Supreme Court upholds date of joining for seniority of Sub-Divisional Engineers: Vinod Verma vs. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 2, 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

When determining seniority in promotions, should the date of joining or a notional date of promotion be considered? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning Sub-Divisional Engineers (SDEs) in the Telecommunications Department. This case revolved around a dispute over the correct method for fixing seniority between those promoted based on seniority-cum-fitness and those promoted through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the implementation of the Telecommunications Engineering Service (Group “B” Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996, which govern the promotion of Junior Telecom Officers to Sub-Divisional Engineers (SDE). The rules stipulate that 75% of promotions are based on seniority-cum-fitness, while 25% are based on a departmental competitive examination (LDCE).

In 2000, the Telecommunication Department began filling “Post 1996-97” vacancies. The appellant, Vinod Verma, was promoted as an SDE under the seniority-cum-fitness quota in 2001. The department also conducted an LDCE in 2002 for the 25% quota. The results of the LDCE were declared in 2003, and promotions were issued in 2004. A seniority list was issued in 2005, which became the subject of challenges in various benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, in a case (Dewan Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India) held that the seniority of SDEs should be based on their date of joining, not on a notional date of promotion. This decision was challenged by the appellant, who was not a party to the original case.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Dewan Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India, ruled that seniority should be determined based on the date of joining, not the notional date of promotion. This decision was made in response to a challenge by those promoted under the seniority-cum-fitness quota, who were placed below those promoted via LDCE.

The appellant, who was not a party to the original case, filed a review petition before the CAT, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the CAT’s order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing a Supreme Court decision in BSNL and others vs. S. Sadasivan and others. The appellant then filed a review application before the High Court, which was also rejected.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Telecommunications Engineering Service (Group “B” Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules specify that the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE) is a 100% promotional post. The rules provide for two methods of promotion:

• ✓ 75% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.
• ✓ 25% on the basis of a departmental competitive examination (LDCE).

The Rules, 1996, however, do not specify the method for determining seniority.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The appellant argued that the Telecommunications Engineering Service (Group “B” Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996, are silent on seniority rules.
• ✓ Seniority should be determined as per Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 22.12.1959 and subsequent OMs.
• ✓ The appellant contended that a ROTA (rotation) rule should be applied between those promoted under seniority-cum-fitness and those promoted under LDCE.
• ✓ The LDCE candidates eligible for earlier years should be placed senior to those eligible for later years.
• ✓ The appellant relied on the judgment in Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340, arguing that when a quota is prescribed under statutory rules, the ROTA rule automatically applies to seniority.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• ✓ The respondents argued that the seniority list was drawn by the department in the ratio of 3:1 as per OM dated 03.07.1986.
• ✓ The respondents submitted that the statutory Rules, 1996, do not provide for determining seniority, and it was determined based on the instructions issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training dated 03.07.1986.
• ✓ The respondents contended that the issue is covered by judgments of the Supreme Court dated 12.08.2014 in BSNL & Ors. vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors. and Rajesh Banta & Ors. vs. Dewan Chand & Ors., which held that ROTA is not applicable.
• ✓ The respondents argued that the 1996 Rules do not provide for ROTA, unlike the 1981 Rules.

Intervener’s Arguments:

• ✓ The intervener submitted that the benefit of a larger bench judgment cannot be taken away.
• ✓ The intervener argued that the present case is not a case of direct recruitment and different grades are not available in the present promotion exercise.
• ✓ The intervener contended that OM dated 03.07.1986 is for direct recruitment.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. What should be the basis for determining the seniority of Sub-Divisional Engineers (SDEs) promoted through seniority-cum-fitness versus those promoted through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE)?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340*: The Court did not find this case applicable to the facts of the present case.
• ✓ BSNL & Ors. vs. S. Sadasivan & Ors.*: The Court noted that this case upheld the principle that seniority should be based on the date of joining, affirming the decision of the CAT, Bombay Bench.
• ✓ BSNL & Ors. vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors.*: The Court relied on this three-judge bench judgment, which held that ROTA rule is not applicable for determining seniority of Sub-Divisional Engineers.
• ✓ Rajesh Banta & Ors. vs. Dewan Chand & Ors.*: The Court relied on this three-judge bench judgment, which dismissed the writ petition against the same order of the CAT, Chandigarh, that was challenged by the appellant.
• ✓ Telecommunications Engineering Service (Group “B” Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996: The Court noted that the rules were silent on the method of determining seniority.
• ✓ OMs dated 22.12.1959, 24.06.1978, 07.02.1986, 03.07.1986 and 07.02.1990: The Court did not accept the appellant’s argument that these OMs should be used to determine seniority, given the previous three-judge bench judgments.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistency and finality of its previous judgments, particularly the three-judge bench decisions in BSNL & Ors. vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors. and Rajesh Banta & Ors. vs. Dewan Chand & Ors. The Court emphasized that the issue of seniority determination for Sub-Divisional Engineers had already been settled by these judgments, which held that the ROTA rule is not applicable and that seniority should be based on the date of joining.

