Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The Supreme Court then referred to the Rules regarding recruitment to the post of Junior Engineers and promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers and subsequently to the post of Executive Engineers in service. The post of Junior Engineer was the entry level post in the service, appointments to which were only by way of direct recruitment. Initially, the educational qualification prescribed for the post was a diploma in Civil Engineering with two years' experience or graduate in Engineering. For promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, the Rule prescribed 50% of the post would be filled by direct recruitment from candidates having educational qualification as graduate in Civil Engineering and remaining 50% of the post would be filled by promotion from the post of Junior Engineers. Under clause (a), however, the 50% promotion quota was bifurcated into 25% each to be filled up by way of promotion from the category of graduate Junior Engineers, i.e., persons who hold a degree at the entry point in Engineering and three years' in service and under clause (b) 25% of the posts were to be filled by diploma holders with eight years of service. Thus, the Rule prescribe two sources of promotion from the post of Junior Engineers, i.e., graduate with three years' service experience and diploma holders with eight years service experience. This distinction between graduate degree-holder Engineers and diploma-holders was maintained for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer by prescribing different experience for promotion on the basis of a person being a graduate or a diploma-holder, though no separate quota was prescribed for graduates or diploma-holders.

"43. Taking into consideration the entire scheme of the relevant Rules, it is obvious that the diploma-holders would not be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in their quota unless have eight years' service, whereas the graduate Engineers would be required to have three years' service experience apart from their degree. If the effect and intent of the Rules were such to treat the diploma as equivalent to a degree for the purpose of promotion to the higher post, then induction to the cadre of Junior Engineers from two different channels would be required to be considered similar, without subjecting the diploma-holders to any further requirement of having a further qualification of two years' service. At the time of induction into the service to the post of Junior Engineers, degree in Engineering is a sufficient qualification without there being any prior experience, whereas diploma-holders should have two years' experience apart from their diploma for their induction in the service. As per the service rules, on the post of Assistant Engineer, 50% of total vacancies would be filled up by direct recruitment, whereas for the promotion specific quota is prescribed for a graduate Junior Engineer and a diploma-holder Junior Engineer. When the quota is prescribed under the Rules, the promotion of graduate Junior Engineers to the higher post is restricted to 25% quota fixed. So far as the diploma-holders are concerned, their promotion to the higher post is confined to 25%. As an eligibility criterion, a degree is further qualified by three years' service for the Junior Engineers, whereas eight years' service is required for the diploma-holders. Degree with three years' service experience and diploma with eight years' service experience itself indicates qualitative difference in the service rendered as degree-holder Junior Engineer and diploma-holder Junior Engineer. Three years' service experience as a graduate Junior Engineer and eight years' service experience as a diploma-holder Junior Engineer, which is the eligibility criterion for promotion, is an indication of different quality of service rendered. In the given case, can it be said that a diploma-holder who acquired a degree during the tenure of his service, has gained experience as an Engineer just because he has acquired a degree in Engineering. That would amount to say that the experience gained by him in his service as a diploma-holder is qualitatively the same as that of the experience of a graduate Engineer. The Rule specifically made difference of service rendered as a graduate Junior Engineer and a diploma-holder Junior Engineer. Degree-holder Engineer's experience cannot be substituted with diploma-holder's experience. The distinction between the experience of degree-holders and diploma-holders is maintained under the Rules in further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer also, wherein there is no separate quota assigned to degree-holders or to diploma-holders and the promotion is to be made from the cadre of Assistant Engineers. The Rules provide for different service experience for degree- holders and diploma-holders. Degree-holder Assistant Engineers having eight years of service experience would be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, whereas diploma- holder Assistant Engineers would be required to have ten years' service experience on the post of Assistant Engineer to become eligible for promotion to the higher post. This indicates that the Rule itself makes differentia in the qualifying service of eight years for degree-holders and ten years' service experience for diploma-holders. The Rule itself makes qualitative difference in the service rendered on the same post. It is a clear indication of qualitative difference of the service on the same post by a graduate Engineer and a diploma-holder Engineer. It appears to us that different period of service attached to qualification as an essential criterion for promotion is based on administrative interest in the service. Different period of service experience for degree-holder Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers for promotion to the higher post is conducive to the post manned by the Engineers. There can be no manner of doubt that higher technical knowledge would give better thrust to administrative efficiency and quality output. To carry out technical specialised job more efficiently, higher technical knowledge would be the requirement. Higher educational qualifications develop broader perspective and therefore service rendered on the same post by more qualifying person would be qualitatively different.

