{"id":69879,"date":"2007-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007"},"modified":"2018-12-04T21:22:01","modified_gmt":"2018-12-04T15:52:01","slug":"shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health … on 18 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health … on 18 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR        \n\n        WP No 3277 of 2004 AND WP No 515 of 2005 AND WP No 5131 of 2005 AND WP No 246 of 2005 AND WP No 1053 of 2005           \n\n        1 Prabhat Saxena\n\n        2 Dinesh Kumar Khandelwal\n\n        3 V N K Shashtri\n\n        4 Arun Deo\n\n        5 S K Gujrati\n\n        6 S K Chaturvedi\n\n        7 Krishna Nand Yadav\n\n        8 L N Shrivastava\n\n        9 S W Manurkar\n\n        10 Shri S J Moghe\n\n        11 Shri Anil Phirke\n\n                        ...Petitioners\n\n                           VERSUS\n\n        1 State of Chhattisgarh\n\n        2 Engineer in Chief P W D Raipur\n\n        3 State of Chhattisgarh\n\n        4 Engineer in Chief P H E Department Raipur\n\n        5 State of Chhattisgarh\n\n        6 Engineer in Chief P H E Department Raipur\n\n        7 State of Chhattisgarh\n\n        8 Engineer in Chief Public Health Engineering Department Raipur\n\n        9 State of Chhattisgarh\n\n        10 Engineer in Chief Public Health Engineering Deptt Civil Lines Raipur\n\n                        ...Respondents\n\n!       Mr Goutam Bhaduri Mr Shashank Shankya Ms Deepali Pandey and Mr Saleem Kazi on behalf of Mr Sunil Otwani Advocates for   \n\n^       Mr Sushil Dubey Government Advocate for the respondents State\n\n        Shri N K Vyas and A K Shrivastava Advocates for the Intervener\n\n        Honble Mr Justice Satish K Agnihotri\n\n        Dated: 18\/06\/2007\n\n:       Order\n\n\n\n        (Writ Petition under Article 226\/227 of the\n                Constitution of India)\n\n\n\n                         ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
        (Passed on this 18th day of June, 2007)<\/p>\n
      The  present batch of matters involve  a  common<\/p>\n
question  of  law and facts asto whether the  circular<\/p>\n
dated  7-10-1992  (Annexure P\/6) issued  by  the  then<\/p>\n
State  of  Madhya Pradesh contemplates  two  gradation<\/p>\n
lists.  One  for Sub Engineers who had  obtained  B.E.<\/p>\n
degree  prior  to  joining  the  service  (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred  to  as  “Sub Engineer Degree  Holders”)  and<\/p>\n
second   for   Sub  Engineers  who  had   diploma   in<\/p>\n
engineering  before joining the service  and  acquired<\/p>\n
B.E.   degree   in   the  course  of   their   service<\/p>\n
(hereinafter  referred  to as  “Sub  Engineer  diploma<\/p>\n
holders”).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2)    The  indisputable facts in nutshell in  all  the<\/p>\n
petitions  are that all the petitioners  are  graduate<\/p>\n
engineers  joined  the  post of  Sub  Engineers  after<\/p>\n
having  obtained degree of B.E. The service conditions<\/p>\n
of the petitioners are governed by Chhattisgarh\/Madhya<\/p>\n
Pradesh  Public  Works (Gazetted) Service  Recruitment <\/p>\n
Rules,  1969  (hereinafter referred to as  “the  Rules<\/p>\n
1969”).   The  petitioners seek for promotion  to  the<\/p>\n
post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 14 of the Rules<\/p>\n
1969  read  with  Schedule IV  annexed  to  the  rules<\/p>\n
wherein  qualification for promotion to  the  post  of<\/p>\n
Assistant Engineers is eight years service as Graduate<\/p>\n
Sub-Engineers.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3)    Mr.  Goutam Bhaduri, Mr. Shashank  Shankya,  Ms. <\/p>\n
Deepali  Pandey and Mr. Saleem Kazi on behalf  of  Mr.<\/p>\n
Sunil  Otwani  appearing  for  the  petitioners  (Sub-<\/p>\n
Engineers)  would  submit  that  there  should  be   a<\/p>\n
separate  gradation  list  for  Sub  Engineer   degree<\/p>\n
holders as seniority of Sub Engineers diploma holders,<\/p>\n
who  obtained  degree in the course of  their  service<\/p>\n
would create anomalous situation. The, then, State  of<\/p>\n
Madhya  Pradesh  issued  a circular  dated   7-10-1992<\/p>\n
(Annexure  P\/6)   providing   for  creation   of   two<\/p>\n
gradation  lists  separately for  degree  holders  and<\/p>\n
