AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Kh. Tarukumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General, Manipur, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel for the private respondents. The present petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/equivalent in Public Works Department (PWD), Manipur based on the beneficial clause contained in the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Engineer.
The facts as pleaded by the petitioners may be briefly stated.
The petitioners, who were diploma holders in Civil Engineering entered service as Section Officer Grade-I in the PWD on 25.7.1980, 03.8.1981 and 9.8.1982 respectively. While in service, the petitioners successfully completed the A.M.I.E. course on the following dates: the Petitioner No. 1 on 19.9.2000, the Petitioner No. 2 on 11.3.1981, the Petitioner No. 3 on 22.3.2002, the Petitioner No. 4 on 10.10.1993 and the Petitioner No. 5 on 30.4.1999.
The next higher promotional post to which the petitioners are claiming consideration for promotion is the post of Assistant Engineer (AE), which since the year 1984, was governed by the recruitment rules, namely, P.W.D./I.F.C.D./P.H.E.D., Manipur (Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mech/Assistant Surveyor of Works)) Recruitment Rules, 1984. As per the said recruitment rules of 1984, 60% of the post of Assistant Engineers are to be filled up by promotion and the remaining by direct recruitment. As regards the 60% promotion quota, the same is distributed under two sub-quotas, 50% of which is to be filled up by Section Officers possessing Degree/A.M.I.E. in Civil/Mech. Engineering or its equivalent from a recognised University/Institution and the remaining 50% from amongst the Diploma Holders in Civil/Mechanical Engineering & others as provided in Column No. 10 of the said recruitment rules. Column No. 11 provides the eligibility criteria. Column Nos. 10 and 11 of the said recruitment rules of 1984 are reproduced as follows:--
The said recruitment rules of 1984 were superseded by another set of recruitment rules framed in 2009 which added an additional criteria in Column No. 11, which, however, is not relevant for the purpose of consideration of this case and hence, not referred to.
The said recruitment rules were further superceded by another set of recruitment rules notified in the official gazette on 3rd September, 2013, which made certain changes in Column No. 11 as regards the eligibility of those Diploma Holders who passed A.M.I.E. examination in course of service, which reads as follows:--
Thus, by this set of latest recruitment rules framed in 2013, a change was effected in Column No. 11(c) by omitting the words "or 4 years of service in the grade, whichever is shorter" which was earlier provided in Column No. 11(c) in the previous two recruitment rules.
According to the petitioners, 16 vacancies have arisen against the promotion quota in the grade of Assistant Engineer in the PWD which the authorities are seeking to fill up, and out of these, 8 are to be filled up from amongst the Section Officers having Degree/A.M.I.E. qualification and the remaining 8 vacancies from amongst the Section Officers (Diploma Holder) and others and these vacancies arose during the subsistence of the recruitment rules of 1984 as well as recruitment rules of 2009 but prior to the implementation of the recruitment rules of 2013, hence to be filled up in accordance with recruitment rules of 1984 and 2009. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are eligible for consideration for promotion to the said vacant posts of Assistant Engineer in terms of the earlier recruitment rules of 1984 and 2009 as against the 50% sub-quota reserved for Degree/AMIE holders, but the authorities have illegally ignored their cases because of which they have been compelled to approach this Court for appropriate direction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the date of eligibility of the petitioners is to be counted either on completion of 3 years from the date of passing i.e. on 19.9.2003, 11.3.1994, 22.3.2005, 10.10.1993, 30.4.2002, or on completion of 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer (Diploma Holder) which is to be reckoned from the date of entry in service i.e. on 25.7.1984, 3.8.1985, 9.8.1986, 9.8.1986, 9.8.1986. According to the petitioners, since the shorter period of attaining the date of eligibility is to be adopted as provided under Column No. 11(c), the petitioners can claim to have become eligible on completion of 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer, as mentioned above. According to the petitioners, this determination of eligibility date on the basis of 4 years of service in the grade, from the date of entry in service, is in consonance with the recruitment rules.
