded either in 197¢ (for direct recruits) or amended recruitment rules of 2009. As the 2009 recruitment rites prescribe that Junior Engineer (Civil) posts are to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment, the applicants would not stard any chance of promotion to such posts as scope of promotion has been eschewed hot 19 0.a, 351.C1265.2019 & 0.a. 351.01293.2019 with m.a.351.00746,2019 the-ein and admittedly, they do not possess the requisite educational qualifications.
13. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality cr arbitrariness in the orders of the respondent authorities dated 30.8.2019 vide which tke applicants have been reverted to their substantive posts of Draughtsman Gr. If, been promoted to the post of Draughtsman Gr. II as per ther eligibility, and, posted in terms of their promotional orcers.
We are hence of the considered view that no jucicial intervention is called for and hence these O.A.s are rendered devoid of merit.
14. At the same time, however, -his Tribunal woule take note of the fact that the applicants, had indeec functioned as Jurcor Engineer (Civ-]) jn an ad hoc capacity since 201C (Annexure A-3 and A-4 to O.A. No. 351/01265/2019) until their reversion on 2019. Accordingly, we mexe absolute the interim relief granted by this Tribunal on 1.10.2979, namely, that benefits received by the applicants during their tenure as Junicr Engineer (Civil) in ad hoc capacity, shall not be recovered by she respondents.
15. With these directions, the O.A.s are disposed ci. There will be no orders on costs.
fe if es .
Of a4 ee . wag Met > .
ne ou a a , : | (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) = Woke, , (Bidisha Banerjee} Administrative Member Se ES Fudicial Member SP