diploma  holders who obtained degree in the course  of<\/p>\n
their   service.    The  circular  dated     7-10-1992<\/p>\n
(Annexure  P\/6)  contemplates option for  the  diploma<\/p>\n
holders who obtains B.E. degree for choosing the cadre<\/p>\n
of   degree  holders  or  diploma  holders  as   their<\/p>\n
seniority  shall  be  counted from  the  date  diploma<\/p>\n
holders had obtained B.E. Degree.<\/p>\n
4)    Learned counsel would further contend  that  all<\/p>\n
the  promotions made on ad hoc basis to  the  post  of<\/p>\n
Assistant Engineers not in accordance with circular be<\/p>\n
quashed  and  the  respondent\/State  be  directed   to<\/p>\n
prepare  two separate gradation lists and  take  steps<\/p>\n
for  promoting Sub Engineers to the post of  Assistant<\/p>\n
Engineers  in accordance with the circular  dated  9th<\/p>\n
September,  1998  (Annexure P\/1) passed  by  the  then<\/p>\n
State of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Chhattisgarh has <\/p>\n
adapted  the  Rules  1969 and other  circulars  issued<\/p>\n
prior  to              31-10-2000 before new State  of<\/p>\n
Chhattisgarh came into existence.<\/p>\n
5)   Shri Sushil Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the<\/p>\n
respondent\/State  would,  per  contra,   submit   that<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the  case  of<\/p>\n
M.B.  Joshi  and  others Vs. Satish Kumar  Pandey  and <\/p>\n
others1 would be applicable in the present cases  also<\/p>\n
as  the  Rules  i.e.,  Madhya  Pradesh  Public  Health<\/p>\n
Engineering    (Gazetted)    Service    Rules,    1980<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1980”) and the<\/p>\n
Rules, 1969 are identical. The decision of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  in  the  matter of Chandravathi P.K.  Vs.  C.K.<\/p>\n
Saji,2 deals with  Kerala Engineering Service (General<\/p>\n
Branch)  Rules  which is not para  materia   with  the<\/p>\n
present rules.\n<\/p>\n
6)     Shri  N.K.  Vyas,  counsel  appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
Intervener,  Shri A.K. Shrivastava, per contra,  would<\/p>\n
submit  that the State of Madhya Pradesh  as  well  as<\/p>\n
State of Chhattisgarh are bound by the decision of the<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court in the matter of M.B. Joshi and  others<\/p>\n
(supra).  The intervener has been promoted on  ad  hoc<\/p>\n
basis to the post of Assistant Engineer, therefore, at<\/p>\n
this stage, his promotion cannot be disturbed.<\/p>\n
7)    I  have  heard learned counsel for the  parties,<\/p>\n
perused  the  pleadings  and  the  documents  appended<\/p>\n
thereto.   It  is  evident that  the  petitioners  are<\/p>\n
Graduate  Sub-Engineers who have obtained B.E.  degree  <\/p>\n
before joining of the services. The service conditions<\/p>\n
of the                   Sub-Engineers are governed by<\/p>\n
the  Rules, 1969.  It is beneficial to quote  relevant<\/p>\n
provisions  of the Rules, 1969.  Rule 14 and  Schedule<\/p>\n
IV of the Rules 1969 read as under<\/p>\n
         “14.   conditions  of  eligibility   for
\n         promotion – The Committee shall consider
\n         the   cases  of  all  persons   (whether
\n         officiating  or  substantive)   in   the
\n         service   mentioned  in  column   2   of
\n         Schedule IV or any other
\n         post   or   posts  declared   equivalent
\n         thereto by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
               Provided that the Committee  shall
\n         consider    the   cases   of   Executive
\n         Engineers, Assistant  Engineers,  Junior
\n         Engineers       and       Overseers\/Head
\n         Draftsman\/Draftsman who on the first day
\n         of  January  of that year had  completed
\n         service     (whether   officiating    or
\n         substantive  in the post or service)  as
\n         under  for  the purpose of promotion  to
\n         the    next    higher   post   indicated
\n         hereinafter:-\n<\/p>\n
         Provided  further that the  services  of
\n         the  released officers of the  Emergency
\n         Commission and Short Service Commission,
\n         after  their appointment in the Service,