According to the petitioners, Column No. 11(c) of the recruitment rules of 1984 and 2009 makes it very clear that in case of Diploma Holders who pass both sections A and B of A.M.I.E. examination of Institution of Engineers (India), they are eligible for promotion provided they have rendered 3 years of service from the date of such passing or have rendered 4 years of service in the grade, whichever is shorter. According to the petitioners, all the petitioners have passed A.M.I.E. examination on various dates after entering service as mentioned above and accordingly, they would be eligible for promotion after completing 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer (Diploma Holder) reckoning from the date of entry in service in the grade of Section Officer, as the said length of service is shorter and accordingly, have prepared the following chart.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the above provision of Column No. 11(c), since the Petitioner No. 1 had passed A.M.I.E. examination in 2000, he would be eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer after 4 years of service after appointment in the grade of Section Officer i.e. on 25.7.1984 by reckoning from the date of entry in service. Similarly, the other petitioners also became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the years 1985 and 1986 as mentioned above. According to the petitioners, two dates of eligibility are available to them upon passing of the A.M.I.E. examination, one, on completion of 3 years of the passing of the A.M.I.E. examination and another on competition of 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer (Diploma Holder). Since the recruitment rules have given the benefit to choose the date of eligibility, which is shorter, the petitioners have claimed the shorter date of eligibility, i.e. on completion of 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer and not after 3 years of completion of service after passing AMIE. According to the petitioners, however, the authorities by ignoring the claim of the petitioners have forwarded the service records of only the respondents, who were appointed during the years 1982 to 1985 as Section Officers (Degree Holder) who became eligible for consideration for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer on competition of the 3 years during 1985 to 1988 against the sub-quota reserved for Degree/AMIE.
According to the petitioners, as the dates of completion of four years in the grade from the date of entry in service are shorter than the dates of completion of three years of service after passing A.M.I.E. as shown above, the petitioners are entitled to count their dates of eligibility from the dates of completion of four years in the grade as mentioned above in Column 6 of the table referred to above.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since they have already passed A.M.I.E. while in service, the four years of service in the grade as mentioned in column 11(c) has to be reckoned from the date of appointment by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in
P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. v. U. Govinda Rao & Ors., : AIR 2013 SC 2533
.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the language in the provision of column 11(c) of the Recruitment Rules is plain and clear which permits determining the date of eligibility on completion of four years service in the grade of Section Officer from the date of entry in respect of those diploma holders who passed A.M.I.E. examination while in service.
The official respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition contesting the claim of the petitioners. Though the private respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition in the main writ petition, they have prayed for treating the application filed for vacating the interim order passed by this Court as their affidavit-in-opposition.
The respondents have contended that there are two sub-quotas under the 60% promotion quota provided under the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. One sub-quota is meant for the Degree/A.M.I.E. holder Section Officers and the other sub-quota is for the Diploma Holder Section Officers. Thus, according to the respondents, if any Section Officer is claiming to be considered for promotion under the Degree/A.M.I.E. sub-quota, he must first possess Degree/A.M.I.E qualification as provided under Column No. 10 and thereafter the date of eligibility of such Section Officer is to be determined in terms of Column No. 11(c). Therefore, till he acquires or possesses Degree/A.M.I.E qualification, he cannot be considered for promotion under the aforesaid sub-quota. Such a Diploma holder Section Officer, till acquisition of Degree or AMIE qualification will continue to be considered under the other 50% sub-quota provided for Diploma holders and others.
The respondents have contended that such interpretation for determining date of eligibility on completion of 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer (Diploma Holder) by counting from the date of entry in service as claimed by the petitioners cannot be accepted in view of the fact that 4 years of service in the grade, fall within the period when they have not yet passed the A.M.I.E. examination. According to the respondents, what the recruitment rules contemplate is that 4 years of service in the grade can mean only when the concerned officer has passed the A.M.I.E. examination, if one is claiming promotion under Degree/A.M.I.E. sub-quota. Therefore, the respondents contend that to avail the 50% sub-quota for promotion from amongst the officers holding degree/A.M.I.E., one must possess a degree or A.M.I.E at the relevant time when the person is claiming promotion. The respondents have contended this is the only possible interpretation which can be given to the present recruitment rules as the provisions of Column No. 11 has to be read along with the provisions of Column No. 10.
In this regard, the respondents have relied on the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Shailendra Dania & Ors. v. S.P. Dubey & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 535 (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 208)
in contending that the date of be eligibility of such Diploma Holder Section Officer can be considered only after they acquired the Degree/A.M.I.E. qualification and not prior to that.
