Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. APOT No. 218 of 2024 is at the instance of the direct recruits i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in the writ petition. It is their contention that the learned Single Judge erred in holding the writ petitioners senior to them in consideration of the fact that the writ petitioners were serving as Assistant Engineer for a pretty long period, at least since 2012. The said appellants submitted that they were directly appointed as Assistant Engineer in 2012 following the regular recruitment process in accordance with law. On the other hand, the writ petitioners were officiating as such in the supernumerary post since 2012, owing to stagnation for want of adequate vacancies. They were adjusted in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, sometimes in 2021, as and when vacancies occurred. Hence, according to the appellants in APOT 218 of 2024, the writ petitioners cannot be construed to have entered into the cadre when they were offered with the benefits of supernumerary posts.

15. In fact, it was contended that, the circular creating the supernumerary posts, itself provided that such posts would be adjusted against regular vacancies, as and when available. It was never intended to create a separate class within a class on the basis of higher qualification and length of service.

16. It was also contended by such appellants that, firstly, regulations relating to enblock seniority, as provided in Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Determination of Seniority) Regulations, 1984, speaks of seniority amongst the promotees and direct recruits belonging to the same year and not of different years. Secondly, the said Regulations were not approved by the State Government as required. For such reasons, the Regulations of 1984 cannot be adhered to. In support of their contentions, learned advocate for the appellants in APOT No. 218 of 2024 cited (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 332 (P.P.C. Rasani and Ors v Union of India and Ors) and (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 616 (Ashok Kumar Das and Ors v University of Burdwan and Ors).

20. Appellants in APOT No. 218 of 2024 i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in the writ petition were directly recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2012 following the extant Recruitment Regulations.

21. The appellants in A.P.O. No. 59 of 2024 are the regular promotees to the cadre of Assistant Engineer in 2018-2019 and were placed, in the impugned gradation list published in 2021, above the writ petitioners who obtained regular promotion in the year 2020-2021. Admittedly, the appellants in A.P.O. No. 59 of 2024 except two at Serial Nos. 98 and 99 were senior to the writ petitioners in the gradation list for the cadre of Sub-Assistant Engineers. They were inducted into service in diverse years ranging from 1987 to 1998. The writ petitioners were so inducted in the year 1997 and 1998. On the basis of the gradation list for the cadre of Sub-Assistant Engineers as well as the date of appointment of respective candidates in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, the impugned gradation list was published in the year 2021.

49. Therefore, in the light of the discussions made hereinabove and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find no fault with the impugned gradation list published on July 5, 2021 or the resolution adopted by the Board of Administrators of KMC at its meeting dated June 29, 2021. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order is hereby, set aside.

50. In the result, the three appeals being APOT 183 of 2024, APOT 218 of 2024 and APO 59 of 2024 along with the connected applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.