JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned State Counsel representing the State-respondents.

2. The appellants-petitioners have filed this intra-court Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2022, passed by learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions, the leading Writ Petition being Writ-A No.24026 of 2018;Sushil Kumar and others Versus State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed by learned Single Judge providing therein that the dismissal of the petitions shall not preclude the petitioners from participating in any subsequent recruitment for Group 'C' post against the promotion quota provided they fulfill the essential requirement as mandated under Rule 7 of the Promotion Rules, 2014.

3. The appellants-petitioners are working on various class-IV posts in the department of Medical and Health in the office of the opposite party no.3. The appellants-petitioners, in pursuance of the decision of the Government to fill up class-III posts of Junior Assistants by way of promotion from Class-IV employees, applied for promotion by way of selection. The eligibility list dated 17.07.2018 was prepared, in which the names of the appellants-petitioners figured alongwith other candidates in a composite list of 1325 candidates. By means of a letter dated 17.07.2018, the respondents had fixed the date for typing test between 24.07.2018 and 27.07.2018. It was also provided in the said letter that in case due to some unavoidable reason a candidate could not appear on the dates fixed, he may appear on 28.07.2018. In pursuance thereto the appellants-petitioners appeared in the typing test, result of which was declared on 10.08.2018. The appellants-petitioners were not selected. Therefore the appellants-petitioners approached this court by means of Writ Petition No.24026 (SS) of 2018.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners submitted that in terms of relevant Service Rules, namely, "The Uttar Pradesh Government Department Ministerial Cadre Service Rules, 2014" (here-in-after referred to as the Rules 2014) read with "The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001" (here-in-after referred to as the Rules 2001), the appellants-petitioners have been subjected to typing test, but there is no such requirement under the aforesaid Rules, except for the posts of typist or the posts for which typing is essential. However, learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellants-petitioners by placing reliance on Rules 2014 read with Rules 2001, which could not have been done.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners vehemently argued that the reliance placed by learned Single Judge on Rules 2014 is highly misplaced because as per Rules 2014, only certain provisions of Rules 2001 are to be followed for making promotion by way of selection. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that Rules 2014 only contemplates the knowledge of typing skill for the posts for which the typing is required, hence the respondents could not have held the typing test for all the posts. Submission is that without considering it the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, therefore the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners. He submitted that though typing was not an essential qualification under the Rules 2001, but it has been made the essential qualification under Rule 7 of the Rules 2014 for promotion and Rules 2001 are applicable only for the procedural purposes i.e. as to how the selection is to be made