\n         shall  be  counted from  the  date  from
\n         which they have been deemed to have been
\n         appoint  ed in the Service in accordance
\n         with    the    General    Administration
\n         Department   Memo  No.2266\/1987-1(3)\/67,
\n         dated the 21st October, 1967).\n<\/p>\n
         Provided  further that the junior person
\n         shall  not  be considered for  selection
\n         grade  promotion  in preference  to  the
\n         person senior to him lonely on the basis
\n         of   his   completing   the   prescribed
\n         service.”).\n<\/p>\n
                      Schedule IV
\n                     (See Rule 14)<\/p>\n
Name  Name      of Minimum  Name        of Name      of
\nof    Service   of period   service     of members   of
\nDept  posts   from to       post  to which the
\n.     which        quality  promotion   is departmental
\n      promotion is for      to be made     promotion
\n      to be made   promoti                 Committee
\n                   on    to                vide Rule 14
\n                   be  next
\n                   higher
\n                   post
\n(1)            (2)    (3)          (4)          (5)<\/p>\n
Publ  M.P.P.W.      —      M.P.P.W.       1. Chairman,
\nic    Engineering           Engineering    P.S.C. or  a
\nWork  (Gazetted)            (Gazetted)Ser  member
\ns     Service               vice           nominated by
\nDept                                       him-Chairman
\n.\n<\/p>\n
      —           —                      2.   Special
\n                                           Secretary
\n                                           PWD
\n                                           members).\n<\/p>\n
            (-----    --                   3.\n      ------)                              Secretary,\n                                           Govt.   M.P.\n                                           Public Works\n                                           Department\n                                           Member.\n\n      Executive    5 years  Superintendin\n      Engineer,             g\n      Class I.              Engineering,\n                            Class I.\n\n<\/pre>\n
      Assistant    6 years  Executive      4.  Head  of
\n      Engineer,             Engineer,      Departments
\n      Class II              Class I.       concerned
\n                                           Member.\n<\/p>\n
      Junior       8 years  Asstt          5.Deputy\n      Engineers             Engineer,      Secretary to\n                            Class II       Govt.\n                                           M.P.P.W.\n                                           Department\n                                           (Establishme\n                                           nt).\n                                           Convenor.\n\n      Overseers    12       Asstt.\n                   years    Engineer.\n                            Class II.\n\n      Head         12       Asstt.\n      Draftsman\/   years    Engineer,\n      Draftsman             Class II.\n\n      Graduates    8 years  Assistant\n      Sub-                  Engineer\n      Engineers\n      and\n      Office           ---  Administrativ\n      Superintende          e     Officer,\n      nts in C.E'S          C.E'S  Office,\n      Office,               Class II.\n      Class III\n\n\n8)    The circular dated  9-9-1998  (Annexure P\/1) was\n\n<\/pre>\n
issued to supplement  the provisions of the Rules  for<\/p>\n
the  purpose  of  promotion to the post  of  Assistant<\/p>\n
Engineers in following manners.<\/p>\n
fo”k; %&  e0 iz0 bathfu;lZ dkaxzsl }kjk izLrqr ekax&i=
\nesa mfYyf[kr ekaxks
\n         ij  fopkj  &  ckny nkl lfefr ds  izfrosnu  dh
\nvuq’kalkFkZ A<\/p>\n
      e\/;izns’k bathfu;lZ dkaxzsl }kjk izLrqr ekax  ij
\nrFkk  ckny  nkl lfefr ds izfrosnu ij fopkj  dj  fu.kZ;
\nfy;k  x;k  gS  fd  dk;Z  foHkkxksa  esa  dk;Zjr  lgk;d
\n;af=;ksa ds in fuEukuqlkj Hkjs tkos  %&
\n1-   lh\/kh Hkjrh }kjk              25 izfr’kr
\n2-   fMIyksek\/kkjh mi;a=h ls
\n     inksUufr }kjk                 50 izfr’kr
\n3-   ,sls mi;a=h ftUgksaus lsok esa          20<\/span>
\nizfr’kr
\n     jgrs gq, fMxzh izkIr dh gS
\n     o ,sls mi;a=h ftUgksus lsok
\n     esa vkus ds iwoZ gh fMxzh lekIr