The respondents also contend that the facts in issue raised and decided in the said case of
P. Sudhakar Rao ( : AIR 2013 SC 2533) (supra)
were different from the issue under consideration before this Court. It has been contended that the interpretation of Column 11(c), in the present case, has to be done in the context of the provisions of Column No. 10 of the recruitment rules which specifically provides for different quota for Degree or A.M.I.E. holders and separately for the Diploma holders and others who do not have Degree or A.M.I.E. qualification. The respondents have therefore, contended that unless the concerned Section Officer possesses Degree/A.M.I.E. qualification, he cannot claim to be considered under 50% of the promotion quota reserved for Degree or A.M.I.E. and as such the benefit given under Column No. 11(c) can be utilized by any Section Officer only after obtaining the A.M.I.E. qualification. Therefore, such Section Officer cannot claim to be eligible for consideration under the aforesaid quota for Degree/A.M.I.E. at any time prior to the passing of the A.M.I.E. examination. The respondents have contended that the provisions of Column 11 No. (c) and Column No. 10 have to be harmoniously interpreted so as to make both the provisions meaningful and workable.
Therefore, from the above rival contentions, what transpires is that the issue involved revolves round the proper understanding and interpretation of the recruitment rules as contained in Column No. 11 (c) read with Column No. 10. As we have noted above, there are two sub-quotas for promotion, one for the Degree/AMIE holders and the other for the Diploma holders and others as provided under column No. 10. As mentioned above, Column No. 11(c) provides for two dates of eligibilities for promotion for those Section Officers (Diploma Holder) who pass A.M.I.E. examination after entering into service and one which is shorter is to be adopted as follows:--
(i) In case of diploma holders who pass both Sections A & B of A.M.I.E. examination would become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers on completion of three years from the date of passing.
Thus one date of eligibility will be based on completion of 3 years from the date of passing A.M.I.E. examination.
(ii) Such diploma holder Section Officers who pass A.M.I.E. examination would also become eligible on completion of four years service in the grade of Section Officer;
Thus, the other date of eligibility will be determined on completion of 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer.
(iii) The shorter period during which any of the aforesaid dates of eligibility is attained is to be adopted in respect of those Diploma holder Section Officers who pass A.M.I.E. examination after entering into the service.
As we proceed to examine the issue, as the petitioners have placed great reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in
P. Sudhakar Rao ( : AIR 2013 SC 2533) (supra)
we will briefly refer to the aforesaid decision.
In P. Sudhakar Rao (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court was considering a reference as to the correctness of orders passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in two categories of cases which involved giving weightage to past service for the purpose of seniority, as evident from para Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment, which are reproduced hereinbelow:--
There is a clear distinction between weightage given for years of service rendered by an employee for purpose of promotion and weightage given for years of service rendered by an employee for purpose of seniority in a grade. While the first concerns eligibility for promotion to a higher post, the other concerns seniority for being considered for promotion to a higher post.
To consider the validity of weightage for seniority purposes and its impact on the seniority of other employees, the following question has been referred to a larger Bench in these appeals..................
The controversies which were considered in the said cases arose because of certain Government memorandum issued by the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh giving weightage to past service for the purpose of promotion and seniority in the grade of Assistant Engineer from the lower grades of Junior Engineer and Supervisors who subsequently acquired degree qualification. This may be better appreciated by reproducing para Nos. 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment which are reproduced herein below:--
The mode of recruitment for Junior Engineers in the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service was now by direct recruitment. This meant that despite having an engineering degree, Supervisors were not eligible for appointment as Junior Engineers on transfer. However, the mode of recruitment for the next higher post of Assistant Engineer was by way of direct recruitment, by promotion of a Junior Engineer having not less than 5 years service in the grade and by transfer of a Supervisor having a minimum service of 10 years in the grade.
To remedy this situation in the case of Supervisors who had obtained an engineering degree prior to 28.2.1972 the State Government issued GO.Ms No. 893 dated 15.6.1972 inserting a note being Note 2 under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules. Through this Note, a Supervisor was given a weightage of 50% of service rendered by him on his acquiring an engineering degree while in service. The weightage was subject to a maximum period of 4 years service rendered prior to acquisition of the degree. The weightage was available as if the service had been rendered by the Supervisor in the post of Junior Engineer. The weightage was, therefore, available for inclusion for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. However, the weightage was subject to certain conditions, one of them being that it was available to only those Supervisors who had obtained a degree prior to 28.2.1972.
