##PAGE1##

.

Reserved On : - August 20, 2026 Delivered On : - October 28, 2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 20 of 2026 Ashok Kumar …..Appellant(s)

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planing Lko. And 3 Others …..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhineet Jaiswal, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., , Aditya Kumar Tiwari, Akriti Agarwal, Anoop Kumar, Apoorva Tewari, Sangini Jha, Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Vijai Kumar Shukla Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.: Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Abhineet Jaiswal and Shri Saurabh Pandey, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Sudip Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Anand Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for and on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3-State Authorities as well as Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Apoorva Tewari, Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla and Ms.

Akriti Agarwal, appearing for and on behalf of respondent no. 4.

2. The present Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 interdicting the order dated 09.12.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 13845 of 2025 (Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others).

3. The factual matrix of the present Appeal lies in a narrow compass. It emerges from records that the appellant, Ashok Kumar, was initially appointed on the post of ‘Assistant Engineer’ in the Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide letter dated 01.02.1992.

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 11.06.2001 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Government of Uttar Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as “respondent no.2”), the appellant was promoted to the post of ‘Executive Engineer’. However, the said promotion was subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No. 831 (S/B) of 2001 (Rajiv Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others). Apparently, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.08.2010, whereby the promotion order dated 11.06.2001 was quashed. Consequently, by Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2011 issued by the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Planning, Government of Uttar Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as “respondent no.3”), the appellant was reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer.

5. Thereafter, the appellant was again considered for promotion to the post of ‘Executive Engineer’ in the normal course (without any claim of reservation benefit) and was promoted to the said post vide order dated 18.12.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 in which the appellant continued to discharge his duties. By Office Order dated 23.04.2025, the appellant was attached/posted in the Lucknow Development Authority, while remaining an officer of the parent Department of Town and Country Planning. Prior thereto, the appellant had also held charge of Associate Planner at Agra (vide Office Memorandum dated 06.08.2020) with additional charge of Associate Planner at Jhansi (vide Office Memorandum dated 05.12.2023).

6. The present controversy stems out for promotion on the post of Chief Town and Country Planner. It is pertinent to mention herein that the posts in the Department of Town and Country Planning are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Town and Country Planning Service Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1987 Rules”). Rule 5 of the 1987 Rules provides the source of recruitment.

7. The post of Chief Town and Country Planner (C.T.C.P.) is to be filled by promotion from amongst Senior Planners who have put in at least five years of service as such. In turn, the post of Senior Planner is to be filled by promotion from amongst permanent Town Planners, Associate Pla