Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 13845 of 2025
Decided On : 09-12-2025
For the Appellants : Abhineet Jaiswal, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra
For the Respondents: Aniruddha Singh, Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Promotion to a public post requires strict adherence to prescribed essential academic qualifications. Courts cannot interpret qualifications as equivalent unless the governing service rules explicitly provide for such equivalency, as doing so would improperly substitute the Court's view for that of the rule-making authority.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Essential academic qualifications - Promotion to the post of Chief Town and Country Planner - Requirement of degree or post-graduate diploma in Town and Country Planning as prescribed in the governing service rules - Whether equivalence via external certificates can be read into the rules where none is specified - Held, no - When service rules do not provide for equivalence, it is not permissible for the Court to read the same into the rules, as doing so would amount to legislation and infringe upon the authority of the rule-making body. (Paras 17, 20, 21)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope and limitation - Courts cannot prescribe qualifications or declare the equivalency of a course unless the rules explicitly provide for such equivalence - It is not the function of the Court to substitute its view for that of expert bodies or to supplement the rules with conditions specifically omitted by the rule-making authority. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order granting an officiating charge for a senior planning post to another candidate, asserting a legitimate claim based on seniority and claiming that their professional membership and external certificate were equivalent to the prescribed academic qualifications. The governing service rules required a specific degree or post-graduate diploma, which the petitioner did not possess.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the service rules provided for equivalence in certain lower-level posts, no such provision existed for the higher-level technical post in question. The court concluded that it cannot fill a gap or create an equivalence that the rule-making authority did not intend, especially when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous.
Issues: Whether the petitioner met the essential academic requirements for the promotional post and whether the court has the authority to recognize extrinsic qualifications as equivalent to mandatory statutory qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the service rules specify essential academic qualifications without providing for equivalence, such requirements must be strictly construed. The court cannot extend the scope of eligibility through judicial interpretation, as the determination of equivalence for specialized technical roles remains solely within the discretion of expert bodies and the rule-making authority.
Result: Petition dismissed regarding the claim for officiating charge; partly allowed to the extent of directing the authorities to conduct a committee meeting for substantive recruitment within six months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case introduction, context of dispute and relief sought. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding academic equivalence and eligibility for promotion. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. strict interpretation of essential academic qualifications in service rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. judicial refusal to supply or interpret equivalence not provided within statutory rules. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. dismissal of promotion prayer with mandatory directions for departmental promotion committee. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhineet Jaiswal, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sudeep Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3, while power on behalf of opposite party No.4 has been filed by Mr. Apoorva Tewari & Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Advocates which is taken on record.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 04.11.2025 whereby officiating charge for the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP) has been provided to opposite party No.4. Further prayers for a direction to opposite parties to consider petitioner for officiating on the post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP) strictly on the basis of merit as also on basis of seniority and to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) have been sought.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid post is governed by The Uttar Pradesh Town and Country Planning Service Rules, 1987 [here-in-after referred to as 'Rules, 1987']. He has drawn attention to Rule-5 of the aforesaid Rules pertaining to recruitment and source of recruitment. It is submitted that the aforesaid post of Chief Town and Country Planner (CTCP) is required to be filled by promotion from amongst Senior Planners who have put in atleast 5 years of service as such. It is submitted that at present, there is no substantive appointment on the post of Senior Planner and therefore recruitment on the said post is required to be made from the post of Town Planner/Associate Planner, Senior Architect, Architect Planer or Executive Engineer. It is submitted that petitioner is currently substantively employed on the post of Executive Engineer whereas opposite party No.4 is currently employed on the post of Architect Planner on substantive basis. He has also drawn attention to Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid Rules indicating academic qualifications and experience. It is submitted that for the post of Senior Planner, a Degree or Post-graduate Diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognized Institution alongwith Corporate Membership of atleast one of the institutions indicated therein is a part of essential qualification required.
4. It is submitted that petitioner though not having a degree or post- graduate diploma in Town and Country Planning nonetheless has completed the Associateship Examination conducted by the Town Planning Examination Board of the Institute of Town Planners, India. He has adverted to the Certificate of Associateship Examination issued by the aforesaid institution as Annexure - 12 to the writ petition. He has also adverted to the Certificate issued by the Institute of Town Planners, India to indicate that petitioner has Associate Membership of the aforesaid Institute. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to a document appended as Annexure - 5 to the writ petition which is a counter-affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 64 (SB) of 2009 to submit that the degree of Associateship Examination and Associate Membership of the Institute of Town Planners, India has been indicated as equivalent to Master's Degree in Planning as per letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
5. He has also adverted to the aforesaid letter dated 06.11.2008 issued by the All In
