Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant judgement regarding the seniority dispute among Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). The case revolved around the validity of a gradation list published in 2021, which determined the seniority of engineers promoted through different channels, including those appointed to supernumerary posts due to career stagnation. The court has set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the 2021 gradation list and the KMC Board of Administrators’ resolution dated June 29, 2021.

The legal dispute involved three appeals contesting the order dated March 12, 2024, in WPO No. 1248 of 2022. The appeals were filed by multiple parties, including individuals promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) through regular promotions and direct recruitment, as well as those placed in supernumerary posts in 2012.

The primary contention of the writ petitioners, who were placed in supernumerary posts, was that they acquired their engineering degrees prior to many regular promotes and direct recruits. They argued that their earlier qualifications should have granted them seniority over those who were later inducted into the cadre through regular promotions. They challenged the final gradation list published on July 5, 2021, which ranked them below several individuals who were promoted between 2018 and 2020.

The regular promotes and direct recruits opposed the writ petitioners’ claims, asserting that the supernumerary posts were created to address stagnation and did not equate to regular promotions under the existing recruitment rules. They contended that seniority should be determined based on established recruitment regulations, which prioritize the date of absorption into the regular cadre rather than the date of placement in supernumerary posts.

KMC, as a respondent, submitted that the supernumerary appointments were meant to temporarily address career stagnation among diploma and degree-holding Sub-Assistant Engineers (SAEs) but did not alter the existing recruitment regulations. The corporation maintained that the writ petitioners were not part of the regular cadre of Assistant Engineers until their formal absorption in 2020–2021, making their claim to seniority over regularly promoted engineers untenable.

The court also considered the historical context of the appointments. The supernumerary positions were introduced via a circular dated July 3, 2012, following recommendations to mitigate stagnation. Under this circular, diploma holders with 25 years of service and degree holders with 13 years of service (including at least five years post-degree) were eligible for appointment to supernumerary positions. The corporation stated that these positions were meant to grant financial benefits and recognition but did not provide direct entry into the regular cadre.

The 2015 gradation list categorized engineers based on their respective recruitment channels—direct recruits, regular promotes, and those in supernumerary posts. At that stage, no legal challenges were raised against this classification. When the 2021 gradation list was published, integrating all categories into a single framework, the writ petitioners sought to challenge the ranking system, claiming that their time in the supernumerary position should count towards their overall seniority.

The court examined the recruitment regulations governing promotions within KMC and the status of supernumerary posts. It noted that the recruitment rules required Sub-Assistant Engineers to be promoted to Assistant Engineer positions only upon fulfilling certain eligibility criteria, including a minimum period of service. The court referred to prior Supreme Court judgments that stated the distinction between regular promotions and appointments to supernumerary posts, stating:

"The supernumerary posts were personal to the eligible engineers and were subject to adjustment as and when vacancies arose in the sanctioned cadre of Assistant Engineers."

The court also observed that the original circular dated July 3, 2012, which facilitated the creation of supernumerary posts, explicitly stated that these positions would be adjusted against permanent vacancies in a regular manner. Consequently, the writ petitioners could not claim seniority over those who were promoted through the standard recruitment process. The judgment cited relevant case law, including Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Vinod Giri Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand, which reaffirmed the principle that seniority is determined by entry into the regular cadre, not by ad hoc or temporary appointments.

Addressing the petitioners’ contention regarding their earlier qualification, the court noted:

"Mere possession of an earlier qualification does not override the established seniority principles when recruitment and promotion are governed by statutory regulations."

Furthermore, the court stated that the 2015 gradation list, which was never challenged, had already determined the relative seniority among the engineers, noting that subsequent claims challenging this arrangement lacked legal merit.

The court also considered the principle laid down in Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan, which held that an officer’s seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of an ad hoc appointment, nor can an appointment made outside the recruitment regulations override subsequent legally valid promotions. The court concluded that supernumerary appointees remained bound by the same recruitment regulations as other candidates and were required to compete for promotion on an equal footing when permanent vacancies arose.

The court adjudicated in favor of maintaining the 2021 gradation list and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The final ruling stated:

"We find no fault with the impugned gradation list published on July 5, 2021, or the resolution adopted by the Board of Administrators of KMC at its meeting dated June 29, 2021. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order are hereby set aside."

The appeals filed in APOT No. 183 of 2024, APOT No. 218 of 2024, and APO No. 59 of 2024 were accordingly disposed of without costs.

Case Title: Ashoke Kumar Roy & Others v. Prasenjit Roy & Others;

                 Badal Roy & Another v. Prasenjit Roy & Others;

                 Prasenjit Roy & Others v. Ashoke Kumar Roy & Others.

Case Number: APOT No. 183 of 2024, APOT No. 218 of 2024, APO No. 59 of 2024.

Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.

[Read/Download order]