SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 2209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, IFAQAT ALI KHAN, JJ.
Brijesh Kumar Bhadauriya - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Writ-A No. 4168 of 2014
Decided On : 24-05-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.R. Khan, Jai Krishna Tiwari, Siddharth Srivastava
For the Respondent: C.S.C., A.K.Saxena, Q.H. Siddiqui

Headnote:

Petition been filed by sole petitioner, praying for issue of writ of certiorari quashing recommendations of Selection Committee not recommending petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, and order issued by Chief Engineer promoting for the post of Junior Engineer – Held, In absence of persons who are likely to be affected adversely in case relief prayed for is granted, no relief can be granted since granting of such relief would be violative of principle of natural justice qua the persons who would be affected but not impleaded. Their impleadment is must since they are necessary party – Inter-se seniority though is not a fundamental right but a civil right and, therefore, requires determination in presence of all respective parties whose seniority is disputed – Writ petition dismissed.

Facts of the case:

Petition been filed by sole petitioner, praying for issue of writ of certiorari quashing recommendations of Selection Committee not recommending petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, and order issued by Chief Engineer promoting for the post of Junior Engineer.

Findings of the court:

In absence of persons who are likely to be affected adversely in case relief prayed for is granted, no relief can be granted since granting of such relief would be violative of principle of natural justice qua the persons who would be affected but not impleaded. Their impleadment is must since they are necessary party – Inter-se seniority though is not a fundamental right but a civil right and, therefore, requires determination in presence of all respective parties whose seniority is disputed.

Result : Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR AGARWAL, IFAQAT ALI KHAN, JJ.

1. Heard Sri J.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Abhijit Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Saxena, Advocate for respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by sole petitioner, Brijesh Kumar Bhadauriya, praying for issue of writ of certiorari quashing recommendations of Selection Committee dated 11.02.2013, not recommending petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, and order dated 24.09.2013 issued by Chief Engineer (E-2-1) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'CEUPJN'), promoting Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Rakesh Upman, Arvind Kumar Tripathi and Mahesh Kumar as Assistant Engineer (Civil) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).

3. Subsequently, by way of amendment, four prayers have been added. Petitioner has further prayed for issue of a writ of Certiorari for quashing communications dated 08.07.2008 and 31.12.2013 issued by University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC'); order dated 23.01.2014 issued by CEUPJN; Enquiry report dated 28.02.2014; recommendation dated 14.03.2014 issued by CEUPJN and approval order dated 14.03.2014 granted by respondent-1. Petitioner has also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to treat B.E. (Civil) Degree conferred and awarded by Naini Extension Centre of Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "BIT, Ranchi") of the year 2003, as valid and recognized degree for all purposes and consider claim of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. He has prayed that said degree be treated valid for promotion against vacancies of Assistant Engineers reserved to the extent of 8.33% for Junior Engineer who have obtained Engineering degree. Further petitioner has also sought exemplary damages from respondents.

4. Facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are as under.

5. U.P. Jal Nigam (hereinafter referred to as 'UPJN') is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1975'). Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in March 1981 in UPJN. He was permitted to undergo B.Tech course at Birla Institute of Technology, Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "BIT") by Chief Engineer (Karmik) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "CEKUPJN"). Permission was granted to undergo Engineering course in evening classes run by the aforesaid Institute. At the time of appointment as Junior Engineer, petitioner's qualification was Diploma in Civil Engineering. He qualified Bachelor of Technology Degree in Civil Engineering from BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) after undergoing education at its Extension Centre at Naini, Allahabad.

6. Appointment and conditions of service of engineers of UPJN are governed by U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations 1978"). Therein sources of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer are direct and promotion of Junior Engineers. Earlier 33.33% quota was prescribed for promotion. Besides, 8.33% quota was prescribed for such Junior Engineers who have obtained qualification of AMIE or BE Degree during course of service. 33.33% quota was enhanced to 40% by Government Order dated 23.11.1998 but for those Junior Engineers who acquired qualification of AMIE/BE Degree, quota remained 8.33%.

7. Certain Junior Engineers, junior to petitioner, were already promoted as Assistant Engineer under 8.33% quota since they acquired qualification of AMIE/BE Degree. They were also confirmed vide order dated 11.02.2006 issued by CEUPJN. A meeting was held for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers for Recruitment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 13 Junior Engineers were recommended for promotion. Name of petitioner was not included therein and he was ignored. CEUPJN, by order dated 24.09.2013, promoted f

































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top