Shiv Nath Prasad vs Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi & Ors

1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 15th may 2003 passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 5634 of 1999, whereby Shiv Nath Prasad, appellant (herein) challenged the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the promotion of petitioner/appellant before us and private respondents who belong to non-scheduled caste. The case of the appellant (herein) was that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department after selection through Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. Petitioner/Appellant (Scheduled Caste) alongwith other Schedule Caste and other private respondents (non-SC) were selected and appointed as Assistant Engineers on the basis of Civil Services Examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. The names of scheduled caste candidates appeared at S.Nos. 23, 24 and 25 below the name of the respondent Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi (herein). After their appointment, they joined the duties on the post of Assistant Engineer on different dates in the year 1972. The names of the petitioner/appellant and other scheduled caste candidates were shown in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission in lower position and their seniority was also drawn on the post of Assistant Engineer in the order mentioned in the select list. In the gradation list, issued for the post of Assistant Engineer as on 1.4.1982, the names of the petitioner/appellant and other scheduled caste candidates duly selected appeared at S. Nos 187, 189 and 190, while the name of the respondent no. 1 (herein) and others appeared between S.Nos 168-186. Therefore, admittedly, the respondents (herein) were senior to the petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer in July, 1980 against the reserved post of the Executive Engineer, whereas, other private respondents (non-scheduled caste candidates) were not considered for promotion on account of non-availability of post in general category. But, they were considered and appointed on the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1985, i.e. much after the promotions of the scheduled caste candidates including that of petitioner/appellant before us. A provisional gradation list was issued and published on 18.6.1991 and objections were invited and that list was finalized on 8.10.1991. In this gradation list, the candidates who were appointed against the scheduled caste vacancies were shown above the other private respondents who were appointed against the general quota. Persons who were promoted against the reserved category were placed low in the merit prepared by the Public Service Commission, but shown as senior, on account of their earlier promotion on the post of Executive Engineer against reserved category, and thereby having march over the persons of the general quota, who were promoted later than these candidates, i.e. scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. This list was challenged before Tribunal and a prayer was made that they be placed above the scheduled caste candidates, because they were not superseded by the scheduled caste candidates but on account of non- availability of post under general quota, they could not be promoted. Therefore, there is no case of supersession and as such, the seniority position of the Assistant Engineers, prepared on the basis of the merit list of the Public Service Commission should be followed and they be made senior to the persons, who were appointed against the scheduled caste quota. It was also contended before the Tribunal that on account of General Administration Department circulars dated 2.5.1975 and 17.5.1975 and as per the provisions of the M.P. Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 1961), they are entitled to be placed higher in the seniority list of Executive Engineer, though they might have been promoted later. This petition was opposed before Tribunal by private respondents (Scheduled Caste candidates), as well as by the State. The claim of the petitioner was denied before Tribunal and according to the return filed by the private respondents, it was claimed that since the private respondents, i.e., scheduled caste candidates were promoted on recommendation of DPC in different years, therefore, by virtue of their date of appointment, they became senior to the person from general quota and as such they are entitled to higher seniority. The objection of limitation was also raised. The objection of limitation was overruled by Tribunal and Tribunal allowed the application of those applicants and directed to consider all the petitioners before Tribunal and other persons similarly selected against general quota, for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the date prior to the date on which private respondent no. 2 (petitioner/appellant) was promoted by calling a Review Departmental Promotion Committee and consequently, all benefits to be given to them, if they were found suitable including for the post of the Chief Engineer and if it would become necessary to revert the private respondent no. 2 (petitioner/appellant) from the post of Chief Engineer for want of the post, such order shall be made within two months, however, no arrears shall be paid. Aggrieved against this order of Tribunal, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the order of the Tribunal.

9. But in the present case, the issue triggered in the year 1985 and these rules at that time were not in force. Neither the constitutional amendments had come into force nor were the rules. Neither the 77th constitutional amendment nor the 85th constitutional amendment had been made retrospective from 1985. It has been made retrospective with effect from 17.6.1995 only. The controversy dates back to 1985 when the general quota candidates were promoted in 1985 on the post of Executive Engineer and the appellant respondent was promoted in 1980. At that time, the circular of the Government of 1975 was in force and as per that circular of the Government, incumbent was not entitled to the seniority on account of his accelerated promotion against the reserved quota, as per the circular of 1975 as quoted above, he was only entitled to the accelerated promotion but not the seniority; therefore, in this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of High Court is correct and no interference is warranted in the present case. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.