SC overturns dismissal of promotion challenge, finds fraud vitiates illegal encadrement despite delay

The SC set aside a Division Bench judgment that had dismissed appellants' challenge to respondent's promotion due to delay and laches. The court found the promotion involved fraud on three counts: creating an ex-cadre Executive Engineer post specifically for the respondent despite his junior status, showing thirteen vacancies when only ten existed to accommodate his encadrement, and promoting him without meeting the minimum five-year service requirement. The HC Single Judge's finding that the encadrement was illegal was upheld. The SC ruled that fraud vitiates every action and cannot be dismissed on grounds of belated challenge, particularly with reasonable explanation for delay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the promotion and encadrement of Respondent No. 1 to the post of Executive Engineer.
2. Whether delay and laches prevent Appellant No. 3 from challenging the promotion.
3. Legitimacy of the Government's inquiry and subsequent demotion of Respondent No. 1 during pending writ petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Promotion and Encadrement of Respondent No. 1:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the promotion and encadrement of Respondent No. 1, who was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department on September 30, 1996. He was promoted to Assistant Executive Engineer in December 2002 and subsequently to an ex-cadre Executive Engineer on April 02, 2005. The Selection Committee recommended his regular promotion on July 27, 2005. However, the Court found that:
- The encadrement was illegal as Respondent No. 1 had not completed the required five years of service as Assistant Executive Engineer, having only served three years.
- The Selection Committee erred in calculating thirteen vacancies instead of ten, which facilitated the undue promotion of Respondent No. 1.
- The learned Single Judge's findings of fraudulent acts by Respondent No. 1 in securing his promotion were upheld.

2. Delay and Laches:
The Division Bench of the High Court initially set aside the learned Single Judge's decision, citing delays and laches in the Appellants' challenge. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting:
- The undue favouritism and manipulation in promoting Respondent No. 1 were clear.
- The writ petition could not be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, particularly when the actions were contrary to the Rules and involved manipulation.
- The Association's representation to the Chief Minister and the subsequent inquiry provided a reasonable explanation for any delay.

3. Government Inquiry and Demotion:
The High Court's Division Bench had questioned the Government's right to conduct an inquiry during pending writ petitions and the lack of natural justice in not hearing Respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court found:
- The inquiry was justified given the serious allegations of irregularities.
- The findings of the inquiry committee, which highlighted the illegalities in the promotion of Respondent No. 1, were valid.
- The Government's decision to demote Respondent No. 1 to the ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer was upheld by the learned Single Judge.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, concluding that the promotion and encadrement of Respondent No. 1 were illegal due to non-compliance with service rules and fraudulent actions. The Court emphasized that fraud vitiates every action and cannot be condoned on grounds of delay, particularly when there is a reasonable explanation for such delay. The appeals were allowed, and the Division Bench's judgment was set aside.

---