CHANDAN BANERJEE & ORS. versus KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH & ORS.

CHANDAN BANERJEE & ORS. versus KRISHNA PROSAD GHOSH & ORS.

The impugned circular dated 3 July 2012 and the subsequent gradation list were valid: classification based on educational qualification for promotion to supernumerary AE posts was a reasonable measure that bore a rational nexus to the stated objectives (removal of stagnation and administrative efficiency), was consistent with past promotion practices and Recruitment Regulations, did not arbitrarily or completely foreclose promotional avenues for diploma-holder SAEs, and therefore did not violate Articles 14 and 16; appeal dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Chandan Banerjee & Ors.; Respondent: Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Calcutta (judgment Delivered by Supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Supernumerary Posts, Classification, Educational Qualification, Article 14, Article 16
Service Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Promotion Supernumerary Posts Classification Educational Qualification Article 14 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandan Banerjee & Ors.

Appellant

Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Calcutta (judgment Delivered by Supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether classification based on educational qualification for promotion to supernumerary Assistant Engineer posts violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether persons drawn from a common recruitment process and integrated into a cadre can be differentiated on the basis of educational qualification for promotion to supernumerary posts
  3. 3 Whether the impugned circular and gradation list were arbitrary or lacked nexus to the object of administrative efficiency and removal of stagnation

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned circular dated 3 July 2012 and the subsequent gradation list were valid: classification based on educational qualification for promotion to supernumerary AE posts was a reasonable measure that bore a rational nexus to the stated objectives (removal of stagnation and administrative efficiency), was consistent with past promotion practices and Recruitment Regulations, did not arbitrarily or completely foreclose promotional avenues for diploma-holder SAEs, and therefore did not violate Articles 14 and 16; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 25.01.2019 upheld
  • Impugned circular dated 3 July 2012 upheld