\n     dh Fkh] ls inksUufr }kjk<\/p>\n
4-   ekufp=dkj lanHkZ ls inksUufr   5 izfr’kr
\n       mijksDrkuqlkj  lsok@Hkjrh  fu;eksa  esa  vko’;d<\/p>\n
la’kks\/ku fd;k tk;s A<\/p>\n
                               e\/;izns’k ds jkT;iky ds
\nuke ls]
\n                                   rFkk vkns’kkuqlkj<\/p>\n
                                lgh@& gLrk{kj vLi”V
\n                                  ,,e0,e0 JhokLro+
\n                                   mi&lfpo
\n                            e0iz0 `kklu lkekU; iz’kklu
\nfoHkkx <\/p>\n
9)    The  then State of Madhya Pradesh vide  circular<\/p>\n
dated 7-10-1992 (Annexure P\/6) provided for option  to<\/p>\n
the  diploma holders for choosing either the gradation<\/p>\n
list  of graduate engineers or gradation list  of  the<\/p>\n
diploma holders, which reads as under:<\/p>\n
fo”k;         %&      yksd    fuekZ.k    foHkkx     ds
\nfMIyksek\/kkjh@xzstq;sV Lukrd  mi;af=;ksa            ds
\ninksUufr ckcr~ A
\n           mijksDr  fo”k;kUrxZr mi;a=h ,fMIyksek\/kkjh+
\n,oa tks mi;a=h fMIyksek\/kkjh jgrs gq, ckn esa os fMxzh
\nizkIr  dj yh gS rFkk tks mi;a=h fMxzh\/kkjh fu;qDr  gq,
\ngS  mUgsa mi;a=h ls lgk;d ;a=h ds in ij inksUufr  gsrq
\n10 izfr’kr dksVk j[kk gS A
\n          inksUufr ls iwoZ fjDr inksa ij mijksDr dksVs
\nds  vuqlkj  in fu\/kkZfjr dj ofj”Brk lwph vuqlkj  fopkj
\nfd;k tkrk gS A  vr% iz’kklfud vfHkdj.k ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj
\nmi;af=;ksa dh vyx ofj”Brk lwph mi;a=h fMIyksek\/kkjh 2-
\nmi;a=h  fMxzh\/kkjh ,xzstq;sV mi;a=h+ ds :i esa izdk’ku
\ndj  inksUufr  dh]  dk;Zokgh  dh  tkrh  gS  ,oa  mi;a=h
\nfMxzh\/kkjh ds chp mudh ofj”Brk de fMxzh izkIr gksus ds
\nfrfFk ls nh tkuh gS A  blds izfr] mi;a=h tks iwoZ  esa
\nfMIyksek\/kkjh Fks ,oa ckn esa fMxzh izkIr djrs gS]  dh
\nlgefr  izkIr djuh gksxh fd ;s fdl lwph esa jguk  pkgrs
\ngS   A   D;ksafd  fMxzh\/kkjh  mi;a=h  dh  ofj”Brk   dk
\nfu\/kkZj.k  fMxzh izkIr djus dh frfFk  ls  gksxk  u  fd
\nmi;af=;ksa  dh ikjLifjd ofj”Brk ls A  vr%  mi;a=h  tks
\niwoZ  es fMIyksek\/kkjh Fks ,oa ckn esa mUgksaus  fMxzh
\nizkIr  dh  gS  mlls  lgefr izkIr  djsa  fd  ;s  mi;a=h
\n,fMIyksek\/kkjh+ ;k mi;a=h fMxzh\/kkjh dh lwph esa  viuk
\nuke  pkgrs  gS  mUgsa Li”V crk;k tkos fd mudh  ofj”Brk
\nfMxzh\/kkjh  mi;af=;ksa ds lkFk  fMxzh  izkIr  djus  ds
\nfnukad ls ekU; gksxh A
\n            fMxzh\/kkjh  gsrq  ^^v**  lwph  cuk;s  rFkk
\nfMIyksek\/kkjh mi;af=;ksa gsrq ^^c** dh varfje lwph  15
\nfnol esa cuk;s rFkk ,d ekg dh le;kof\/k vkosnu@izfrosnu
\nizkIr  djus  gsrq nh tkdj bls vafre :i  fn;k  tkosa  A
\nrkfd  e\/; izns’k iz’kklfud vfHkdj.k ds fu.kZ; ds  ikyu
\ndh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA
\n          d`i;k fu\/kkZfjr le;kof\/k Ms<+ ekg dk fo'ks"k
\n\/;ku j[kk tkosaA<\/p>\n
                                           larks"k feJ
\nvoj lfpo<\/p>\n
                    e\/;izns'k `kklu
\n                                  yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10)   There  was a clear contemplation of  maintaining<\/p>\n
two  gradation  lists; one for the  Sub-Engineers  who<\/p>\n
have  obtained B.E. degree before joining the  service<\/p>\n
and  second  for  those  who  were  initially  diploma<\/p>\n
holders  and  obtained B.E. degree in  the  course  of<\/p>\n
service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11)   In the case of M.B. Joshi and others (supra) the<\/p>\n
provisions of  the Rules 1980 were under consideration<\/p>\n
for  determination of inter se seniority  between  the<\/p>\n
degree  holders who joined the service and the diploma<\/p>\n
holders  who  had acquired Engineering degree  in  the<\/p>\n
course of their services.\n<\/p>\n
12)   Schedule  IV  of  the Rules  1980  provides  for<\/p>\n
promotion  to  the higher post from the post  of  Sub-<\/p>\n
Engineers in Civil or Mechanical.  The minimum  period<\/p>\n
of  Sub-Engineers to qualify for promotion to the post<\/p>\n
of Assistant Engineer was 12 years for diploma holders<\/p>\n
and 8 years for such Sub-Engineers who obtained degree <\/p>\n
of graduation in the course of their services.<\/p>\n
13)   Hon’ble  the Supreme Court in the case  of  M.B.<\/p>\n
Joshi  and  others Vs. Satish Kumar Pandey and  others <\/p>\n
has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
