Short facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are crystallized as under: Between 1977 and 1986, appellants came to be appointed to the posts of Overseers/Surveyor Draughtsman (Field and Topo) in accordance with the provisions of column No 7 of GREF Rules, 1982.
GS159693P UNNIKRISHNAN CV 23-07-1983 Surveyor Draughtsman (Fd & Topo) 31-12-1993 Supdt BR-II 2.
GS156203-S, JAGBIR SINGH 15.12.81 S/D Man (Fd/Topo) 14-09-1992 Supdt BR-II Aforesaid data would indicate that first promotional post was superintendent BR Grade-II and most of the appellants as indicated hereinabove are serving in the said post after having been promoted between 1993 to 2008.
The High Court by Impugned Order rejected the prayer of the appellants on the ground that: (i) Appellants’ claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I is premised on two grounds, i.e., firstly the so-called equivalence declared by the AICTE in November, 2000, and secondly, the order of the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No 1364 of 1998, dated 03.08.2005.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/analysis-of-circumstantial-evidence-in-murder-case-2/
Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that juniors of appellants having Civil Engineering/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering diploma from CME, Pune have been promoted to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-II immediately after passing of diploma from CME Pune and yet Appellants have not been promoted to the higher rank till date. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Union of India has supported the stand taken before the High Court and by reiterating the same before this Court has contended that as per Rule 11 of the GREF Rules, 1982, appellants are not possessing requisite qualification and they are not eligible to be promoted. The qualification prescribed under Column No 11 of the Schedule for promotion to the post of Superintendent Building and Roads Grade-I reads as under: SCHEDULE For promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, the prescribed or requisite qualification is from the candidates/employees working as Superintendent, BR Grade-II with recognized Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the Grade in General Reserve Engineering Force.
In this background, the qualification as prescribed in column
No 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would indicate that candidate who is seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has to possess “Diploma in Civil Engineering” with 5 years regular service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering Force.
Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly conceded before this Court that an erroneous proposition was put forth before the High Court, namely, it was contended that Diploma is equivalent to a Degree and as such negating said contention, the High Court though justified its conclusion had erred in ignoring the consistent stand that had been taken by the Appellants, namely, Diploma in DED possessed by them is that of 2 years course and though column 11 prescribes Diploma in Civil Engineering for being promoted as Superintendent BR-Grade-I is to be treated as equivalent and this aspect was required to be considered by the High Court is an argument which looks attractive at first blush.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/consolidation-of-firs-in-multi-state-fraud-case/
In so far as the contention regarding qualification for promotion, the rule itself is explicit and clear, namely, it prescribes for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I only, those candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade in General Reserve Engineering Force would be eligible. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc.
Case Title: UNNIKRISHNAN CV Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 304)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007188-007188 / 2013
