C. CHAKKARAVARTY AND ORS. versus TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS AND ORS.
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 950, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
[2015) 12 S.C.R. 950 
C. CHAKKARAVARTY AND ORS. 
v. 
TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IASAND ORS. 
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 339 of 2013 etc.) 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 16, 2015 
[T.S.THAKUR AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court- Contempt petition under Art. 129 of 
Constitution oflndia rlw. s. 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 19 71 
- Alleging violation of order passed by Supreme Court -
0 
Whereby the Court had held that the practice of the State 
Government of counting the service of Section Officer/Junior 
Engineers (who had qualified as graduates while in service) 
from the date they passed the degree for the purpose of 
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer ulr.11 (1) of 
E Recruitment Rules of 1965, was violative of r. 5 of the Rules 
- The Court also held that counting of entire service of such 
Junior Engineer for the purpose of seniority and promotion 
to the post of Assistant Engineer was to be made only on the 
basis of comparative merit of eligible candidates - Direction 
F given to the State to consider the cases of Section Officers/ 
Junior Engineers, who had completed 3 years service in the 
grade of SO/JE for promotion to the post of AE, on the basis 
of inter se merit- The review DPC issued new list of eligible 
candidates on the basis of the date of their acquiring eligibility 
G - Contempt petition challenging the procedure adopted by 
DoPT - Held: The procedure adopted by DPC is erroneous 
- However, the error occurred due
to erroneous perception 
that the method was sanctioned by law and order of this Court 
H - Thus, there is no deliberate or contumacious breach of 
950
C. CHAKKARAVARTYv. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS 
951 
direction of this Court, to warrant pu_nitive action- Contempt A 
of Courts Act, 1971 - s.12 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Art. 129- Service Law- Promotion. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no gainsaying that this Court has 
unequivocally declared that promotion to the post of 
Assistant Engineers in the service shall be on the basis 
B 
of merit and merit alone and that seniority of the 
candidates cannot be taken as an input for determining c 
such merit. This Court has also very clearly rejected the 
procedure followed by the Government whereby the date 
on which the candidate had acquired his degree 
qualification was taken as a determining factor. That 
being so, and given the large number of candidates D 
eligible for consideration, the Government was entitled 
to adopt the method of restricting the zone of 
consideration based on the number of vacancies.[Para 
9) [959-E-G] 
.E 
2. Inasmuch as the Government relied upon the 
DoPT guidelines for achieving that objective, it 
committed no fault. As between the date of acquiring 
eligibility and the date of entering service as a Section 
Officer/Junior Engineer, the latter was a more intelligible, 
F 
fair and reasonable yardstick to be applied for drawing-
up the list of eligible candidates by the review DPC. 
Inasmuch as the review DPC relied upon the date of 
acquiring eligibility as the basis for preparation of the 
G 
list of eligible
candidates, it committed a mistake which 
needs to be corrected. [Para 9) [959-G-H; 960-C-D] 
3. Thus, there is no deliberate or contumacious · 
breach of the directions of this Court to warrant punitive 
action against those responsible for taking the said H
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A decision. The error has occurred more because of an 
erroneous perception on the part of the Government and 
the review DPC that the method adopted by them was 
sanctioned by law and the orders of this Court. 
Therefore, there is no need .to pass any orders of 
13 
punishment against the respondent on that score, 
although they are expected to be more careful and 
circumspect in fl;lture. [Para 1 O] [960-E-F] 
c 
D 
E 
N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. v. Union of India & 
Ors. 2010 (4) SCR 1014: {'2010) s sec 692-
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2010 (4) SCR 1014 
referred to. 
Para 1 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition 
(Civil) No. 339 of 2013. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2003 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition 
F No. 11236 of 2000. 
G 
WITH 
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal 
No. 8468 of 2003. 
K. V. Vishwanathan, P. P. Rao, V. Giri, A. K. Ganguli, ~r. 
Advs., M. A. Chinnasamy, Sathyawan Rathee, V. Senthil 
Kumar, V. S. Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, V. G. Pragasam, 
Prabu Ramasubramanian, T. V. Ratnam, Sankara Kaushik, 
H S. Thananjayan, M.A. Krishna Moorthy,Advs., for the appearing 
parties.
