Dismissed

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board & Anr. v. Surinder Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2013LPA/2072/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the bench held that a Junior Engineer from the Public Health stream holding an AMIE (Civil) qualification is eligible for promotion to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) under the AMIE quota prescribed in the Board's Service Rules.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order declaring the respondent eligible for promotion.

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

LPA No.2072 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 17, 2013

¶3

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board & another

.....Appellants

versus

Surinder Kumar

.....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶9

Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the caveator-respondent.

¶11

-.-

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶17

This Letters Patent Appeal impugns the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the appellantBoard to consider the respondent for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) with effect from the date he became eligible or from the date when his juniors were promoted. Learned Single Judge has also declared the respondent eligible for promotion to the above mentioned post.

¶18

The facts are not in dispute. The respondent along with several other candidates was appointed to the post of Sectional Officer (Civil), (B&R) and (Public Health) in the Mandi Board vide a common appointment order dated 06.07.1981 (Annexure P-2). It, however, appears that for the purpose of different cadres, the respondent was allocated Public Health Cadre. The post was subsequently redesignated as Junior Engineer.

¶19

Satyawan 2014.01.15 11:14 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶20

LPA No.2072 of 2013 (O&M)

¶21

-2 -

¶22

The respondent admittedly possesses the qualification of AMIE (Civil) from the Institute of Engineers. On the basis of that qualification he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis against the direct recruitment post vide order dated 21.01.2001 (Annexure P-3). The post of Assistant Engineer or Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) are one and the same thing. The respondent is still working as SDO(Civil) for the last more than 12 years.

¶23

The respondent staked his claim for promotion as Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) on regular basis and indisputably he was denied the same only on the plea that he cannot be considered on the Civil Engineering side as he belongs to Public Health stream.

¶24

Recruitment to various posts including Sub Divisional Officers in the appellant Board is governed by Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class I to IV) Service Rules, 1988. Appendix-B of these Rules prescribes qualifications, eligibility condition and mode of recruitment to the posts regulated by these Rules.

¶25

In the case of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)/ Design/Planning), Appendix-B in column No. 3 firstly provides that 45% posts shall be filled by 'direct appointment' and 55% by 'promotion'. Thereafter it gives details of Roster Points for each source of recruitment. Further, 'Promotion quota' has different feeder cadres. Column No.3 “Method of recruitment” under clause (b) recognises A.M.I.E. Degree-holders as a separate feeder cadre and assign following separate roster points for them :-

¶26

“(b) Associate Member of 2 1 .. 1 ..

¶27

Institute of Engineering vacancies (civil) from a recognized

¶28

University or Institute; and”

¶29

Similarly, under column No. 5 “By promotion” Appendix-B

¶30

provides that:-

¶31

Satyawan 2014.01.15 11:14 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶32

LPA No.2072 of 2013 (O&M)

¶33

-3 -

¶34

“(iv) From amongst the Junior Engineers and Draftsmen working in the Board who possess Associate Members of Institute of Engineering of a recognized university or institute and have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of five years” (emphasis applied)

¶35

It is true that for promotion under clause (a) of “Method of recruitment” a Junior Engineer (Civil) is required to possess “experience of working as such for a minimum period of ten years”. In other words, only a Junior Engineer (Civil) can be promoted under the said source of recruitment, which is essentially meant for Diploma holders only.

¶36

However, in case of recruitment under clause (b) reproduced above, namely “Associate Member of Institute of Engineering (civil)”, the eligibility prescribed at Sr. No. (iv) of column 5 (Appendix-B) explicitly says that Junior Engineers and Draftsmen working in the Board who possess the qualification of Associate Members of Institute of Engineering of a recognized university or institute with a working experience as such for a minimum period of five years, are eligible for promotion.

¶37

It appears to us that in the case of a Junior Engineer having qualification of AMIE(Civil), the above-stated clause does not draw any distinction whether such Junior Engineer is working in the 'Civil Wing' or in the 'Public Health Wing'. If that were so, a Draftsman with AMIE qualification could not have been made eligible along with Junior Engineer for promotion as Sub Divisional Officers (Civil). The phrase “experience of working as such” at Sr. No. (iv) means 'experience of working as 'Junior Engineer' or 'Draftsmen', as the case may be. The suggestion of counsel for the appellants that the phrase “as such” means experience as Junior Engineer (Civil) only, cannot be accepted. For if this were to be the construction of the Rule then a Draftsman can never be eligible for promotion as he will never have such an Satyawan 2014.01.15 11:14 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶38

LPA No.2072 of 2013 (O&M)

¶39

-4 -

¶40

experience.

¶41

It is not necessary that the expression “experience of working as such” contained at Sr. No. (ii) and at Sr. No. (iv) of column 5 must carry the same meaning. The words 'as such' denote, the nomenclature of the post(s) for gaining the 'working experience' which is one of the eligibility condition for promotion. The afore-said expression at Sr. No. (ii) is preceded by Junior Engineers who possess Diploma in Engineering (Civil) but the same expression at Sr. No. (iv) is preceded by Junior Engineers and Draftsmen working in the Board who possess the qualification of Associate Members of Institute of Engineering of a recognized university/institute. The later sub-clause (iv), thus, refers to the two posts of Junior Engineer and Draftsman unlike sub-clause (ii) where it refers to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) only.

¶42

For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any error in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the respondent is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) under the AMIE quota.

¶43

Dismissed.

¶44

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶45

December 17, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Satyawan JUDGE

¶46

Satyawan 2014.01.15 11:14 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board & Anr. v. Surinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board & Anr. v. Surinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupali Mahajan Vs Pgimer, Sector 12, Chandigarh and Ors.

Santosh Rani & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amit and Another Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harshvardhan Memorial Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Nilam Kumari Vs Tribunal Improvement Trust & Ors.