The issue of giving of weight to past service to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from the date of acquiring the degree qualification was also considered and upheld, but the Hon''ble Supreme Court also observed that the term of the GOM on which basis, such observations were made, were endorsed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court without actually going into the legality thereof as mentioned in para No. 41 as reproduced hereinbelow:--
This Court endorsed the terms of the G.O. Ms without actually going into the legality thereof. This was apparently because the issue of seniority had been burning for two decades and this Court - wanted to bring a quietus to it. This is clear from the fact that in its conclusion, this Court bypassed the statutory rules which required the imprimatur of the Public Service Commission for the appointments made. While recording its conclusions, this Court said:
Having given our careful consideration particularly to the fact that this litigation has been pending for the last so many years, about two decades, we feel that it is high time a finality has to be reached by resolving the controversies and in this context we are of the view that the approval of the Public Service Commission in respect of these appointments need not be sought, if the government has not already obtained the approval of the Public Service Commission. To sum up, our conclusions are as under:
(i) The weightage of four years in respect of upgraded Junior Engineers as provided in GO.Ms. No. 559 has to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not the date of their acquiring the degree qualification;
.............................
It may be mentioned that the finding to reckon from the date of appointment while giving weightage was based on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in
State of A.P. v. K.S. Muralidhar : AIR 1992 SC 922 (1992) 2 SCC 241
, while interpreting GOM No. 559D/- 18.07.1977. In this regard it is to be noted that the Supreme Court in the said case of K.S. Muralidhar (supra) was considering the said GOM No. 559 which was dealing with the Supervisors who acquire degree qualification while in service and who get appointed as Junior Engineer after acquiring the degree qualification. The issue before the Supreme Court was of giving weightage to the past service as Supervisor of those subsequently appointed as Junior Engineer on acquiring Degree qualification for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer. The Supreme Court after considering the matter held that the weightage can be given only from the date of appointment of the Supervisor as Junior Engineer and not from the date of acquisition of Degree qualification by the Supervisor. In other words, the benefit was given to the Supervisors only after they were appointed as Junior Engineer and not from the date of acquisition of the degree qualification, which is clearly evident from para 15 of the judgment in K. S. Muralidhar (supra).
In our view the G.O.Ms No. 559 makes it abundantly clear that the appointments of these upgraded Supervisors who acquired the graduate qualification while in service, would be prospective only and that they would be entitled to the weightage of four years of service rendered before the appointment. The GO.Ms does not anywhere indicate that the weightage should be from the date of acquiring the degree qualification. It must be borne in mind that it is only after acquiring such degree having regard to the service rendered by him the Government as a policy decided to give weightage of four years for the purpose of considering the eligibility for promotion as Assistant Engineer.....................
From the above, what is clear is that the date of appointment from which the weightage is to be given refers to the upgraded post of Junior Engineer to which the Supervisors are appointed upon acquiring the Degree and not to the initial date of appointment as Supervisor. This is clear from the observation of the Supreme Court that Supervisors are appointed as Junior Engineers only after acquiring the Degree qualification. The Supreme Court held that the weightage is to be given from the date of appointment as Junior Engineer and not from the date of acquisition of Degree qualification while serving as Supervisor.
From the above, it can be stated that though the Hon''ble Supreme Court had upheld the position that the weightage of past service has to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from the date of acquiring of degree qualification, it was referring to the appointment to the higher post and not to same post when the requisite qualification was obtained and hence, the decision of
P. Sudhakar Rao ( : AIR 2013 SC 2533) (supra)
will not be applicable in the present case. Unlike the Supervisors who get appointed as Junior Engineers after getting the Degree qualification and they attain a higher status, in the present case, the Section Officer on passing AMIE examination is not appointed to any higher grade but remains a Section Officer though he can claim promotion under the quota reserved for Degree/AMIE. In the case of P. Sudhakar Rao (supra) the issue involved was relating to the Supervisors, who were appointed as Junior Engineers after passing Degree and the issue was between the Junior Engineers who were directly recruited and those Junior Engineers who were upgraded and appointed from amongst the Supervisors after passing the Degree examination for further promotion to the higher post of Assistant Engineer.
Further, in the aforesaid case of P. Sudhakar Rao (supra), there was no separate quota provided for the two categories of Junior Engineers, whose who were directly recruited and those who were upgraded from the Supervisors for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. However, in the present case, as referred to above, there are two separate specific quotas for two categories of Section Officers, one for the Degree/A.M.I.E. holders and another for the Diploma holders. Thus the factual positions do not seem to be similar.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the P. Sudhakar Rao''s case (supra) may not be applicable in the present case, because of different facts and issues involved.
