Explore a legal case where the court delves into the complex issues surrounding promotion eligibility and the discretion to grant relaxation in qualifying service. The court’s thorough legal analysis scrutinizes the application of rules and the authority’s discretion in granting such relaxations. Stay tuned to understand the intricate legal nuances at play in this significant case.
Facts
- The learned Single Judge issued a writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to prepare the eligibility list of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) with relaxation in minimum length of service.
- The eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 for promotion to Chief Engineer were quashed and set aside.
- The State of U.P. filed a Special Appeal against the Single Judge’s decision, which was dismissed by the Division Bench, affirming the Single Judge’s order.
- Appeal was filed by the State of U.P. and others against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench.
- The appeal pertains to the preparation of eligibility list for promotion to Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II with relaxation in minimum service length.
- The original writ petitioners challenged eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II.
- They claimed entitlement to relaxation in minimum qualifying service as per Relaxation Rules, 2006.
- Promotion to the post of Chief Engineer is governed by the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990.
- Rule 5(iii) of the Rules, 1990 specifies the criteria for promotion to Chief Engineer.
- The Office Circular dated 22.03.1984 emphasizes merit as the criteria for promotion.
- The Relaxation Rules, 2006 allow relaxation of minimum qualifying service up to 50% in certain cases.
- The appointing authority determined 26 vacancies for Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II for the Recruitment Year 2018-2019.
- The eligibility list was to be prepared in accordance with Rule 4 of Rules, 1986, containing names of senior most candidates.
- Various revised eligibility lists were prepared, excluding the names of the original writ petitioners who had not completed 25 years of service.
- The original writ petitioners are currently serving as Superintending Engineers and seek promotion to Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix
Arguments
- The petitioner argues that the writ of mandamus was rightly issued by the learned Single Judge to grant relaxation to the original writ petitioners based on the Relaxation Rules, 2006
- The original writ petitioners were excluded from the eligibility list due to not completing 25 years of service, which the Relaxation Rules, 2006 allows for relaxation in such cases
- The word ‘may’ in Rule 4 of Relaxation Rules, 2006 indicates that relaxation can be granted in specific circumstances where eligible persons are not available
- The High Court did not err in issuing the writ of mandamus for relaxation as per the rules, as it is not a matter of right but a discretionary provision
- The High Court’s decision to quash the eligibility lists was based on the exclusion of original writ petitioners who did not meet the 25-year service requirement, as stipulated in Rule 5(iii) and 8(iii) of the Rules, 1990
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Concurrent Sentences in Drug Trafficking Cases
Analysis
- The Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006 uses the word ‘may’, indicating that granting relaxation in qualifying service is at the discretion of the competent authority.
- The eligibility lists were prepared in accordance with Rule 5(iii) and Rule 8(iii) of the Rules, 1990.
- The Rule 5(iii) of the Rules, 1990 states that one of the conditions to be eligible for promotion to Chief Engineer is completing 25 years of service.
- The original writ petitioners were excluded from the eligibility list because they did not meet the 25-year qualifying service criteria.
- The relaxation in qualifying service cannot be claimed as a right, it is discretionary.
- The Single Judge issued a mandamus to grant relaxation in qualifying service, leading to the quashing of the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019.
- The High Court’s decision to set aside the eligibility lists prepared in accordance with the Rules, 1990 was not justified.
- A conscious decision not to grant relaxation cannot be overridden merely because the rules permit relaxation.
- No writ of mandamus can be issued to compel granting relaxation in qualifying service.
- The High Court made a grave error in issuing a mandamus to grant relaxation in qualifying service.
- The judgments and orders of the High Court are not legally sustainable.
- The High Court erred in quashing the eligibility lists prepared in accordance with the Rules, 1990 and Rules, 2006.
Also Read: Legal Jurisdiction and Award Finality in Arbitration Dispute
Decision
- The writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners (Writ Petition No.14962(S/S) of 2019) has been dismissed.
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal (Defective Complaint No.187 of 2020) and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2019 in Writ Petition No.14962(S/S) of 2019 are quashed and set aside.
- The present appeal has succeeded based on the above reasons.
- Any pending applications have been disposed of.
- The present appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
Case Title: STATE OF U.P. Vs. VIKASH KUMAR SINGH (2021 INSC 769)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006868-006868 / 2021
