Read Time: 06 minutes
Court was hearing a bunch of pleas challenging a list of eligible candidates for promotion in the PWD department containing names from two cadres of Junior Engineers. The petitioners had alleged that the two cadres were not the same.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a court cannot lay down a new qualification for promotion, which is not prescribed under the statute/relevant service rules.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed so while hearing a bunch of writ petitions pertaining to promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. Public Works Department under 50% quota as provided under the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department (UPPWD) 'Group-B' Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 (Rules, 2004).
The pleas were filed by three Junior Engineers (Technical). The petitioners had challenged an order dated May 28, 2022 issued by the State Government, by means of which the eligibility list including the names of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) along with direct recruitee of Junior Engineer had been forwarded to the U.P. Public Service Commission for making promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer.
The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners was that there were Dratsman in the department who had been illegally promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Technical) and, therefore, their names should be struck off from the list of eligible persons to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).
On the other, the state counsel argued that the cadre of Draftsman is a technical cadre and the only difference between the Draftsman’s qualification and to that of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer is that for initial appointment on the post of Draftsman, two years Diploma course from ITI or other institutions as mentioned in Appendix-C to Rules, 1984 is required, whereas for Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computers, three years diploma course is required.
Both i.e. Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer and the Draftsman are technical cadres, he submitted.
The single judge bench noted that the eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as per Rule 5 of Rules, 2004 is seven years substantive service on the post of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit.
"The petitioners and the private opposite parties belonging to one cadre i.e. Junior Engineer (Technical). The petitioners were directly appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer, whereas the private opposite parties were promoted to the said post under the Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Sangdak Sewa Niyamawali, 1968(the Rules, 1968). There is a common seniority list, which remains unchallenged," the bench observed.
In view thereof, as per the applicable Rules i.e. the Rules, 1968, after promotion of the opposite parties from the post of Draftsman to the post of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer, the cadre of the petitioners and such promotees of Junior Engineer (Technical), became one i.e. the cadre of Junior Engineer (Technical).
"There cannot be a class within class for the purpose of further promotion," the bench said.
Accordingly, court did not find any error in the impugned order and therefore, dismissed the pleas.
Case Title: Kishan Kumar and another v. State of UP and connected matters
Please Login or Register