For the similar reasons, this Court is also of the view that the decision in
Shailendra Dania ( : AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 208) (supra)
relied upon by the respondents will not be applicable in the present case, as in the said case, there was no such specific provision providing for counting of "4 years of service in the grade whichever is shorter" as provided in column No. 11(c) of the Recruitment Rules of 1984 and 2009. It was merely deciding the issue as to whether a Diploma Holder Junior Engineer who acquired a degree during the tenure of his service could claim the service rendered prior to acquisition of degree for the purpose of promotion as a Degree Holder to the higher post of Assistant Engineer. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that because of the qualitative difference in nature of work as a Diploma Holder and Degree holder, such a Junior Engineer has to still render the requisite years of service after acquiring degree to claim promotion as a degree holder. However, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in that case was not called upon to decide any issue involving any such provision and as such it would not be appropriate to refer to the same.
As we have already noted, there are two specific and separate quotas meant for Degree/A.M.I.E. holder Section Officers and for diploma holder Section Officers as provided under Column No. 10. Therefore, if any Section Officer is claiming promotion under the 50% sub-quota for the Degree/A.M.I.E. to the post of Assistant Engineer, such a Section Officer must possess Degree/A.M.I.E. qualification at the relevant time. On the other hand, the case of such Section officer who is merely a diploma holder has to be considered under the sub-quota reserved for diploma holders. In that view of the matter, if any Section Officer (Diploma holder) subsequently acquires A.M.I.E. qualification, his right to be considered under the aforesaid sub-quota meant for Degree/A.M.I.E. holders would accrue only after he acquires the said qualification and not prior to it. Therefore, the 4 years service in the grade as mentioned in Column 11(c) has to have reference to the acquisition of the said A.M.I.E. qualification, thus must include the period when he possessed the AMIE qualification. Thus a Section Officer can be considered for promotion under the Degree/AMIE quota only after he acquires the said qualification and not prior to it. Possessing Degree or AMIE qualification is a pre-requisite for claiming consideration under the quota reserved for Degree/AMIE. If that is the correct interpretation, the 4 years service in the grade mentioned in Column No. 11(c) would relate to the 4 years service rendered by the Section Officer immediately prior to the acquisition of the qualification. Only if such an interpretation is adopted, the Section Officer can be said to have rendered 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer for the purpose of consideration for promotion under the sub-quota meant for Degree/AMIE. Thus, in respect of the Petitioner No. 1, since the petitioner passed A.M.I.E. on 19.9.2000, 4 years of service has to be reckoned by going back four years prior to the date of passing of A.M.I.E. on 19.09.2000 i.e. 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer will be counted w.e.f. 19.9.1986. In such a situation the Petitioner No. 1 can claim the benefit of 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer w.e.f. 19.9.1986 as he would complete 4 years of service on 19.9.2000 on which date he would also possess the A.M.I.E. qualification so as to be included within the aforesaid sub-quota of Degree/A.M.I.E. This method of reckoning the past service by going back 4 years from the date of passing would be consistent with both the provisions of Column No. 11(c) as well as Column No. 10. The period of service rendered by the petitioners from such dates by counting back from the date of passing A.M.I.E. would also be shorter from the date on which the petitioner would complete 3 years of service after passing the A.M.I.E. On the other hand, if the interpretation proposed by the petitioners is to be accepted by counting the 4 years of service from the initial date of entry in service in the grade of Section Officer as Diploma holder, it would be found that none of the petitioners would have possessed A.M.I.E. qualification on such date as all the petitioners passed the A.M.I.E. examination long after serving more than 4 years of service. For example, in respect of Petitioner No. 1, if the date of eligibility is counted w.e.f. 25.7.1984 as claimed by the petitioners, this would lead to an absurd position as on that date i.e., 25.7.1984 the petitioner was merely a diploma holder and had not yet acquired the A.M.I.E. qualification. He acquired the qualification only on 19.9.2003 as mentioned above. Thus, if there had been a vacancy in the year 1985, since the Petitioner No. 1 had not passed the A.M.I.E. examination in 1985, he could not have claimed any right to be considered under the Degree/A.M.I.E. quota. He cannot claim such a right on hindsight, merely because some vacancies might have remained unfilled in the past. Similarly, in respect of the Petitioner No. 2, he had passed A.M.I.E. on 11.3.1991, the date of reckoning will be from 4 years immediately before the date of passing i.e. 11.3.1987 as on the date the Petitioner No. 2 would have completed 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer as Diploma holder, yet he would have also possessed the AMIE qualification if he is to be considered for any vacancy arising on 12.03.1991 or thereafter under the Degree/AMIE quota. Thus, it can be said that by such an interpretation both the conditions mentioned Column No. 11(c) as well as Column No. 10 are fulfilled. On the other, if the interpretation of the petitioners is to be accepted, the requirement of the provisions of column No. 10 cannot be satisfied. The interpretation of the petitioners could have been accepted had there been no separate quotas for Degree/A.M.I.E. holders and for the diploma holders and others.
