Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The findings and recommendations of S.C. Das Committee were as follows:
Findings & Recommendations:-
(1) Shri Debajit Das got the benefit of promotion from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD in the year 2002 because of clubbing of the vacant posts of the year 2001 & 2002. However, since more than 12 years have elapsed since his last promotion and in the meantime, he has been given an ex-

cadre post of Executive Engineer personal to him, this matter may not be re- opened.

26. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that though the issue before the Court in the earlier round of litigation was only with respect to encadrement of the petitioner in the post of Executive Engineer and subsequent promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, the fact that the illegal promotion of the petitioner started from the illegal clubbing of the vacancies for two years, i.e. Page No.# 20/34 2001 and 2002, goes to show that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer itself was illegal and had to be corrected. He submits that an order that is bad in its inception cannot be sanctified at a later stage as the illegality strikes at the root of the matter, i.e. the order of promotion from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer. In support of his submission, the learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. -vs- Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436. Mr. Mazumder further submits that there was no approval of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 05/2015, to the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and, as such, the review of the promotion order and the petitioner's seniority position in the cadre of A.E.E. by the State was permissible. He also submits that the impugned order dated 27.04.2021 has been passed in terms of Rule 11 and 12 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968.

Page No.# 24/34

13) With the above clarification, this I.A. is disposed of."

31. As can be seen from the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge in the common judgment & order dated 30.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 05/2015 etc., had not disturbed the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer as it was never an issue before the learned Single Judge or before the Apex Court. The learned Single Judge has also recorded in Paragraph No. 37 of the judgment & order dated 30.04.2015 that neither the State nor the other respondents had contested the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The learned Single Judge thereafter came to a decision that the petitioner's promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was ex facie illegal and had to be corrected and, as such, the learned Single Judge upheld the Notification dated 05.01.2015 issued by the State respondents in the name of the Governor, which did not touch upon the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Even before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 138/2015, no issue was raised by any of the parties with regard to the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Though the Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Bhuyan (supra) has reflected on the "flyover promotion" of the petitioner, parachuting from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer, the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was never an issue. In fact, the Apex Court has restored the common judgment and order dated 30.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 05/2015 etc. As such, there is a finality to the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on 19.12.2002, which is reflected in the judgment and order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Supreme Court, when it says in the penultimate paragraph of its judgment that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored.

37. In the present case, the S.C. Das Committee was well aware that the petitioner had got the benefit of clubbing of the vacancies for the year 2001 and 2002 at the time of his promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. However, the report of the S.C. Das Committee dated 16.12.2014 held that since more than 12 years had elapsed since his last promotion, and as in the meantime the petitioner had been given the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer personal to him, the matter may not be reopened. This recommendation of the S.C. Das Committee was considered and accepted by the State Review Board and subsequently, the Notification dated 05.01.2015 was issued by the State respondents in the name of the Governor, which accepted the recommendation of the S.C. Das Committee and the Review Selection Board. Thus, the State Government had, vide its order dated 05.01.2015, taken a conscious decision not to re-open the issue of the petitioner's promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The State Government had also not made it an issue before the Courts. However, vide the impugned order dated 27.04.2021, the State respondents have opened the issue of the petitioner's promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, 19 years after his promotion to the post of A.E.E. Though the State respondents have not Page No.# 28/34 disturbed the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner has been given his seniority position in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, as per his seniority position in the cadre of Assistant Engineer.