Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Ram Pratap Singh and Another - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 19126 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Recruitment Rules - Promotion Quota - [Recruitment Rules] - [Rule 6 of the recruitment and promotion rules provides power for direct recruitment even upon post falling in lateral entries, including post of Executive Engineer. Board of Governors adopted resolution to make direct recruitment upon such post, which is held to be valid. Petitioners are not eligible for the post of Executive Engineer as they are not working as Assistant Executive Engineer. Essential qualification prescribed under the advertisement and rules are the same. Petitioners cannot question the advertisement as they are not eligible even by way of promotion upon the posts in question. No relief can be granted to promote them first as Assistant Executive Engineer if lying vacant then to direct to consider their claim for the post of Executive Engineer. Board of Governors is justified in framing recruitment Rules 2018 as modified/amended in 2021. Since Rule 6 of rules provides for powers for direct recruitment even upon post falling in lateral entries, the resolution adopted by it to make a direct recruitment upon such post dated 23rd December, 2022 is also valid. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Senior Assistant Engineers at IIT Kanpur, sought to challenge an advertisement for 5 posts of Executive Engineer, claiming they deserved promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer and subsequently to Executive Engineer. They argued that the advertised post was meant for promotion and not direct recruitment, citing recruitment and promotion rules. The respondents contended that the Board of Governors had the power to adopt a resolution for direct recruitment, and the essential qualifications for the advertised post were the same as those in the rules. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the recruitment rules, the resolution for direct recruitment, and the eligibility of the petitioners for the advertised post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board of Governors was justified in framing the recruitment rules and adopting the resolution for direct recruitment. It held that the petitioners were not eligible for the post of Executive Engineer as they did not meet the essential qualifications. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners had no grounds to challenge the advertisement.
Issues: The court addressed the following issues: (a) the validity of the recruitment rules and the resolution for direct recruitment, (b) the eligibility of the petitioners for the advertised post, and (c) whether the advertised posts fell under the promotion quota.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Board of Governors had the power to frame recruitment rules and adopt a resolution for direct recruitment, as provided under the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. It also found that the petitioners were not eligible for the advertised post, as they did not meet the essential qualifications. The court emphasized that the petitioners had no grounds to challenge the advertisement, as they were not eligible for promotion to the advertised post.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the respondents and holding that the petitioners had no grounds to challenge the advertisement. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for respondents nos. 2,3 4.
2. The petitioner no. 1 who is presently working as Senior Assistant Engineer (Special Grade) in a pay band-2 with Grade Pay 5400/- at pay matrix level 9 and petitioner no. 2 who is working as Senior Assistant Engineer, pay band-2 with grade Pay-4800/- at pay matrix level-8 in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IIT, Kanpur) seek to challenge an advertisement issued by IIT Kanpur advertising 5 posts of Executive Engineer of which three posts are in unreserved category, vide advertisement no. 1 of 2023.
3. Both the petitioners claim that they deserved promotion at much earlier point of time to a higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer, pay band-3 with grade pay 5400/- at pay matrix level 10 as the feeding cadre for promotion was either Senior Assistant Engineer, pay band-2, with grade pay 4800/- at pay matrix level 8, or Senior Assistant Engineer (S.G.) in pay band-2 with grade pay 5400/- at pay matrix level-9. According to them, the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with grade pay 5400/- at pay matrix level-10 is not only post for direct recruitment at entry level of Group-A post, but is equally a promotional post from Group-B to Group A as per rules, and therefore, according to them they would have been entitled to be promoted as Executive Engineer, pay band 3 with grade pay 6600/- at pay matrix level-11, a Group-A post, which is subject to advertisement by direct recruitment. Their basic contention is that post of Executive Engineer advertised, is a promotional post and not a post meant for direct recruitment. It is submitted that as per recruitment and promotion rules that have come to be notified and reframed on 27th November, 2018 in suppression to 2013 Rules by the Board of Governors, the Apex Body of the institute with further modification in the year 2021.
4. According to learned Advocate Mr. Tripathi, appearing for the petitioners, the post in the field of engineering like from Junior Engineer upto Executive Engineer fall in the maintenance staff category of the Institute and are non faculty position. P-19 of the schedule appended to the rules provide for only two positions at entry level. In Group-A, it is the Assistant Executive Engineer which is an entry level post whereas in the Group-B category post of Junior Engineer provided at entry level and all other posts at higher level, therefrom should be filled up by promotion except otherwise provided under the Rules. He emphatically submits that as far as post of Executive Engineer in the category of Group-A with pay band 3 and 4 are concerned, these posts are only meant to be filled up by promotion whereas the post of Assistant Executive Engineer which is a group-A post can be filled up both by way of direct recruitment as well as promotion with 50 per cent quota each, vide P-40 of the schedule to the rules.
5. Mr. Tripathi also submits that in view of P-33 of the schedule, post of Assistant Engineer pay band-2 is also to be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment with 50 percent quota each. He further submits that even earlier also the IIT Kanpur had committed this error of advertising the post of Executive Engineer under the advertisement issued on 16th September, 2023 being advertisement no. 1 of 2023, but upon correct facts being brought to the notice, the said post was withdrawn from the advertisement vide Corrigendum issued on 20.09.2023 by recruitment section, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 16 to the writ petition.
6. Mr. Tripathi in support of his argument has also relied upon the recruitment and promotion policy issued by the Indian Institute of Technology Ropad, dated 20th November, 2016 in which post of Executive Engineer in the engineering cadre is shown to be 50 per cent by promotion. He asserts that similarly Administrat
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Board of Governors had the authority to frame recruitment rules and adopt a resolution for direct recruitment, as provided under the Insti....
The Board of Governors of IIT Kanpur has the authority to establish recruitment rules and qualifications, and courts should not interfere in policy matters unless there is a clear legal error.
The court established that promotion rights under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules must be honored, and direct recruitment cannot bypass eligible candidates for promotion.
The court established that promotion and direct recruitment must be treated separately under the applicable rules, ensuring eligible candidates are considered for promotion before any direct recruitm....
The right for promotion has to be considered only in the light of the existing rules in force on the date of consideration to the next level of promotion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotion rules did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the different cadres were not treated as equals, having....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
