1. Promotion to Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II — Dispute over exclusion from eligibility lists for failure to meet minimum qualifying service — Claim for relaxation under statutory rules. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 702
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. - APPELLANT
VERSUS
VIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ORS. - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6868 OF 2021
Decided On : 22-11-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Age relaxation may be at discretion of competent authority – Relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right.
Age relaxation may be at discretion of competent authority – Relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right.
Subject
Employment - Promotion
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
SERVICE OF ENGINEERS IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GROUP A SERVICE RULES: R.5(iii)
UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT SERVANTS RELAXATION IN QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PROMOTION RULES: R.4
SERVICE OF ENGINEERS IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GROUP A SERVICE RULES: R.5(iii)
UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT SERVANTS RELAXATION IN QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PROMOTION RULES: R.4
Headnote
Service Law – Promotion – Age relaxation – Relaxation may be at discretion of competent authority – Relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right – If a conscious decision is taken not to grant relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service – Original writ petitioners did not fulfill eligibility criteria as they did not have qualifying service of having completed 25 years of service for promotion to post of Chief Engineer (Civil) – High Court has committed grave error in issuing writ of mandamus commanding competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service – Impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench passed in Special Appeal and judgment and order passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition quashed and set aside. [U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 – Rule 4] (Paras 7, 7.1 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special Appeal (Defective Complaint No.187 of 2020) filed by the appellants herein- State of U.P. and Others confirming the judgment and order passed by Single Judge quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 of the Superintending Engineers (Civil) for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II from department and further issuing a writ of mandamus, commanding appellants – competent authority to prepare the eligibility list of Superintending Engineer (Civil) including the names of the respondents – original writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level – II by granting them relaxation in minimum length of service in accordance with the U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006, State of U.P. and others have preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Names of original writ petitioners were excluded from the eligibility list of Superintending Engineer for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on the ground that they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per Rule 5(iii) of Rules, 1990. Therefore, as such, the High Court ought not to have set aside the said eligibility lists, which as such were prepared absolutely in accordance with the Rules, 1990.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sakha Ram Singh Yadav, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Anurag Tiwar, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rana Mukherjee, Abhijit Banerjee, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Sakha Ram Singh Yadav, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Anurag Tiwar, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rana Mukherjee, Abhijit Banerjee, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether relaxation in minimum qualifying service is a matter of right or discretionary — Maintainability of writ of mandamus to compel grant of discretionary relaxation. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Eligibility lists were prepared according to statutory rules — Relaxation under the relevant rules is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (Para 7 )
4. Appeal allowed — High Court judgments quashed — Original writ petition dismissed. (Para 8 )
5. Is a candidate entitled to be included in a promotion eligibility list if they do not meet the mandatory qualifying service?
No. If the statutory rules prescribe a minimum length of service for eligibility, the authority is correct in excluding candidates who do not meet that criteria, unless the authority chooses to exercise its discretionary power to grant relaxation. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special Appeal (Defective Complaint No.187 of 2020) filed by the appellants herein-State of U.P. and Others confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 of the Superintending Engineers (Civil) for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II from the department and further issuing a writ of mandamus, commanding the appellants - competent authority to prepare the eligibility list of the Superintending Engineer (Civil) including the names of the respondents - original writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level - II by granting them relaxation in minimum length of service in accordance with the U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006, the State of U.P. and others have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 The respondents - original writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the “original writ petitioners”) are discharging their duties as Superintending Engineers in different places. They claim promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II. The recruitment to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level - II is governed by the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1990”). As per Rule 5(iii) of the said Rules, promotion to the post of Chief Engineer shall be from amongst the substantively appointed Superintending Engineers in the Civil or Mechanical Branch, as the case may be, who have completed twenty five (25) years of service (including at-least three years’ service as Superintending Engineer) on the first day of the year of recruitment. As per the Office Circular dated 22.03.1984 issued by the State Government laying out the guidelines for selection/promotion to the posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission, the criteria for promotion shall be merit. The State Government have also framed the U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Relaxation Rules, 2006”), which prescribe that in case the required number of eligible persons are not available in the field of eligibility, the prescribed minimum length of service may be relaxed upto 50% by the Government in the Administrative Department in consultation with the Personnel Department excluding the period of probation.
2.2 The appointing authority determined 26 vacancies of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level -II for the Recruitment Year 2018-2019. The eligibility list was to be prepared in terms of Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1986”) containing the names of the senior most candidates, as far as possible, three times the number of vacancies. Since there were 26 vacancies of Chief Engineer determined as per Rules, 1986, totaling 78 Superintending Engineers (Civil) were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer.
2.3 On 23.07.2018, an eligibility list of Recruitment Year 2018-2019 of 74 Superintending Engineer (Civil) was prepared. The names of the original writ petitioners found place at Sl. Nos. 60, 63, 64, 67, 72 and 74.
However, as they had not completed 25 years of service, which was the requirement as per the Rules, 1990, their cases were not considered for promotion. Again on 07.03.2019, a revised eligibility list for the Recruitment Year 2018-2019 of 59 Superintending Engineers (Civil) was prepared and the names of the original w
