2014 Supreme(SC) 703

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9091-9092 OF 2014, [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.32125-32126 of 2012] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9093 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.39002 of 2012]
Decided on: 23-09-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
There was no infirmity in the Vikas Parishad going in for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on a regular basis.
Relaxation in length of service for promotion being authorised under Regulation, there is no infirmity.
Allegation of mala fide has to be substantiated.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Promotion – Sole post of Chief Engineer – Court holding relevant provisions in the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 providing for reservation in matters of promotion to be ultra vires – Legal impediment in regular promotion to the sole post of Chief Engineer of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad thus removed – Parishad may take steps for regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. (Para 8)

       (2012) 7 SCC 1; (2006) 8 SCC 212 – Relied upon

       (b) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Chief Engineer) Regulations, 1990 – Regulation 20 r/w Rule 4, U.P. Eligibility List Rules 1986 and rule 4, U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 – Amendment of Rules or relaxation in eligibility criteria after selection process began not permissible – Instantly, sufficient number of candidates not coming under eligibility zone for promotion to Chief Engineer – Parishad relaxing experience criteria by 1 ½ years under Regulation 20 – It is not amendment of rules – Earlier selection process initiated for promotion on officiating basis – Process for selection on regular basis started only after relaxation – Not a mid-process action – No infirmity. (Para 20)

       (1990) 2 SCC 189; (1997) 10 SCC 298; (1998) 4 SCC 179; (2012) 9 SCC 545 – Relied upon

       (1983) 3 SCC 284; (1998) 9 SCC 223; (2010) 7 SCC 560; (2011) 3 SCC 436 – Distinguished

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Mala fide – Allegation of relaxation of eligibility criteria with mala fide intention of benefiting one particular candidate – Relaxation benefiting three candidates senior to petitioner – Nothing on record showing any political or other influence – Relaxation in interest of Parishad to select most meritorious person – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 23)

       1992 Supp.(1) SCC 222; (2008) 2 SCC 119; (2010) 4 SCC 192 – Relied upon

       (2006) 6 SCC 430 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants as well as the private contesting respondents are aspirants for the single post of Chief Engineer in the Parishad which fell vacant in January 2011. Thereafter, although Narsingh Prasad was junior to many others, he was handed over officiating charge of the post of Chief Engineer on 30.9.2011.

       Anil Kumar Jain moved the High Court and a Division Bench quashed the order dated 30.9.2011 and directed for regular promotion. Narsingh Prasad preferred Civil Appeal which was allowed to a limited extent on March 27, 2012.

       Supreme Court directed that the Selection Committee be constituted by the Board which shall consider the suitability of all the eligible candidates for holding the additional charge of the post of the Chief Engineer. The Parishad was allowed to choose someone to hold the officiating charge qua the post of Chief Engineer but it was made clear that such decision in favour of any candidate would not enure to his benefit at the time of consideration for regular appointment.

       Appellant Rajendra Kumar Agrawal approached the High Court claiming the officiating charge of Chief Engineer as the senior most eligible person and a direction against continuation of Housing Commissioner on the said post in officiating capacity.

       The letter dated 24.8.2012 as well as decision of the Parishad dated 23.8.2012 were challenged by Narsingh Prasad through Writ Petition. He contended that the decision to make regular promotion was in violation of the orders of this Court particularly order dated 27.3.2012, it also amounted to retrospective amendment of eligibility criteria when the selection process was already under way and that such decisions were only with a view to benefit Rajendra Kumar Agrawal for political reasons. Another writ petition filed by Anil Kumar Jain bearing was also directed against the same very decisions as challenged by Narsingh Prasad. By the common impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and allowed those filed by Narsingh Prasad and Anil Kumar Jain. Since Anil Kumar Jain had not impleaded Rajendra Kumar Agrawal in his writ petition, therefore, the latter preferred only two Special Leave Petitions – one against dismissal of his writ petition and the other against relief granted to Narsingh Prasad. However, subsequently Anil Kr. Jain has been impleaded in these appeals on his own request and hence the entire common judgment is under question in presence of all the parties.

       Finding of the Court;

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeals allowed.