Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Any other appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents be issued in favour of the petitioners with cost of the petition."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have sought promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Sub Engineers after completion of eight years' of service as per rules framed by the respondent vide Annexure-P/1 for which approval was also made vide Annxure-P/2 by the Joint Director. Thus the contention of the petitioners was that they should have been promoted on the basis of the gradation list of 1998 or soon afterwards against 07 posts of Assistant Engineers from the quota of Diploma Holder Sub Engineers which were vacant at the time of DPC held on 26.5.2008, and this Court after considering the rival submissions has observed in para 12 and 13 as under :

"12. The aforesaid objection of common gradation list has been dealt with by the respondent in their reply wherein it is stated that a common/qualification wise gradation list has been prepared wherein the diploma and degree holders have been kept in one list only and the other four diploma holders who were senior to the petitioners have been placed above them and promoted on the post of Assistant Engineers.
13. As per the minutes of the meeting held by DPC, the promotions have been granted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit basis and as stated by the respondents the petitioners were in the zone of consideration but other four diploma holders who were senior to them have been promoted, which statements appear to be correct and there appears to be no violation of the reservation roster as well. It may be true that the State has not prepared separate gradation list for diploma and degree holders as directed by the Apex Court but there appears to be no prejudice caused to the petitioners on account of this lapse on the part of the State."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that this Court has passed the order on the basis of aforesaid pleadings wherein the respondents have narrated the fact in respect of the gradation list as on 01.04.2007 whereas the petitioners' claim was for the year 1998 only, hence the pleadings made by the respondents were misleading which led to passing of an order dismissing the petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the review petition and has also filed a return. The respondent has also relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma and others, (1979) 4 SCC 389 as also in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others, (2006) 6 SCC 224 regarding the power of review of the Court. It is further submitted that even referring to the minutes of the DPC which took place on 26.05.2008, the same do not give any cause to the petitioners to seek review of the judgment as this Court has rightly considered the Minutes of the DPC which took place on 13.08.2013. It is further submitted that the minutes of the DPC of 2008 reveals that the DPC considered all the eligible Sub Engineers in order of their seniority, however, while segregating the eligible candidates under the respective quota, the D.P.C. accepted inter-se seniority in Diploma holders quota from the date of initial appointment, whereas in the Degree holders quota the seniority was determined as per the amended Regulations and it is further submitted that the gradation lists published prior to the amendment in the Regulations are not relevant for the present adjudication and no advantage can be sought by the petitioners in respect of the gradation list as on 01.04.2013 which also could not be amended.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. After perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that while considering the case of the petitioners this Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners are claiming their promotion since 1998 i.e. the year in which they first became eligible for the promotion. In such circumstances the gradation list of the year 1998 or the immediate subsequent gradation list should have been taken into consideration as their case was also recommended vide Annexure-P/2 whereas the DPC which was convened on 26.05.2008 has taken into account the gradation list as on 01.04.2007 which in the considered opinion of this Court ought not to have been considered while considering the case of the petitioners who had already become entitled for the promotion in the year 1998 itself after completing 8 years in service as Sub-Engineers. Thus, apparently, the aforesaid aspects could not be taken into consideration by this court while passing the order under review which deserves to be recalled and now it is directed that since the petitioners completed 8 years as Sub Engineers in the year 1998 itself hence they are entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineers as per the Promotion Rules.