The Court was also influenced by the fact that the 1996 Rules are silent on the method of determining seniority. The Court did not find it necessary to delve into the various OMs cited by the appellant, as the issue was already covered by previous judgments. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of stare decisis, which emphasizes the importance of adhering to precedent.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court held that the seniority of Sub-Divisional Engineers (SDEs) should be determined based on their date of joining, not on any notional date of promotion.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the principle of stare decisis, which emphasizes the importance of adhering to precedent. The Court relied heavily on the three-judge bench judgments in BSNL & Ors. vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors. and Rajesh Banta & Ors. vs. Dewan Chand & Ors., both decided on 12.08.2014. These judgments had already settled the issue by holding that the ROTA rule is not applicable for determining the seniority of SDEs and that seniority should be based on the date of joining.

The Court noted that the Telecommunications Engineering Service (Group “B” Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996, are silent on the method for determining seniority. While the appellant argued that various Office Memorandums (OMs) and the judgment in Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar should be considered, the Court held that these arguments were not relevant given the previous three-judge bench judgments.

The Court quoted from the High Court’s order in BSNL & Ors. vs. S. Sadasivan & Ors., stating, “The question is: whether the Tribunal was right in answering the controversy on the principal that the correct date for reckoning seniority of the respondent ought to be taken as 7th December, 2001 which is his date of joining. In our opinion, there is no infirmity in the said view taken by the Tribunal.”

The Court also noted that in BSNL & Ors. vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors., it was held that, “The crucial date for determining the eligibility is 1st July of the year to which the vacancy pertains. 1996 Recruitment Rules do not provide for ROTA nor does it provide for holding Departmental Competitive Examination for the vacancies every year…”

The Court further observed that, “When three-Judge Bench of this Court following the pronouncement in BSNL & Ors. vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors., judgment of the same day, has dismissed the writ petition against the same very judgment of the CAT of Chandigarh Bench in Dewan Chand vs. Union of India, the fate of this appeal is sealed by the said judgment by dismissing the writ petition against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in TA No.84-HR-2009.”

The Court did not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the three-judge bench judgments.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Seniority of Sub-Divisional Engineers (SDEs) will be determined based on their date of joining, not on a notional date of promotion.
• ✓ The ROTA rule is not applicable for determining seniority between those promoted through seniority-cum-fitness and those promoted through LDCE.
• ✓ The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle of stare decisis, emphasizing the importance of following precedent.
• ✓ The judgment provides clarity on the method of seniority determination in the absence of specific rules in the Telecommunications Engineering Service (Group “B” Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court simply dismissed the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the seniority of Sub-Divisional Engineers (SDEs) should be determined based on their date of joining, and the ROTA rule is not applicable in the absence of specific provisions in the rules. This judgment reinforces the position of law established by the three-judge bench judgments in BSNL & Ors. vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors. and Rajesh Banta & Ors. vs. Dewan Chand & Ors., thereby clarifying the method of seniority determination in such cases. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reiteration and affirmation of the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Vinod Verma, upholding the principle that the seniority of Sub-Divisional Engineers should be determined based on their date of joining. The Court reaffirmed its previous judgments, particularly the three-judge bench decisions, and clarified that the ROTA rule does not apply in this context. This decision provides clarity and finality to the issue of seniority determination for SDEs in the Telecommunications Department.