1991 (4) TMI 469 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Rules Retrospective Promotions in Bihar Engineering Service Illegal, Upholds Seniority Based on Initial Entry Date

State of Bihar and Ors. Versus Akhouri Sachindra Nath and Ors.

State of Bihar and Ors. Versus Akhouri Sachindra Nath and Ors. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the retrospective promotion of certain Overseers to the position of Assistant Engineers in the Bihar Engineering Service, Class II, thereby altering the seniority list to the detriment of directly recruited Assistant Engineers, is arbitrary, illegal, and inoperative. Specifically, the issue revolves around the legality and fairness of government orders that retrospectively promoted Overseers to fill a reserved quota from an earlier year, impacting the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework involves Rule 2 of the Public Works Department Code, which allowed for 25% of posts in the Bihar Engineering Service, Class II to be filled by promotion. The case also references precedents such as A.K. Subraman and Ors. v. Union of India and D.K. Mitra and Ors. v. Union of India, which discuss the principles of seniority and the implications of retrospective promotions.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court interpreted that no person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when they were not part of the cadre, especially if such promotion adversely affects others. The Court emphasized that seniority should be determined based on the date of initial entry into the service, and retrospective promotions that disrupt this principle are considered arbitrary and illegal.Key Evidence and FindingsThe evidence presented included government orders and seniority lists. The Court found that the orders promoting the Overseers retrospectively were issued without considering the adverse impact on the seniority of directly recruited Assistant Engineers. The seniority list published in 1969, where the petitioners were shown as senior, was altered by subsequent government orders, which the Court found unjustifiable.Application of Law to FactsThe Court applied the legal principle that seniority is reckoned from the date of entry into the service. The directly recruited Assistant Engineers entered the service before the promoted Overseers, and thus, the retrospective promotions could not legally alter their seniority. The Court found that the government orders in question were arbitrary and violated established legal principles.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe appellants argued that the retrospective promotions were justified under the quota system established in 1958. However, the Court dismissed this argument, noting that the vacancies from 1958 were not carried forward and that the retrospective promotions adversely affected the rights of the directly recruited Assistant Engineers. The Court also distinguished this case from precedents cited by the appellants, noting that those cases involved different circumstances where vacancies were carried forward.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the retrospective promotions were illegal and unjust, as they adversely affected the seniority of the directly recruited Assistant Engineers. The government orders were quashed, and the seniority list was to remain as initially published.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles EstablishedThe Court reiterated the principle that no person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when they were not part of the cadre, especially if it adversely affects others. Seniority should be based on the date of initial entry into the service.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the government orders that retrospectively promoted the Overseers. The appeals were dismissed, and the seniority of the directly recruited Assistant Engineers was maintained as per the original list.The judgment reinforces the principle that retrospective promotions affecting the seniority of others are not permissible under the law, ensuring fairness and adherence to established legal norms in determining seniority within a service cadre.