It is well settled that while interpreting any statute, every part of the statute must be taken into consideration and must be given a purposeful meaning and no part must be rendered otiose and there must be harmonious construction of all the parts of the statute. Thus, adopting the interpretation of Column 11(c) of the Recruitment Rules of 1984 and 2009, proposed by the petitioners would lead to repugnancy with the provisions in Column No. 10 as the requirement of Column No. 10 cannot be fulfilled, which situation is to be avoided.
It is also well settled that vacancies arising in different years have to be considered separately year wise by considering the claims of only those who are/were eligible in such a year. Whenever promotion is to be considered for vacancies accruing in that particular year, the candidates must possess all the qualifications and requirements at the time of occurrence of vacancy. Therefore, if a Section Officer is claiming for promotion against any vacancy in a particular year in the post of Assistant Engineer under the Degree/A.M.I.E. quota, he must possess Degree/A.M.I.E. qualification on the date when the vacancy arises. If he does not possess the Degree or AMIE qualification, he cannot be considered under the quota of Degree/AMIE. For example, if any vacancy for Assistant Engineer had arisen in the year 1985, against the quota meant for Degree/AMIE, though the Petitioner No. 1 claims that he has become eligible on 25.07.1984, since he did not possess the AMIE qualification in 1985 and he acquired subsequently only on 19.09.2003, he could not have been considered in 1985 under the 50% quota reserved for Degree/AMIE holders. He could have been considered under the remaining 50% quota reserved for Diploma holders, if fulfils other conditions.
Therefore, this Court is also of the view that the interpretation proposed by the petitioners that the date of eligibility is to be reckoned from the date of entry in service, cannot be accepted as correct.
Further, for the reasons discussed above, the correct interpretation would be that any Diploma holder Section Officer who acquires Diploma or AMIE qualification after entering service can claim for counting 4 years of service immediately prior to the possession of Degree/AMIE qualification and not from the date of entry in service as Section Officer.
By applying this principle, the petitioners would be deemed to be eligible for consideration under the 50% quota reserved for the Degree/AMIE from the date of passing the AMIE examination, as they would have also served 4 years of service in the grade of Section Officer prior to passing the AMIE examination.
This interpretation, however, will be subject to further clarification that, if such Diploma holder Section Officer soon after he enters service acquires AMIE or Degree qualification, before completing 4 years of service as a Diploma holder Section Officer, the 4 years service in the grade of Section Officer has to include the service rendered after acquiring AMIE qualification though without waiting to complete 3 years after acquiring the AMIE/Degree qualification to make up for the shortfall in counting 4 years of service prior to acquisition of the AMIE qualification. Thus, if the petitioner No. 1 who entered service on 25.07.1980 had obtained the AMIE qualification in 1982, the service rendered by him after passing AMIE examination has to be added to the prior service rendered by him to make it 4 years, which also will be shorter than 3 years of service after passing the AMIE examination. However, if the Petitioner No. 1 immediately on joining the service passes AMIE, he may claim the 3 years service after passing the AMIE as it would be in any event shorter than 4 years in the grade of Section Officer. Accordingly, it is directed that the Respondent authorities will re-examine and reconsider the respective dates of eligibility of the petitioners by reckoning the past service of 4 years in the grade of Section Officer immediately prior to the acquisition of the AMIE qualification, thus, in respect of the petitioners, it would be from the respective dates of passing the AMIE examinations and not from the date of entry in service in the grade of Section Officer and if on such reconsideration, the petitioners are found to be senior to any of the private respondents, such petitioner(s) will also be entitled to be considered for promotion under 50% of the Degree/AMIE sub-quota provided under column No. 10 of the Recruitment Rules.
It is further directed that the respondent authorities only after completing the aforesaid exercise would proceed to fill up the vacancies to the post of Assistant Engineers under the promotion quota.
It is also made clear that this exercise is to be undertaken only in respect of vacancies which had occurred during the operation of Recruitment Rules of 1984 and 2009 and not for vacancies occurring after coming into force of Recruitment Rules of 2013 as there is no such beneficial provision therein which only provides for counting the date of eligibility after rendering 3 years of service after passing Degree/AMIE qualification.
With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.