Imposing Inter-Se Seniority Across Separate Feeder Categories In Fixed Roster Promotion System Is Arbitrary: AP HC

Background Facts

The Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules were brought into force under G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 22.05.1996. The Rules prescribed a 24-point roster system for promoting employees from three feeder categories (Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers, and Draughtsmen) to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer.

The specific vacancies in the roster were reserved for each category. The seniority was the sole criterion for promotion within each category. The Assistant Executive Engineers were degree holders. They became aggrieved because Assistant Engineers were diploma holders and junior to them. They were being promoted ahead of Assistant Executive Engineers due to the roster mechanism.

The Assistant Executive Engineers made representations to the Government. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.82 dated 25.02.2009 which added two provisos. These provisos provided that an Assistant Engineer could never supersede an Assistant Executive Engineer only on the basis of roster ratio. It further provided that the determining criterion will be the date of appointment in the respective category.

The Assistant Engineers challenged the G.O. before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application. Therefore, the Government deleted the provisos.

Aggrieved by this order, the Assistant Executive Engineers filed the writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

It was argued by the Assistant Executive Engineers that the Assistant Engineers, who were lesser qualified were being promoted above Assistant Executive Engineers only on the basis of their seniority within their feeder category and without looking at the overall seniority. Therefore, the Assistant Engineers, who were appointed later were being promoted over Assistant Executive Engineers who had been appointed in service at an earlier point of time. It was contended that this method had cut down the chances of promotion for Assistant Executive Engineers.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the Government created separate feeder categories for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, and once the system of roster points was established, then an additional condition of seniority cannot be imposed. The respondents further contended that educational qualifications could not be used as a basis to discriminate against Assistant Engineers. It was argued that the roster system was tilted against the Assistant Engineers but it was acceptable as it gave some promotional chances to the Assistant Engineers.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Court that the employees from three feeder categories i.e. Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers, and Draughtsmen were to be promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer as per the roster-point system. It was observed that once the State has fixed the method of roster points as the method of promotion, further imposition of an additional condition of inter-se seniority across different feeder categories would be inconsistent with the roster point system.

It was further observed that the provisos introduced by the Government required that promotions should be determined on the basis of the date of appointment across categories. It was held that under the new condition, a senior-most Assistant Engineer (one feeder category) eligible for a reserved slot might never get promoted if all Assistant Executive Engineers (another feeder category) who joined earlier were accommodated first.

Hence, even if a candidate from a particular feeder category was entitled to be considered for promotion against a roster slot marked for that category, such candidate could still be denied promotion if candidates from another category, who was appointed earlier were to be accommodated first.

It was found that such a condition would lead to a situation where eligible candidates from one feeder category (Assistant Engineers) may never get promoted, despite the existence of reserved roster slots in their favour.

It was held that imposing inter-se seniority across feeder categories in a roster-based system is arbitrary and discriminatory, as it takes away the promotional opportunities of one category in favour of another.

Hence, the findings of the Tribunal were affirmed by the Division Bench wherein it was held that if Rules provided for promotion of separate feeder categories to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, it is not permissible to introduce additional criteria such as date of entry into service to alter the balance between such categories.

With the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal's order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the Assistant Executive Engineers were dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : K.V.L. Narasimha Rao and Others vs. M. Ganeshwara Rao and Others

Case No. : WRIT PETITION Nos: 4493 of 2016, 38747 of 2015, 14864 of 2017 & 3629 of 2021

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sodum Anvesha

Counsel for the Respondents : K Ramamohan, Addl Advocate General II, J Sudheer, P Bala Krishna Murthy