THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33974 of 1997 Dated 13-02-2008 Between: K.P.Raghunath. ..... PETITIONER AND N.W.D.A. (Govt. of India Society under Ministry of Water Resources) rep. By its Director General, Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017 & others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33974 of 1997 O R D E R: Heard Sri P.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. However, there is no representation on behalf of Sri B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the first respondent, Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the second respondent and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, either yesterday when the matter was listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ or today when the matter is listed under the caption ‘for Judgment’. Petitioners, two in number, seek promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. They also question the order dated 27-08-1997 whereby the fourth respondent was promoted as an Assistant Engineer. The first respondent, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is functioning under the control of the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India and its governing body is headed by its President, who is the Minister of State for Water Resources. The society is said to be fully funded by the Government of India and to have been established to promote scientific development for optimum utilization of water resources in the country. It is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. While the first petitioner and the fourth respondent are graduates in Engineering, the second petitioner holds a diploma in Civil Engineering. In the seniority list of the Junior Engineers as on 01-01-1994, while the first petitioner was shown at sl.No.63 and the second petitioner at sl.No.32, the fourth respondent was shown at sl.No.39. For the year 1997-98, six vacancies arose in the cadre of Assistant Engineers to which candidates in the feeder category of Design Assistants and Junior Engineers were eligible for promotion. The recruitment rules, applicable to the first respondent-society, earmarked 50% of the available posts to be filled by promotion by selection from amongst Design Assistants and Junior Engineers possessing a degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent qualification from a recognized University or Institution and having rendered not less than 3 years service in the respective grade in the capacity of graduate Engineers and the remaining 50% of the posts to be filled by promotion by selection from amongst Junior Engineers possessing diploma in Civil Engineering or equivalent and having not less than 7 years service in the grade. While the date on which the departmental promotion committee met is not clear from the pleadings on record, Sri P.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that it did meet some time in the year 1997 and it was pursuant to its recommendations that the fourth respondent was promoted as an Assistant Engineer, vide proceedings dated 27-08-1997. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners, by Sri P.Rajashekar, in short, is that if promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers was from the category of diploma holders, then the second petitioner being senior to the fourth respondent ought to have been considered for promotion prior to him, and if, on the other hand, promotion to the said posts of Assistant Engineers was from the category of graduate Engineers, then the candidates considered for selection ought to have rendered not less than three years service as Junior Engineers in the capacity of graduate Engineers. The contention, in short, is that the candidate must have satisfied the eligibility criteria of having rendered three years service as a graduate Engineer. The fourth respondent completed his graduation in April, 1994 and as such completed three years of service as a graduate Engineer only in April, 1997. Petitioners place reliance on the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, which prescribe the cut-off date, for determining the eligibility criteria, as the first of October of the year previous to the year in which selections were made. Sri P.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would vehemently contend that, since selections to the posts of Assistant Engineers were admittedly held in the year 1997-98, the cut-off date for determining the eligibility can only be 01-10-1996, in which event, the fourth respondent, not having rendered three years service as a graduate Engineer by that date would not be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Curiously the official respondents, in their counter affidavit, do not deny applicability of the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India. Their contention, however, is that the cut-off date, even according to the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, is not 01-10- 1996 but 01-10-1997. The fourth respondent, in his counter affidavit, would reiterate this submission and contend that since he possessed the prescribed qualification of having rendered three years service as a graduate Engineer prior to 01-10-1997, he, being senior to the first petitioner, was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. This contention, urged on behalf of the fourth respondent, must necessarily be rejected since the order of promotion itself is dated 27-08-1997. It defies reason that the cut-off date, to determine eligibility, would be a date subsequent to the date on which the candidates were considered or for that matter promoted to the higher post and since the fourth respondent was promoted by order dated 27-08-1997, the cut-off date to determine his eligibility for promotion cannot be a date subsequent thereto. Since the respondents admit that the circulars of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, apply and since the said circulars prescribe the cut-off date as the first of October of the year previous in which selections were held, I find considerable force in the contention of Sri P.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that 01-10-1996 can alone be the cut-off date for determining the eligibility and not 01-10-1997. Since the fourth respondent did not satisfy the eligibility criteria of having rendered three years service as a graduate Engineer prior to the cut-off date of 01-10-1996, he could not have been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer or have been promoted to the said post vide proceedings dated 27-08-1997. The impugned order promoting the fourth respondent as an Assistant Engineer is, therefore , set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ 13-02-2008 usd