Service Law | Supreme Court Upholds Ante Dating Of Seniority List; Says No Prejudice Caused As Separate Quotas Prescribed For Degree & Diploma Holders
The Supreme Court on Monday (30.10.2023), dismissed an appeal filed challenging the antedating of a seniority list for being legally unsustainable.The Appellant in this case was challenging an order of a division bench of the Kerala High Court that had refused to interfere with the seniority of the private respondents. The Apex Court found that the ante dating of the seniority list caused...
The Supreme Court on Monday (30.10.2023), dismissed an appeal filed challenging the antedating of a seniority list for being legally unsustainable.
The Appellant in this case was challenging an order of a division bench of the Kerala High Court that had refused to interfere with the seniority of the private respondents. The Apex Court found that the ante dating of the seniority list caused no prejudice to the Appellant since separate quotas had been prescribed for Degree Holders and Diploma Holders. The Appellant being a Graduate Engineer and the private respondents being Diploma Holders, both were from different streams and had different quotas, the Court concluded. .
A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Hima Kohli, was considering a challenge to an order of a division bench of the Kerala High Court that had refused to interfere with the seniority of the private respondents. The Appellant had challenged a 2005 order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration, Thiruvananthapuram wherein the private respondents were given seniority from back date. His contention was that this caused prejudice to him.
The Appellant was appointed as Overseer Grade-III in the Irrigation Department in 1989, on a compassionate basis. However, since he was an Engineering Graduate, he represented to the Government for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) which was refused. Subsequently, the Kerala High Court in 1992 directed his appointment as Assistant Engineer instead of Overseer Grade-III from the date he was appointed to that post. This was later challenged by the State. The High Court directed that the Appellant was to be given seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer from the date of his appointment. Thereafter, the Appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department dated 01.03.1995.
The private-respondents, who joined service as Overseer Grade-I and were holding the qualification of Diploma were promoted as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 15.03.1995. In 2004, a writ petition was filed by them in which the High Court directed that their cases for promotion in the quota reserved for their category be considered. Subsequently, the Chief Engineer in a 2005 order granted promotion to the private respondents as Assistant Engineers with effect from 01.08.1993, i.e back date.
This 2005 order was challenged by the Appellant before the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that that the seniority list of Assistant Engineer, as was circulated on 22.11.2001, was the final seniority list, which was never challenged by the private-respondents. The High Court said that the seniority list could not have been reopened to the prejudice of the appellant without notice even being served on him. Hence, the same was set aside and a direction was issued for re-assigning the seniority to the Appellant.
The private respondents, appealed against the order of the Single Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that anti-dating of the promotion of the private respondents did not adversely affect the Appellants. Hence, the High Court restored the 2005 order of the Chief Engineer granting seniorty to the private respondents from back date. This was challenged before the Apex Court.
The case of the Appellant was that the private respondents never filed any objections when the final seniority list was circulated in 2001 and that the issue was sought to be raised more than 8 three years later.
The State argued that as there was an error in the calculation of quota for grant of promotion to the private respondents from the post of Overseer Grade-I to Assistant Engineer, this was corrected by the impugned order. The State also argued that the Appellant was not going to be prejudiced in any manner, because for subsequent promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, there were separate quotas meant for the Engineering Graduates and Diploma Holders.
The Apex Court found that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court.
The Apex Court noted that the promotion of the private respondents did not prejudice the Appellant, since they were prescribed different quotas for promotion. The Apellant being a Graduate Engineer and the private respondents being Diploma Holders, no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant, the Apex Court concluded.
“...we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the present appeal for the reason that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that for the purpose of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer, he was likely to be affected by antedating the date of promotion of the private respondents as separate quotas had been prescribed for promotion to the next higher post for the categories of Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders” the Apex Court said.
Case Title: C. ANIL CHANDRAN V. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8915 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 946