Service law: Promotion – Post of Accounts Officer(AO) – Promotion to the post of AO sought by direct recruits to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) – Requirement of passing SAS Part II exam for promotion – Held: What is not required for the lower post, cannot be made applicable to the promotional post – When there was no requirement of passing SAS Part II examination for the lower post, i.e., post of AAO so far as direct recruits is concerned, there cannot be any requirement of passing of the SAS Part II exam for the promotional post of AO – After the appointment as AAO either as a promotee or as a direct recruit, all shall be at par – Thus, the requirement of passing of SAS Part II exam as per the amended notification dated 02.01.2010 for the promotion to the post of AO is arbitrary and illogical and rightly read down by the High Court – High Court justified in holding that such a requirement shall be for the promotion from the post of Superintendent (D/A) to the post of AAO only and thus, not to be applicable for promotion to the post of AO – Also, the High Court rightly set aside the promotions of the AAOs junior to the direct recruitees-AAO and issued directions to the State Electricity Board to consider them for promotion to the post of AO from the dates the persons junior to them in the cadre of AAO were promoted to the post of AO – Furthermore, on facts, there was no delay in filing the writ petitions and also the prayer of the appellant, promotees to the post of AOs to not to revert them cannot be accepted. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Even as per the Regulation dated 01.11.2006, there was no requirement of passing SAS Part II examination for the direct recruit AAOs. The requirement of passing SAS Part II examination was for the promotion from the post of Superintendent (D/A) to the post of AAO and for the promotion in the promotion quota. However, when the amended notification dated 02.01.2010 came to be issued, it provided passing of SAS Part II examination for the post of AO and the eligibility criteria was minimum two years service as AAO and must have passed SAS Part II examination. As such for the post of AAO and as per the Regulation dated 01.11.2006 as such there was no requirement of passing SAS Part II examination so far as direct recruits to the post of AAO are concerned. Requirement of passing SAS Part II examination was only for promotion to the post of AAO from the post of Superintendent (D/A). For direct recruits as AAO, the only requirement was postgraduate degree in commerce. Therefore, it is not understandable requirement of passing of the SAS Part II examination for promotion to the post of AO. When there was no requirement of passing SAS Part II examination for the lower post, i.e., post of AAO so far as direct recruits is concerned, there cannot be any requirement of passing of the SAS Part II examination for the promotional post of AO. As such after the appointment as AAO either as a promotee or as a direct recruit, all shall be at par. Therefore, the requirement of passing of SAS Part II examination as per the amended notification dated 02.01.2010 for the promotion to the post of AO can be said to be arbitrary and illogical and the same is rightly read down by the High Court. What is not even required for the lower post, i.e., for the post of AAO so far as the direct recruits is concerned, the same cannot be made applicable to the promotional post of AO. The High Court is absolutely justified in holding that such a requirement shall be for the promotion from the post of Superintendent (D/A) to the post of AAO only and consequently shall not be applicable for promotion to the post of AO. [Para 8.1][344-G-H; 345-A-F]
1.2 As regards the submission on behalf of the appellants that they were promoted to the post of AO in the year 2010 onwards and their promotions have been set aside after long time and therefore in a petition filed in the year 2017, i.e., after approximately a period of 6-7 years, the High Court ought not to have set aside the promotions of the appellants to the post of AO is concerned, it is required to be noted that till 2015, a litigation was pending before this Court at the instance of the direct recruits and their status as regular employees as AAOs came to be determined by this Court pursuant to the decision of this Court dated 13.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2015. Only thereafter they were issued the regular appointment orders and their seniority was fixed and only thereafter the cause of action has arisen to claim further promotion to the post of AO. Even while allowing the appeals filed by the direct recruits, this Court specifically directed that they shall be treated as regularly appointed AAOs w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment and this Court specifically directed to provide the direct recruits with consequential benefits including seniority etc. Thus, as such there was no delay at all. [Para 8.2] [345-F-H; 346-A-B]
1.3 The prayer on behalf of the appellants that they may not be reverted is concerned, cannot be accepted. If such a prayer is granted in that case, the effect of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court which has been upheld would be nullified. As a necessary consequence to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, now the entire list for the promotion to the post of AO will have to be re-shuffled and the cases of the direct recruits are required to be considered for promotion to the post of AO from the date on which their junior came to be promoted on the post of AO. Therefore, necessary consequences will have to be followed. If the prayer of the appellants not to revert them and to continue them on the promotional post is accepted, in that case, there may arise many complications including the effect on the further promotional posts from the post of AO to Senior AO and thereafter to the post of Dy. CAO/Dy. CA/Dy. FA, therefore, the said prayer is rejected. [Para 8.3][346-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.