44. After having an overall consideration of the relevant Rules, we are of the view that the service experience required for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer by a degree-holder in the limited quota of degree-holder Junior Engineers cannot be equated with the service rendered as a diploma-holder nor can be substituted for service rendered as a degree-holder. When the claim is made from a fixed quota, the condition necessary for becoming eligible for promotion has to be complied with. The 25% specific quota is fixed for degree-holder Junior Engineers with the experience of three years. Thus, on a plain reading, the experience so required would be as a degree-holder Junior Engineer. 25% quota for promotion under the rule is assigned to degree-holder Junior Engineers with three years' experience, whereas for diploma- holder Junior Engineers eight years' experience is the requirement in their 25% quota. Educational qualification along with number of years of service was recognised as conferring eligibility for promotion in the respective quota fixed for graduates and diploma-holders. There is watertight compartment for graduate Junior Engineers and diploma-holder Junior Engineers. They are entitled for promotion in their respective quotas. Neither a diploma-holder Junior Engineer could claim promotion in the quota of degree-holders because he has completed three years of service nor can a degree-holder Junior Engineer make any claim for promotion quota fixed for diploma-holder Junior Engineers. Fixation of different quota for promotion from different channels of degree-holders and diploma-holders itself indicates that service required for promotion is an essential eligibility criterion along with degree or diploma, which is service rendered as a degree- holder in the present case. The particular years of service being the cumulative requirement with certain educational qualification providing for promotional avenue within the specified quota, cannot be anything but the service rendered as a degree-holder and not as a diploma-holder. The service experience as an eligibility criterion cannot be read to be any other thing because this quota is specifically made for the degree-holder Junior Engineers."

II. The extant rules prescribing 8 years of service for diploma holder Junior Engineers and 3 years of service for degree holder Junior Engineers for being eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineer as interpreted in Shailendra Dania and Others (supra) imply quantitative difference in the service rendered as degree holder Junior Engineer and diploma holder Junior Engineer as indicative of different quality of service rendered. The 25% quota fixed for degree holder Junior Engineers with 3 years' experience and 25% quota for diploma holder Junior Engineers with 8 years' experience, it has been held, are water-tight compartment and constitute different channels. The argument of the petitioners with regard to determination of inter se seniority would thus be covered by the aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania and Others (supra) categorising degree holders and diploma holders as distinct channels. Thus, despite there being a common seniority list, the two would be separate categories with reference to the question of consideration for promotion. III. The contention of the petitioners-diploma holder Junior Engineers that they being senior having been appointed earlier to the degree holder Junior Engineers should be considered for promotion before the degree holder Junior Engineers appointed post their appointment would be contrary to the aforesaid ratio in Shailendra Dania and Others (supra) and would negate the effect of the said decision. Seniority of diploma holder Junior Engineers, who acquire degree of engineering during tenure of service, in the degree holder category or channel would not be counted from the date of initial joining but from the date when they acquire the degree. IV. The aforesaid ratio and precept applied by us is as per the ratio in LPA No. 473/2002, Vasdev Chhugani Vs. A.K. Kashyap & Ors., decided on 14th February, 2007. This decision clearly holds that a diploma holder Junior Engineer cannot claim seniority over a Junior Engineer, who is either senior to him in the line of degree holders or even those in the line of diploma holders, who had acquired degree prior to him for promotion as Assistant Engineer in the quota/channel of degree holder Junior Engineers. Such diploma holder Junior Engineers would get their position/seniority in the category/channel of degree holder Junior Engineers from the date they acquire the said degree and not from the date of appointment as diploma holder Junior Engineers. They retain their seniority in the category of diploma holder Junior Engineers from the date of appointment.