C. CHAKKARAVARTY v. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS 
953 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. In this petition under Article 129 of 
the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of Contempt of 
Courts Act, 1971 the petitioners allege deliberate violation by 
the respondents of the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 
B 
2010 passed by this Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. v. 
Union of India & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 692. The question that 
feUfor consideration therein was whether the practice adopted 
by the Government of Pondicherry of counting the service of 
Section Officers/Junior Engineers who have qualified as 
C 
graduates while in service only from the date they passed the 
degree or equivalent examination for purposes of promotion 
to the post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 11(1) of the 
Government of Pondicherry Assistant Engineers (including 
D 
Deputy Director of Public Works Department) Group 'B' 
(Tecflnical) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1965 (for short 
'Recruitment Rules') was legally sound. Rule 5 of the 
Recruitment Rules provide for the method of appointment as 
Assistant Engineer to be by 'selection' and reads as: 
E . 
"5. Whether Selection post or: 
Selection" 
Non-Selection Post: 
2. Reference may also be made to Rule 11 of the said 
F 
rules which is as under: 
"11. 
In case of recruitment 
by 
promotion/deputation/tr 
ansfer 
grades 
from 
which 
promotion/deputation/tr 
ansfer to be made 
Promotion 
1. 
Section 
Officer G
posressing a recognised 
degree in Civil Engineering 
or equivalent with 3 years 
service in the grade failing 
which 
Section 
Officers 
ho~ding 
H
954 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
diploma 
in 
Civil 
Engineering with 6 years 
service in 
the grade -
50%. 
2. 
Section 
Officers 
possessing a recognised 
diploma 
in 
Civil 
Engineering with 6 years · 
service in the grade - 50% 
3. This Court on a consideration of the rival submissions 
urged before it and the decisions of this Court relied upon by 
the parties in support of their respective submissions held that 
the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of 
0 
placing the Junior Engineers qualified as graduates in the order 
of seniority according to the date on which they passed the 
degree examination was contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment 
Rules. Having said that this Court held that the directions 
issued by the High Court directing that the entire service of a 
E person should be counted for purposes of seniority and 
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was also contrary 
to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules (supra). 
The following passage appearing in the judgment of this Court 
is, in this regard, apposite: 
F 
G 
H 
"41. The practice adopted by the Government of 
Pondicherry in consultation with UPSC of counting the 
services of Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who 
qualified as graduates while in service from the date 
they passed the degree or equivalent examination and 
placing them in order of seniority accordingly for the 
purpose of consideration for promotion to the post of 
Assistant
Engineer under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the 
Recruitment Rules is contrary to Rule 5 of the 
Recruitment Rules. Similarly, the direction of the High
C. CHAKKARAVARTYv. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS 
955 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
Court in the impugned judgment and order to count the A 
entire service of a person concerned even before 
acquiring degree in Civil Engineering for the purpose 
of seniority and promotion to the post of Assistant 
Engineer under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Recruitment 
B 
Rules is contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules." 
4. This Court then proceeded to declare that recruitment 
to the post of Assistant Engineers was by way of selection 
meaning thereby that seniority in the cadre of Section Offic-
ers/Junior Engineers was not of much significance. Selection c 
for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers was, declared 
this Court, to be made only on the basis of comparative merit 
of eligible candidates in which persons found most meritori-
ous were to be selected for appointment. Such a method of D 
selection would, according to this Court, not only be consis-
/ 
tent with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules but also satisfy the 
demands of equality of opportunity contained in Article 16 of 
the Constitution. This Court observed: 
"48. As we have seen, Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules 
E 
in the present case states that the post of Assistant. 
