2003 (3) TMI 746 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether promotions within the Engineering Department were to be made section-wise or cadre-wise.
2. The validity of the High Court's decision regarding the promotion policy.
3. The applicability of seniority lists and qualifications for promotions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Section-wise vs. Cadre-wise Promotions:
The core issue was whether promotions within the Engineering Department of the Institute should be made on a section-wise basis or a cadre-wise basis. The appellants argued that promotions were section-wise, based on qualifications and experience in specific fields, and maintained separate section-wise seniority lists. The respondents contended that promotions should be cadre-wise, pointing out that a single cadre of Technologist Grade II existed since 1976, and promotions should consider overall seniority and suitability across the entire cadre.

2. High Court's Decision on Promotion Policy:
The High Court ruled in favor of cadre-wise promotions. The Single Judge initially held that promotions from Technologist Grade II to Grade I should be made cadre-wise, not section-wise, to prevent favoritism and arbitrariness. This decision was not challenged by the appellants and was acted upon by promoting R.K. Sareen. The Division Bench upheld this view, noting that the appellants failed to produce any rules supporting section-wise promotions and reiterated that the respondent No. 1 should have been considered for promotion along with his juniors. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the practice followed by the appellant/Institute was to treat the Technologist Grade II cadre as one cadre.

3. Seniority Lists and Qualifications for Promotions:
The appellants produced seniority lists and argued that qualifications for Technologist Grade I posts were specific to each section. However, the Court noted that these lists were not part of the original court records and were unsupported by statutory provisions. The Court also observed that the respondent No. 1's letter of appointment did not limit his posting to any specific section, and he had been transferred across various sections, indicating a common cadre. The Court rejected the appellants' reliance on advertisements for direct recruitment, as they did not pertain to promotions. The Court concluded that the placement in a particular section was fortuitous and should not affect promotion prospects.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that promotions within the Engineering Department should be made cadre-wise. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a fair and consistent promotion policy that considers overall seniority and suitability, rather than fortuitous section-wise placements. The appeal was dismissed with costs.