C. Anil Chandran vs M.K. Raghavan and Others

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

30 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 8915 of 2012

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Hima Kohli, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 144 : 2023 INSC 962

Issue for consideration

Appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2005, passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration vide which the private respondents No. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 were given seniority from back date.

Headnote

Service Law – In the writ petition filed by the private respondents in the year 2004, the High Court directed for consideration of their cases of promotion in the quota reserved for their category – The matter was considered by the Chief Engineer and disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2005 and after condsidering the representations, promotion as Assistant Engineer was granted w.e.f 01.08.1993 – Thereafter in an another writ petition filed by the appellant, order dated 14.03.2005 was set aside by the single judge of the High Court, however in the writ appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that anti-dating of the promotion of the private respondents was not adversely affecting the appellant – Therefore, the order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the Chief Engineer was restored – Propriety:

Held: In the case in hand, the seniority list as such was not challenged by the private respondents – They only made representations for correction of their dates of promotion as Assistant Engineer, which was finally accepted by the State on 14.03.2005 – No case made out for interferance in the instant 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 2010 Rules have been placed on record by the appellant along with IA No. 02 of 2017 in terms whereof separate quotas have been prescribed for Degree Holders and Diploma Holders in the ratio of 8:2 – The appellant undisputedly falls in the category of Graduate Engineer, whereas the private respondents fall in the category of Diploma Holders – Both are different streams with different quotas. [Paras 19, 20]

LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Vinod Prasad Raturi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2021 INSC

157 – referred to.

R.M. Ramual vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 285: [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 1009 – held inapplicable.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order in a Writ Appeal1 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2 by which the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 36424 of 2005, was set aside. 2. Challenge in the W.P. filed by the appellant was to the order dated 14.03.2005, passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration, Thiruvananthapuram vide which the private-respondents No. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 were given seniority from back date. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that

View Subscription Plans →