Engineer is a selection post and the Recruitment Rules 
nowhere provide that seniority-cum-merit would be the 
criteria for promotion. In the absence of any indication 
F 
in the Recruitment Rules that seniority in the grade of 
Section Officers/Junior Engineers
will be counted for 
the purpose of promotions to the post of Assistant 
Erigineer, consideration of all Section Officers/Junior 
Engineers under Clause 1. of Rule 11 of the 
G 
Recruitment Rules who are eligible for such 
consideration has to be done on the basis of 
assessment of the comparative merit of the eligible 
candidates and the most suitable or meritorious 
candidate has to be selected for the post of Assistant H
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12S.C.R. 
A 
Engineer. Such a method of selection will be consistent 
with Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules and Article 16 of 
the Constitution which guarantees to all citizens equality 
of opportunity in matters of public employment." 
B 
5. Having said so, this Court set aside the impugned 
judgment of the High Court and directed the Government of 
Pondicherry to consider the cases of Section Officer/Junior 
Engineer who have completed 3 years service in the grade of 
Section Officers/Junior Engineers for promotion to the 
C vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers, Public Works 
Department, Government of Pondicherry on the basis of their 
inter se merit. The operative portion of the order passed by 
this Court runs as under: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"50. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the 
impugned judgment of the High Court and direct the 
Government of Pondicherry to consider the cases of 
all Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who have 
completed three years' service in the grade of Section 
Officers or Junior Engineers, for promotion to the 
vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer, Public 
Works Department, Government of Pondicherry, in 
accordance with their merit. We make it clear that the 
promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer already 
made pursuant to the judgment and order of the High 
Court will not be disturbed until the exercise is carried 
out for promotion in accordance with merit as directed 
in this
judgment and on completion of such exercise, 
formal orders of promotion to the vacancies in the posts 
of Assistant Engineer which arose during the pendency 
of the cases before this Court are passed in case of 
those who are selected for promotion and after such 
exercise only those who are not selected for promotion 
may be reverted to the post of Section Officer or Junior
C. CHAKKARAVARTYv. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS 
957 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
Engineer" 
A 
6. Considering the fact that the number of candidates 
eligible for consideration will be large, this Court reserved 
liberty to the Government to issue executive instructions as to 
the method to be followed for consideration of such eligible 
B 
candidates for promotion. This Court said: 
"Where, therefore, there are a large number of eligible 
caf1didates available for consideration for promotion to 
a selection post, the Government can issue executive c 
instructions consistent with the principle of merit on the 
method to be followed for considering such eligible 
candidates for promotion to the selection post." 
7. Pursuant to the liberty so reserved, the review DPC o 
appears to have. taken note of certain pre-existing Government 
of India Order dated 61h January, 2006 issued by the 
Department of Personnel and Training, for purposes of 
selecting suitable officers for promotion on the basis of 'Merit'. 
The said order set out guidelines to be followed for restricting 
E 
the field of selection to a manageable number of candidates 
in cases where the number of such candidates was large. The 
case of the respondent-State of Pondicherry is that the review 
DPC evolved a procedure keeping in mind the observations 
made by this Court as also the DoPT guidelines referred to 
F 
above for identifying the field of selection and applying the 
criteria for determination of inter se merit of the
candidates. 
The procedure so evolved comprised six steps which the 
respondent-state has identified in the counter affidavit filed by 
0 
it in the following words. 
· 
"A. Identify the available vacancies of Asst. Engineers 
for the relevant year 
B. Make a list of eligible candidates based on the date 
H
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R: 
A 
of attaining eligibility in terms of the Rule 11 of the 
Recruitment Rules. 
C. In view of the large number of candidates available 
for selection to less number of available posts, identify 
B 
the Field of Selection using the DoPT prescribed 
formula of 2 x Available Vacancies + 4. For example 
for 10 vacancies, the field of selection would be 24. 
c 
D 
E 
D. Fix the benchmark. In the present case it is 'good'. 
E. In the field of Selection, the grading is marked. 
F. Prepare the Select List of the most meritorious 
candidates in terms of this Hon'ble Court's criterion in 
paras 39 to 42 of Judgment in CA No. 846812003 and 
batch, and listing of the successful candjdates in 
accordance with their merit with reference to the entries 
given in Annual Confidential Reports, which inter a/ia 
included all or most of the ingredients constituting merit 
as enunciated by this Hon'ble Court in Para 42 of the 
judgment, and not in accordance with senioritv. for that 
year of selection." 