          “16.  In  these circumstances mentioned
\n          above, we are clearly of the view  that
\n          the  Tribunal was wrong in  determining
\n          the   seniority  from  the    date   of
\n          acquiring degree of engineering and  it
\n          ought  to have been determined  on  the
\n          basis of length of service on the  post
\n          of    Sub-Engineer   and   the    State
\n          Government  was right in doing  so  and
\n          there  was  no infirmity in the  orders
\n          passed by the Government.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14)   Subsequent  circulars dated 7-10-1992  (Annexure<\/p>\n
P\/6)  and          9-9-1998 (Annexure P\/1) were not in<\/p>\n
existence   when  the  decision in the  case  of  M.B.<\/p>\n
Joshi   and  others  (supra)  was  passed,  even   the<\/p>\n
provisions of law is also not para materia as Schedule<\/p>\n
IV  of  Rules  1969 does not distinguish  between  the<\/p>\n
degree holders and diploma holders before joining  the<\/p>\n
post  of  Sub-Engineers. The circulars dated 7-10-1992<\/p>\n
(Annexure  P\/6)  was considered by the High  Court  of<\/p>\n
Madhya   Pradesh in the matter  of  Jayant Kumar  Jain<\/p>\n
Vs. State of M.P. and others. The High Court of Madhya<\/p>\n
Pradesh  held that D.P.C. will be convened only  after<\/p>\n
finalization  of the gradation list as  per  circulars<\/p>\n
dated  19.2.03 and 7.10.1992. The said circular  dated<\/p>\n
07.10.1992  and  provisions  of  the  Rules  1969  are<\/p>\n
applicable in the case of the present petitioners also<\/p>\n
as the same were issued prior to creation of the State<\/p>\n
of  Chhattisgarh i.e. 1-11-2000 and the same have been<\/p>\n
adapted  by  the  State of Chhattisgarh  subsequently.<\/p>\n
Subsequent  circulars issued by the  State  of  Madhya<\/p>\n
Pradesh  are  not  relevant for the purpose  of  these<\/p>\n
cases.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15)   The  Supreme  Court while considering  identical<\/p>\n
issue   in  the case of Chandravathi P.K.  and  others<\/p>\n
(supra)  has considered the Rule 4  of  Kerala  Public<\/p>\n
Health Engineering Service Rules and Rule 5 of  Kerala<\/p>\n
Engineering Service (General Branch) Rules.  The short<\/p>\n
question  which  arose  for consideration  before  the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court was asto whether in terms of the  scheme  <\/p>\n
of  the  Kerala  Engineering Service (General  Branch)<\/p>\n
Rules,  diploma-holders  are  entitled  to  claim  any<\/p>\n
weightage  in (sic for) the service rendered  by  them<\/p>\n
prior to their acquisition of degree qualification  in<\/p>\n
the  matter  of promotion or transfer to higher  posts<\/p>\n
when specific quota is fixed for graduates and diploma-<\/p>\n
holders in the matter of promotion.<\/p>\n
16)    Hon’ble  the  Supreme  Court  noticed   earlier<\/p>\n
decisions  including  decision in  M.B.  Joshi’s  case<\/p>\n
(supra)  in  the case of Chandravathi P.K. and  others<\/p>\n
(supra) and  observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
         “43.  The  State  as  an  employer   is
\n         entitled  to  fix  separate  quota   of
\n         promotion   for   the   degree-holders,
\n         diploma-holders    and     certificate-
\n         holders separately in exercise  of  its
\n         rule-making power under Article 309  of
\n         the  Constitution  of  India.   Such  a
\n         rule  is  not  unconstitutional.    The
\n         State   therefore,  in   our   opinion,
\n         cannot   be   said   to   have    acted
\n         arbitrarily  by  giving  an  option  to
\n         such  diploma-holders, who  acquired  a
\n         higher  qualification, so as to  enable
\n         them  to  either opt for  promotion  in
\n         the  category   of  degree  holder   or
\n         diploma holder.  Such option was to  be
\n         exercised   by  the  officer  concerned
\n         only.   He,  in a given situation,  may
\n         feel  that he would be promoted in  the
\n         diploma  holders’  quota  earlier  than
\n         degree-holders’ quota  and  vice  versa
\n         but once he opts to join the stream  of
\n         the  degree-holders, he would be placed
