Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2131
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit, JJ
Rahul Giri – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Writ Petition (S/B) No.357 of 2021
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Equality
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) Service Bye-laws, 2018, arguing it is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The petitioners, appointed as Technicians Grade-II, contended that the proviso creates a discriminatory classification by requiring them to complete ten years of qualifying service for promotion, whereas employees absorbed from UPPCL/UPSEB are eligible for promotion after five years under the Regulations of 1972. The court framed the issue around whether the classification between petitioners and absorbed employees violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that the absorbed employees constitute a 'Protected Class' due to an office memo dated 18.12.2002, which assured them that their service conditions would not be varied to their disadvantage upon absorption. Consequently, there is an intelligible differentia between those protected by specific absorption promises and those appointed directly under the newer bye-laws. Accordingly writ petition fails and is dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.S. Rawat, Raveendra Singh Bisht
For the Respondents: K.N. Joshi, Dharmendra Barthwal
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to promotion eligibility criteria under service bye-laws. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contention of artificial classification and violation of article 14. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. justification of classification based on absorption promises and protected service conditions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal standards for reasonable classification and intelligible differentia under article 14. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. validation of the bye-law's classification due to the existence of a protected class. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Clause 20 (B) of the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) Service Bye-laws, 2018 (Annexure No.5) as null and void being ultra virus to the Constitution of India, as the same is highly discriminatory and provides discrimination between the petitioners and other similarly situated Technician Grade-II (TG-II) of the erstwhile UPSEB/UPPCL whose services are protected.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash Clause (Two) under eligibility and conditions clause of advertisement dated 14.04.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure No.6).
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of petitioners for promotion with similarly situated employees of U.P. State Electricity Board/U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. who have been absorbed in Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
2. Petitioners were appointed as Labour after creation of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “UPCL”) and they were thereafter promoted as Technician Grade-II in the years 2011-2012. Petitioners are challenging Rule 20(B) of UPCL Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical) Service Bye-Laws, 2018.
3. According to petitioners, next promotional post available to Technician Grade-I and Technician Grade-II is that of Junior Engineer. Clause 20(B)(two) of Service Bye-Laws, 2018 provides that Technician Grade-I/Technician Grade-II shall be eligible to participate in departmental examination for promotion upon completing qualifying service of ten years. However proviso to Rule 20(B) provides that employees who were absorbed in service of UPCL and were earlier serving in Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “UPSEB”) or Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “UPPCL”), Clause 20(B) would be applicable to them only to the extent permissible under the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Service Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 1972”).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the Regulations of 1972, persons serving as Technician Grade-II who possessed High School qualification were eligible for promotion after putting only five years of service.
5. Thus it is contended that on account of the proviso to Rule 20(B) of the Service Bye-Laws, 2018, the members of one homogeneous class have been segregated into two groups, for one group of persons, qualifying service needed for promotion is five years while for the other group, the qualifying service needed for promotion is ten years.
6. It is contended that since petitioners were appointed in UPCL after its creation, therefore they would have to wait for ten years for their claim for promotion to be considered.
7. Thus according to learned counsel, it amounts to artificial classification which does not have any intelligible differentia, and the classification made is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned counsel for the UPCL (respondent no.2) per contra submits that UPCL came into being on 05.11.2001 and before its creation, UPPCL was responsible for distribution of electricity. He sub