8. A new list of promotees was, on the above basis, pre-
F pared by the review DPC, which according to the respondents 
was based on the inter se merit of the candidates. The peti-
tioners find fault with the above procedure but only to the ex-
tent para 'B' reproduced above determines the zone of con-
sideration, based on the date the candidates acquired their 
G eligibility in terms of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules. The 
grievance of the
petitioner is that this action of the respondent 
has totally distorted the picture and denied to persons who 
were otherwise eligible and senior in terms of their length of 
service, an opportunity to compete for promotion. It is argued 
H on their behalf that the process of preparing a list of eligible
C. CHAKKARAVARTYv. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS 
959 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
candidates on the basis of the date of obtaining eligibility is 
A 
totally wrong, unfair and discriminatory. The date on which a 
candidate acquires his eligibility would depend upon the date 
on which he completes three years after obtaining the degree 
qualification. The obtaining of degree qualification would, in 
turn, depend upon several imponderables beyond the control 8 
of the candidates including whether the candidates were work-
ing on a hard or soft posting over which the candidates have 
no control. It was urged that while length of service of Sec-
tions Officers/Junior Engineers may not count for purposes of c 
determining their inter se merit, the same was the only sound 
basis for identifying the zone of consideration. Inasmuch as 
the Government has ignored the length of service of the candi-
dates and departed from the principle of seniority of candi-
dates who served in the same cadre while drawing-up of the D 
list of eligible candidates, it has committed a mistake that 
needs 1:D be corrected. 
9. There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in that sub-
mission of the petitioners. There is no gainsaying that this 
E 
Court has unequivocally declared that promotion to the post of 
Assistant Engineers in the service shall be on the basis of 
merit and merit alone and that seniority of the candidates can-
not be taken as an input for determining such merit. This Court 
has also very
clearly rejected the procedure followed by the F 
Government whereby the date on which the candidate had 
acquired his degree qualification was taken as a determining 
factor. That being so, and given the large number of candi-
dates eligible for consideration the Government was entitled 
to adopt the method of restricting the zone of considerati.on 
G 
based on the number of vacancies. Inasmuch as the Govern-
ment relied upon the DoPT guidelines for achieving that ob-
jective it committed no fault. The question, however, is whether 
the Government could draw-up a list of eligible candidates not 
by reference to the length of service in the cadre but by refer-
H
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A ence to the dat.e on which the candidates acquired the eligibil-
ity which, as not~ced earlier, was itself dependent upon the 
date on which the candidate acquired the degree qualifica-
tion. Since, however, the acquisition of a degree qualification 
itself was not based on any consistently uniform criterion, test 
8 
or procedure, the date on which such a qualification was ac-
quired and resultantly the date on which the candidate attained 
their eligibility was also bound to be anything but uniform and 
non-discriminatory. As between the date of acquiring eligibil-
c 
ity and the date of entering service as a Section Officer/Jun-
ior Engineer the latter was, in our opinion, a more intelligible, 
fair and reasonable yardstick to be applied for drawing-up the 
list of eligible candidates by the review DPC. Inasmuch as 
the review DPC relied upon the date of acquiring eligibility as 
o the basis for preparation of the list of eligible candidates, it 
committed a mistake which needs to be corrected. 
10. Having said so, there is, in our opinion, no deliberate 
or contumacious breach of the directions of this Court to war-
E rant punitive action against those responsible for taking the 
said decision. The error it appears has occurred more be-
cause of an erroneous perception on the part of the govern-
ment and the review DPC that the method adopted by them 
was sanctioned by law and the orders of this Court. We do 
F not,
therefore, consider it necessary to pass any orders of 
punishment against the respondent on that score although we 
would expect them to be more careful and circumspect in fu-
ture. With the above observation we dispose of this contempt 
petition yvith a direction to the respondent-State to redo the 
G exercise in terms of the directions of this Court in N. Suresh 
Nathan (supra) keeping in view the observations made here-
inabove. No costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Petition disposed of.