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

2023 Supreme(All) 675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Kishan Kumar and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 1305, 1514, 3814 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sameer Kalia, Srideep Chatterjee.
For the Respondents: Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, Ratnesh Chandra, Tushar Verma.

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department “Group-B” Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 - Rule 5(2) - Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Sangdak Sewa Niyamawali, 1968 - Rules 5 and 19 - Uttar Pradesh Sarvajanik Nirmaan Vibhaag Rekhankan Adhisthaan Sewa Niyamawali, 1984 - Rule 5, 8 - Promotion on post – Seniority list - Petitioners challenged order issued by State Government, by means of which eligibility list including names of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) along with direct recruitee of Junior Engineer have been forwarded to U.P. Public Service Commission for making promotion on post – Held, Petitioners were directly appointed to post of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer, whereas private opposite parties were promoted to said post under Rules, 1968 - There is a common seniority list, which remains unchallenged - Court cannot lay down a new qualification for promotion, which is not prescribed under statute/relevant service rules - This Court in Writ-A filed by direct appointees of Junior Engineer (Technical), had given direction for forwarding names of eighteen eligible candidates from final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer to Public Service Commission for promotion to post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) - In compliance of said direction, names of opposite parties, who are eligible for promotion, have been included in impugned requisition sent to Public Service Commission for promotion – Court do not find that said requisition suffers from any illegality or is against statutory prescription - Writ-A dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. The core controversy involved in the present batch of writ petitions is promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. Public Works Department under 50% quota as provided under the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department “Group-B” Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 (for short ‘Rules, 2004’).

2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are Junior Engineers (Technical). The cadre of Junior Engineer (Technical) is consisting of two sets of Junior Engineers (i) Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computers having been appointed under the Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Sangdak Sewa Niyamawali, 1968 (for short ‘Rules, 1968’) in the U.P. Public Works Department, who were directly recruited as Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computers through U.P. Public Service Commission; and (ii) who were initially appointed as Draftsman having two years Engineering Diploma in any trade (Civil/Mechanical/Draftsman) from Industrial Training Institute (ITI) or any other qualification as prescribed under the Rules, 1968 and, as per the provisions contained in Part-VI (Rule 19) of the Rules, 1968, who got promoted as Junior Engineer (Technical) under 20% quota prescribed for them having rendered ten years substantive service as Draftsman and, subject to passing of the departmental examination (condition of passing of departmental examination was relaxed in the year 1975) pursuant to the recommendations of the U.P. Public Service Commission.

3. Rules, 1968 were amended in the year 1992, whereby the promotion quota was increased from 20% to 50%. Part-VI (Rule 19) of the Rules, 1968 provides the eligibility and procedure for promotion of the Draftsman to the post of Junior Engineer (Technical). Appointment on the post of Draftsman is made under the Uttar Pradesh Sarvajanik Nirmaan Vibhaag Rekhankan Adhisthaan Sewa Niyamawali, 1984 (for short ‘Rules, 1984’). Rule 5 of the said Rules prescribes the source of recruitment and Rule 8 prescribes qualification for appointment on the post of Draftsman. The qualification as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1984 is High School examination from the U.P. Board or any other examination recognized by the Government equivalent thereto and any other qualification as prescribed under Appendix-C of the said Rules. Appendix-C of the said Rules, 1984 would read as under:

    “See Rule 8(2)

Certificates required for the post of Draftsman

(1) The Certificate of Draftsman from

(i)(a) Thompson College of Engineering, Roorkee or Roorkee University or Uttar Pradesh or any other institution recognized in Uttar Pradesh or any other State.

(ii) Diploma in Architectural Design and Draftsman from Cultural Work and Scientific Research Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

(iii) Diploma in Architectural Assistant from Uttar Pradesh Technical Education Board or similar Diploma from any other State.

(iv) Diploma in Civil Engineering or Draftsman from a University established by.

(v) Diploma in Draftsman (Civil) or Mechanical from ITI established by Training and Employment Directorate, Uttar Pradesh or similar Diploma from any other State from a recognized institution.”

4. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.5.2022 issued by the State Government, by means of which the eligibility list including the names of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) along with direct recruitee of Junior Engineer have been forwarded to the U.P. Public Service Commission for making promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer.

5. Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by S/Sri Sameer Kalia, Srideep Chatterjee, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in Writ-A Nos.3814 of 2022 and 1514 of 2022 has submitted that though the petitioners were appointed as Computer, but in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 16.6.1973 issued by the State Government, the Computers holding Diploma in Engineering were designated as Junior Engineer (Computers) as nomenclature of their post was changed to Junior

    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