Summary
The Court held that a Junior Engineer selected through an advertised competitive process against a sanctioned post could count uninterrupted service preceding regularisation for promotion. Absence of Public Service Commission concurrence made his appointment irregular, rather than illegal, on these facts. Given the relaxation for engineering graduates and treatment of similarly selected juniors, denial of promotion was set aside and consequential benefits directed.
Issues
- Whether absence of Public Service Commission concurrence made the initial appointment illegal and excluded service before regularisation.
- Whether the engineer was entitled to promotion from the date his qualified junior was promoted.
Held
- The appointment followed advertisement, competition and the prescribed process apart from Commission concurrence; the employee was qualified and appointed to a sanctioned post with prior gubernatorial approval. In those circumstances the defect rendered the appointment at most irregular, not illegal. (¶¶ 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Applying Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association, uninterrupted officiating service until lawful regularisation counted. This was distinguishable from a stopgap appointment bypassing eligible candidates and the appointment rules. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The 1994 memorandum relaxed the qualifying service requirement for the specified engineering-graduate promotional quota. The appellant possessed the degree before similarly recruited juniors and could not be denied the corresponding benefit. He was entitled, in any event, from the date those juniors were promoted. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. The High Court judgment and the State’s rejection order of 16 April 2015 were set aside. The appellant was declared entitled to promotion as Assistant Engineer (Civil) from the date his junior possessing B.E./A.M.I.E. was promoted, with all consequential benefits.