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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 395

PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. HARISH KUMAR, J
Sameer Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2971 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Y V Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, Advocate
For the Intervenor:Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, Advocate

Promotion for eligible employees based on qualifications must be timely and fair, not delayed arbitrarily, upholding the principles of legitimate expectation and constitutional rights.

Headnote:(A) Government Resolutions - Resolution No. 5008(s) dated 22.07.1998 and Amendment Memo No. 2475(s) dated 21.02.2008 - Promotion of Junior Engineers - Petitioners, qualified for AMIE, sought promotion under 10% quota as Assistant Engineers from the date of eligibility, but were denied retrospective promotion despite vacancies. The court found the refusal arbitrary, affirming rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 2, 15, 22, 26)

(B) Principle of Legitimate Expectation - The Court emphasized the expectation that the State must act fairly and consistently, noting that similar cases should yield similar outcomes, in line with good governance principles. (Paras 18, 21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were Junior Engineers seeking promotion as Assistant Engineers under a 10% quota from the date of eligibility and creation of vacancies; however, they were promoted only on the notification date, prompting legal action. (Paras 3, 22)

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that petitioners should be promoted retroactively from their eligibility dates, aligning with prior court rulings, ensuring the action is fair and non-arbitrary. (Paras 26)

Issues: The key issues included the interpretation of the promotion policy under AMIE and whether the petitioners' claims for retrospective consideration of promotion were justified based on prior authority and established resolutions. (Paras 15, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that not extending promotions according to existing resolutions constituted arbitrary governance, violating principles of fairness and legitimate expectation as enshrined in constitutional law. (Paras 18, 25)

Result: The writ petition was allowed; the respondent authorities were directed to promote petitioners retroactively based on eligibility. (Paras 27)

Table of Content
1. promotional eligibility under 10% quota for junior engineers. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. promotion timelines and procedural fairness considerations. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. uniformity in administrative action and avoidance of arbitrariness. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. legal obligation of considering promotions timely. (Para 22 , 24 , 25)
5. order for promotion consideration based on eligibility. (Para 27 , 28)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 18-03-2025

This Court has heard Mr. Y V Giri, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rakesh Mohan Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, learned Advocate for the State. The intervenor respondents have appeared through Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, learned Advocate.

2. The petitioners, before this Court, are the Junior Engineers, who acquired qualification of Associate Membership of Institution of Engineers (hereinafter referred to as “AMIE”or equivalent qualification in the year 2011-2012, while some of them have obtained the qualification in the year 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2010 are aggrieved with the inaction of the respondents in not considering their cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers under 10 per cent quota from the date of completion of five years of service as Junior Engineers, qua the available vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Engineers in [k terms of paragraph no. 4 ( ) of resolution contained in Memo No. 5008 (s) dated 22.07.1998. The petitioners further seek issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to shift back the date of their promotion with effect from 2012 and 2013, the year in which they have attained the eligibility for promotion and vacancy were available under 10 per cent quota in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in terms of the Bench decision of this Court in CWJC No. 16049 of 2016, which order has attained finality upon being implemented by the Road Construction Department by shifting back the date of promotion to the identically situated Junior Engineers. The petitioners further sought a direction to rectify the notification issued under Memo No. 4739 dated 14.05.2018 to the extent whereby, the Under Secretary, Rural Works Department as though belatedly extended the promotion to 32 Junior Engineers holding the qualification of AMIE or equivalent degree, including the petitioners against 10 per cent quota in the cadre of Assistant Engineers, but with effect from the date of issuance of the notification.

3. Before parting with this writ petition, it would be apposite to narrate the short facts of the case, which would be relevant for the present case. The petitioners were duly appointed as Junior Engineers in the year 1999 in terms of the Advertisement published by the Bihar Public Service Commission on the basis of a requisition made by Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. Some of the petitioners were also appointed prior to the said advertisement. While the petitioners were discharging their duty on the aforenoted post, in the meanwhile, Government of Bihar in the Department of Road Construction vide resolution bearing Memo No. 5008 (s) dated 22.07.1998 enhanced the quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer, having the qualification of AMIE or equivalent from 3 per cent to 10 per cent. The resolution aforenoted specifically provided that the benefit of promotion would be available under this quota of 10 per cent to all such Junior Engineer, who possessed such qualification of AMIE or equivalent, prior to the joining of service or those who had acquired such qualification during their service period and had rendered five years service in the cadre of Junior Engineer. The x stipulation under Clause 4 ( ) was amended vide resolution bearing Memo No. 2475 (s) dated 21.02.2008 and the benefit of promotion shall be made available to all such Junior Engineer, who have passe

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