Supreme Court quashes promotion of Executive Engineer: Ajit Kr. Bhuyan vs. Debajit Das (23 October 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 October 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 970

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a promotion obtained through irregular means be protected under the principle of delay and laches? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the promotion of an engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) of Assam. This judgment examines whether a promotion to an ex-cadre post and subsequent encadrement, obtained through alleged irregularities, can be challenged despite a delay in filing the petition. The Court also considered whether the government was right in conducting an inquiry into the matter while writ petitions were pending.

Case Background

Debajit Das (Respondent No. 1) was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) on September 30, 1996. After completing six years of service, he was promoted to Assistant Executive Engineer in December 2002. Subsequently, an ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer was created, and he was promoted to this post on April 2, 2005. Respondent No. 1 was granted a regular promotion by encadring him, based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee on July 27, 2005.

On October 14, 2014, an inter-se seniority list of Executive Engineers was published. Within three days, a Selection Committee meeting was convened for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The appellants contended that there were only ten vacancies for the post of Superintending Engineers (six for the year 2011 and four for the year 2014), while the Selection Board proceeded on the basis that there were thirteen vacancies. The appellants argued that the increased number of vacancies was shown only to accommodate Respondent No. 1, who was at Serial No. 52 in the seniority list. The Selection Committee recommended Respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on October 28, 2014.

Respondent No. 11 filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging the promotion of Respondent No. 1. The Assam PWD Engineers Service Association submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of Assam, who directed an inquiry. The inquiry report highlighted irregularities in promoting Respondent No. 1. Consequently, the PWD issued a letter on December 24, 2014, stating that a Review Selection Board meeting would be held on January 2, 2015, regarding promotions to the rank of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. During the pendency of the writ petition, an order of demotion was passed against Respondent No. 1, demoting him to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that Respondent No. 1’s encadrement to the post of Executive Engineer was illegal. The Single Judge also held that the Selection Committee erred in holding the number of vacancies as thirteen instead of ten. Additionally, the Single Judge found Respondent No. 1 guilty of committing fraudulent acts in getting his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The Single Judge negated the contention of Respondent No. 1 that the writ petitions filed by the appellants suffered from delay and laches.

Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge, thereby permitting Respondent No. 1 to hold the post of Superintending Engineer. The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the promotion of Respondent No. 1 was illegal, but set aside the order of demotion on the ground of delay and laches.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the service rules that govern the promotion of engineers in the Public Works Department (PWD). Specifically, the rules stipulate that to be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, an Assistant Executive Engineer must have a minimum of five years of service.

Arguments

The appellants argued that Respondent No. 1’s promotion to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer and his subsequent encadrement were illegal. They contended that Respondent No. 1 was promoted within three years of service as Assistant Executive Engineer, while the rules required a minimum of five years. They also argued that the number of vacancies was inflated to accommodate Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 1 contended that his promotion was valid and that the writ petitions filed by the appellants suffered from delay and laches, as they were filed nine years after his initial promotion. He argued that the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in not upsetting his position.

The State of Assam supported the appellants, arguing that the promotion of Respondent No. 1 was illegal and that the Single Judge of the High Court had rightly interfered with the orders of promotion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the promotion of Respondent No. 1 to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer, and encadrement thereof subsequently, is illegal?
2. Whether the delay and laches will come in the way of appellant No. 3 in challenging the order of promotion of Respondent No. 1?
3. Whether the Government was right in conducting an inquiry when the writ petitions were pending before the Court and whether subsequent demotion of Respondent No. 1 to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer is illegal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, it considered the relevant service rules of the Public Works Department (PWD) which stipulated that a person must have a minimum of five years of service as Assistant Executive Engineer to be eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The Court viewed the PWD Service Rules as binding and held that the promotion of Respondent No. 1 was in violation of these rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that Respondent No. 1’s promotion was a result of manipulation and fraud. The Court emphasized that the creation of an ex-cadre post, the inflation of vacancies, and the violation of service rules were all deliberate acts to favor Respondent No. 1. The Court also noted that the delay in filing the writ petitions was justified given the circumstances.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Promotions obtained through irregular means can be challenged despite delays, especially if there is evidence of fraud or manipulation.
• ✓ Government employees must adhere to service rules regarding eligibility for promotion.
• ✓ Inflating vacancies to accommodate specific individuals is illegal and can be challenged in court.
• ✓ The principle of delay and laches cannot be invoked to protect illegal actions, especially when there is evidence of fraud and manipulation.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that promotions obtained through fraud and manipulation cannot be protected under the principle of delay and laches. The Court emphasized that when there is clear evidence of illegality, the Court must interfere to uphold the rule of law, even if there has been a delay in challenging the action. This judgment reinforces the principle that service rules must be strictly adhered to and that undue favor should not be given to any employee.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajit Kr. Bhuyan vs. Debajit Das underscores the importance of adhering to service rules and maintaining transparency in government promotions. The Court held that promotions obtained through fraud and manipulation cannot be protected under the principle of delay and laches. This judgment serves as a reminder that the judiciary will intervene to uphold the rule of law, even if there has been a delay in challenging an illegal action.