\n         at the bottom of the seniority list.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17)   The State Government has taken a policy decision<\/p>\n
to  have  separate gradation lists for degree  holders<\/p>\n
and diploma holders under the circular dated 7-10-1992<\/p>\n
(Annexure  P\/6)  in exercise of its rule-making  power<\/p>\n
under  Article  309  of  the  Constitution  of  India.<\/p>\n
Applying  well settled principles of law as laid  down<\/p>\n
by the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case,<\/p>\n
it is held that the circular dated 7-10-1992 (Annexure<\/p>\n
P\/6)  contemplates two gradation lists.  One  for  Sub<\/p>\n
Engineers degree holders  who had obtained B.E. degree <\/p>\n
prior  to  joining  the service  and  second  for  Sub<\/p>\n
Engineers   diploma  holders  who   had   diploma   in<\/p>\n
engineering  before joining the service  and  acquired<\/p>\n
B.E. degree in the course of their services.  The said<\/p>\n
circular is unambiguous and clear and capable of  only<\/p>\n
one meaning as above-stated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18)  Accordingly, the State Government is directed  to<\/p>\n
prepare  two  gradation  lists  and  to  consider  for<\/p>\n
promotions  in  the  category of  degree  holders  and<\/p>\n
diploma holders. The diploma holders, who opt for  the<\/p>\n
stream of degree holders, they would be placed at  the<\/p>\n
bottom of the seniority list. This Court, by the order<\/p>\n
dated  9.4.2007 in W.P. No. 5131 of 2005, has directed<\/p>\n
as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “In   the   meantime,  if   a   Departmental
\n     Promotion  Committee holds its  meeting  for
\n     consideration of Sub Engineers for promotion
\n     to  the  post  of  Assistant Engineers  with
\n     regard  to  the  subject  matter  of   these
\n     petitions,     the     recommendation     of
\n     Departmental Promotion Committee  and  order
\n     thereof   shall  be  subject   to   ultimate
\n     decision of these petitions”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19)   Accordingly, all the promotions made during<\/p>\n
pendency  of  these petitions on  ad  hoc  basis,<\/p>\n
shall   be  considered  after  drawing  a   fresh<\/p>\n
gradation  lists for promotions to  the  post  of<\/p>\n
Assistant Engineers.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20)   As a result and for foregoing reasons,  all<\/p>\n
the petitions are allowed.  No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
21)  A copy of this order be placed on record  in<\/p>\n
other connected writ petitions.<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health … on 18 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WP No 3277 of 2004 AND WP No 515 of 2005 AND WP No 5131 of 2005 AND WP No 246 of 2005 AND WP No 1053 of 2005 1 Prabhat […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health ... on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health ... on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-04T15:52:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health … on 18 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-04T15:52:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2642,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health ... on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-04T15:52:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health … on 18 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health ... on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health ... on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-04T15:52:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health … on 18 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-04T15:52:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007"},"wordCount":2642,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007","name":"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health ... on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-04T15:52:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-anil-phirke-vs-engineer-in-chief-public-health-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Anil Phirke vs Engineer In Chief Public Health … on 18 June, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}