Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Service Prior To Acquiring Degree Can't Be Counted For Promotion To Post Of Assistant Engineer: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Subject: Service Law, Promotion, Seniority, Qualification, Time period of service, Degree holders, Diploma holders

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the time period served as a Junior Engineer before or after acquiring a degree is not relevant for eligibility for promotion as an Assistant Engineer. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, and Manoj Misra, held that for the purpose of eligibility for promotion, diploma holders can count their service prior to acquiring their degree.

The decision came in a case related to the promotion of Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department of the Union Territory of Puducherry. The controversy arose over whether the time period served by diploma holders as Junior Engineers prior to obtaining a degree could be counted towards eligibility for promotion.

The Court examined previous judgments on the issue, including the case of C. Chakkaravarthy & Ors. v. M. Satyavathy, IAS & Ors. It held that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer should be based on merit alone, and that seniority of candidates cannot be taken into account for determining merit. The Court also noted that the relevant rule did not specify from which date the time period of regular service had to be counted.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the view taken by the High Court that there is no distinction between the time period served before or after the acquisition of the degree, so long as the degree is acquired and is the basis for consideration of the promotion. The Court held that for all the reasons in the case of the Electricity Department in question, the view taken in D. Stephen Joseph is applicable law, and dismissed the appeals.

The case referred to several previous judgments on the issue, including D. Stephen Joseph, Satpal Antil v. Union of India, Anil Kumar Gupta, A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath, and Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar. The Court also noted the relevance of past practice in interpreting service rules, as discussed in the case of Shailendra Dania & Ors. and M.B. Joshi.

Date of Judgement: May 08, 2023

VALSAN (D) THR. LRs. & ORS. vs KANAGARAJ & ORS.  

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/08-May-2023-T.-VALSAN-Vs-K.-Kanagaraja.pdf"]

Latest Legal News