IMPORTANT POINT
Prior qualifications obtained before service cannot disqualify candidates from promotion, ensuring equal opportunity in service.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

3. Petitioner, who is working as Storekeeper Grade-1 with the respondent establishment, is aggrieved by the order dated 27th April, 2017 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby his claim for promotion on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) has been rejected on the ground that in respect of the post falling in the category of Junior Engineer 5% posts meant for the purpose of promotion from amongst employees falling in the category of Draftsmen/Dresser/Clerks/Laboratory Assistant, who required diploma certificate in Engineering and who have completed five years of his regular service, whereas petitioner had already diploma certificate to his credit prior to entering into the service and secondly he would not come in the category of employees mentioned under the rules.

4. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold: Firstly, the controversy that a candidate should have acquired the requisite qualification whether during service period or had the requisite qualification prior to entering into the service is no more res integra in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Madhavendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2016 (2) ADJ 259 (DB) and secondly, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that post of Storekeeper falls within the category of Group-C employee and since the posts of Draftsmen/Dresser/ Clerks/Laboratory Assistant also fall in group ‘C’ category the post of Storekeeper shall also be taken to be in group ‘C’ category.

5. Earlier when the Court had heard this matter on 21st August, 2024 upon these very above arguments already advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner the Court had issued following direction:

“1. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the controversy regarding petitioner having diploma certificate prior to any Government service is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Misc. Bench No. 5874 of 2020). However, the respondents have refused to accord promotion to the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer only on the ground that the petitioner was not a Group C employee belonging to the clerical cadre. He submits that post of Storekeeper is Group C post and therefore falls in clerical cadre.

2. Another argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the basic requirement for promotion is that a candidate should fall in Group C category and should have a diploma certificate in Engineering and so the basic post is however of no relevance. According to him person falling in Group C category should be given promotion if he has diploma certificate.

3. Meeting the argument above, Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent has taken the Court to the relevant paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit in support of his argument that the petitioner was having a lesser pay scale as presentee Storekeeper whereas for the purpose of direct recruitment on the same post the pay scale is Rs.5200-20,000/-. Sri Mehrotra has sought to urge that the petitioner was not falling in the category of the post in the requisite pay scale to have received promotion.

4. In order to appreciate the argument of Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent, it is necessary to go through the pay scale of Draftsmen/Dresser/Clerks/Laboratory Assistant in the establishment.

5. Upon a pointed query Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to have instruction in the matter.

6. Let the affidavit be filed on behalf of the Corporation giving in the details of payscale of Dra