Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(10) According to the Dda, the aforesaid principle. It was decided, to be followed in the case of promotion of Junior Engineer to A.E. (Civil) & (Electrical) also. The plea of Dda Is that the Rule, with regard to the experience In service. In case of those Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who subsequently acquire Degrees, has been clarified. Dda has also denied that the service conditions of the Junior Engineer, holding Degrees, have been adversely affected.

(11) The other respondents, who were imp leaded subsequently on their applications, also filed replies, to the writ petition. In their replies, these respondents have alleged that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, is exclusively on the basis of the seniority, in the feeder grade. The seniority of all Junior Engineers (Civil) is common, irrespective of their qualification and their dates of joining in Dda, as Junior Engineer (Civil) & (Electrical). According to these respondents, the Recruitment Rules, nowhere provide that the Diploma Holder, who has already rendered 3 years service, as Junior Engineer, on acquiring the Degree in Engineering, has to render further service of 3 years as Junior Engineer, for becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. It Is alleged that for the purpose of promotion, to the post of Assistant Engineer, the Junior Engineer, who has rendered 3 years service and has a Degree in Engineering, whether, he has acquired a Degree at the time of his initial appointment or subsequently, is of no consequence. In other words, the requirements, under the Recruitment Rules, are 3 years service, as Junior Engineer in Dda, and holding of a Degree in Engineering.

(12) No doubt, the principal controversy in the writ petition is, with regard to the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who, after joining the service, obtain degrees in Engineering, and the Interpretations, given by the Dda, in its : impugned circular dated September 20, 1990.

(13) But, there are other questions, involved in the present case, which I would like to decide first. These questions are, whether, the impugned decision, thereby, treating those Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who subsequently obtain degrees, equal with the Degree Holder Junior Engineers, with regard to the minimum experience, have adversely affected the service conditions of Degree Holder Junior Engineers. If so, whether, the Dda was required to invite objections, from and to give opportunity of being heard to Junior ' Engineers, both Degree Holders and Diploma Holders. In not doing so, whether, the Dda has violated the principles of natural justice and if so, what is its legal effect.

(15) The contention of Mr. Jaitley was, that the relevant Recruitment Rule for promotion of Junior Engineers, to the post of Assistant Engineers, is very clear and admits of only one interpretation. In case of Graduate Junior Engineers, with three years service, meant that three years service, as Graduate Junior Engineer. If this was so, in case, a Diploma Holder obtains the degree in Engineering, subsequent to his joining service, then, he must put in 3 years service as Degree Holder, before becoming eligible for consideration to the post of Assistant Engineer, in promotion quota. The next contention, urged before me, by Mr. Jaitley was that the aforesaid practice was followed from 1963 to 1971. However, in 1971. a concession was made for the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, to the effect that in the event of a Diploma Holder, acquiring a degree, during the course of service, then, the three years service, as Graduate Junior Engineer, would be calculated on the basis, that a minimum of 2 years regular service as Graduate Junior Engineer, after obtaining a degree, and 3/8th weightage would be given, subject to maximum of one year of the service, pat in by a Diploma Holder as Junior Engineer. In other words, according to Mr. Jaitley, the concession implied that after obtaining a degree, a Diploma Holder Junior Engineer was to put in a minimum of 2 year service, as a Graduate Junior Engineer. The above practice, continued till September, 1990, when the impugned decision was taken.

(27) The Dda was constituted under an Act, in the year 1955. The recruitment rules, which were formulated in the year 1963, for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers, were followed in a particular manner, till 1971, when a small concession was given to the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers. This practice was followed till the impugned decision was taken.

(28) In the rejoinder, it has been specifically alleged that petitioners, in the last DPC. were in the consideration zone of promotion but, now they have been ousted from the consideration zone. This is on account of the impugned decision. It is further alleged in the affidavit that with this interpretation, a person, who is at serial No. 2 in the consideration zone, in one particular Dpc, will be out of consideration zone and will stand at 50th position, and with the passage of time, he will stand beyond even that. In the affidavit, which is not controverter, a statement has been made by petitioners, that more than 70 Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who have subsequently acquired decrees, are likely to be considered before the petitioners. Petitioners joined as Junior Engineers, in May, 1981, when there were about 150 Diploma Holder Junior Engineers, who had joined the Dda earlier, to the petitioners, as Junior Engineers. Out of Diploma Holders, about 70 have already acquired degrees in the year 1988-89 and 1990, and another about 30 are about to acquire degree in another year or so.