- (1.) These two appeals by Special Leave arise out of the judgment and order dated 10th April, 1992 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Bombay in O.A. No. 558 of 1989 filed by H. P. Vora, the first respondent in both the appeals. Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1993 is filed by Jacob Yahannan whereas Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 1993 is filed by the Administrator and the Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa.
(2.) The facts set out in Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 1993 are as under :- The Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli on 28th March, 1989 published a provisional gradation list of Deputy Engineers/Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil) as on Ist January, 1984 and invited objections, if any, to the said provisional gradation list. The first respondent filed representation against the said gradation list alleging that Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil) could not have been bracketed along with the Deputy Engineers since they did not belong to the cadre of Deputy Engineers. The Collector negatived the objections filed by the first respondent and on 22nd June, 1989 published a final gradation list of Deputy Engineers/Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil). Incidentally, it may be mentioned that in this gradation list, the first respondent is at serial No. 3 whereas Jacob Yahannan (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1989) and J. M. Lad have been placed at serial Nos. 6 and 7 respectively. J. M. Lad is the third respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1689 of 1993. Undisputedly, therefore, the first respondent is shown senior to Jacob Yahannan and J. M. Lad. Being aggrieved by the final gradation list, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 558 of 1989 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Bombay (for short 'CAT, Bombay') praying therein that the said gradation list be quashed and set aside being null and void and further not to consider or appoint Sh. Jacob Yahannan or J. M. Lad to the post of Executive Engineer and the said post be not filled in any manner even by making a direct recruitment. According to the first respondent, the cadre of Deputy Engineer is distinct and separate from that of Assistant Engineer and Assistant Surveyor of Works (Civil). The Collector while preparing the final common gradation list has committed a serious illegality in clubbing together the Deputy Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil) as equals and formed one cadre. The Assistant Engineers and Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil) should not have been included in the common gradation list of the Deputy Engineers. The Deputy Engineer's cadre is the feeding cadre to the cadre of Executive Engineer. He (first respondent) alone is entitled to be considered and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer to the exclusion of Jacob Yahannan, J. M. Lad and other similarly situated employees. The first respondent, therefore, prayed that the final gradation list be quashed and set aside and he alone be considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.
(3.) The appellant joined the issue and contended, inter alia, that the Sectional Officer cadre is the feeding cadre to the posts of Deputy Engineers, Assistant Engineers and the Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil). As and when the vacancies arose in the cadre of Deputy Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil), the selection was to be made according to the Rules from amongst the eligible Sectional Officers. In accordance with the exigencies of services, such selected Sectional Officers on promotion were appointed as Deputy Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Assistant Surveyors of Works (Civil). All these three posts carry identical pay scales and are also interchangeable. This practice was followed in the past and well understood by everyone concerned in the PWD Department of the Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. In the year 1984, such a common gradation list was prepared which was neither disputed nor challenged by anybody. Consistent with this practice, the impugned final gradation list was prepared by the Collector of Silvassa and, therefore, there is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the first respondent. It was pleaded that the past record in this behalf confirms the then prevailing practice. The first respondent was also appointed and worked as Assistant Surveyor of Works (Civil) in the past before he was given the charge as Deputy Engineer in the year 1982. Several other instances were cited to support the contention of interchangeability since all these three services form one cadre although nature of work differs.;