LexDEEPAK AGARWAL & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 149 DEEPAK AGARWAL & ANR. A v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6587 of 2003) MARCH 31, 2011 B [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] UTTAR PRADESH EXCISE GROUP 'A' SERVICE RULES, 1983: c Rules 5(3)( as amended w.e.f.16.5.1999), 7 and 8 - Promotion to Deputy Excise Commissioner - Exclusion of Technical Officer and Statistical Officer from the feeder streams w.e.f. 16.5.1999 - Vacancies occurring prior to D amendment filled after amendment according to substituted Rule 5(3) - Held: There is no statutory duty cast upon the State to complete the selection process within a prescribed period - Nor is there a mandate to fill up the posts within a particular time - The requirement of filling up of old vacancies E under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for promotion which accrues. on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates - In the instant case, consideration for promotion took place after the amendment came into operation - Therefore, it cannot F be held that any accrued right of the two officers was taken away by the amendment - Moreover, a conscious decision was taken to abolish the feeder cadre consisting of Technical Officers and Statistical Officers for promotion to the post of Deputy ~cise Commissioner - Service Law - Uttar Pradesh G Govemm~ Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994- r.4 . . ' SERVICE LAW: Promotion - Need to open avenues for - Technical I-! 149 ' 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. A Officers and Statistical Officers excluded wf,fom the feeder stream for promotion to Deputy Excise Commissioner in the State of U.P. - But posts upgraded - HELD: Mere upgradation may not be sufficient compensation for loss of opportunity of promotion - State Government advised to re- B look at the promotion policy to provide some opportunity of further promotion to officers concerned - Uttlar Pradesh Excise Group 'A' Service Rules, 1983. Appellant no. 1, who was· appointed as a ~chnical Officer and appellant no. 2, who was appointed as C Statistical Officer, filed a writ petition before the Higfl Court seeking to quash the Notification dated 17.5.1999 whereby they had been rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner; as also the Notification dated 26.5.1999 promoting respondent nos. D 3 to 9 as Deputy Excise Commissioners. They further prayed for a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider and promote them as Deputy Excise Commissioners. The stand of the appellants was that the vacancies arising prior to 17.5.1999 ought to be filled up E in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Group 'A' Service Rules, 1983, as they existed prior to the amendment dated 17 .5.1999. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. F In the instant appeal it was contended for the appellants that by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Group 'A' Service (5th Amendment) Rules, 1999, the posts of Technical Officer and Statistical Officer, were excluded from the feeder streams to the post of Deputy Excise G Commissioner, w.e.f. 17.5.1999, but as there were 10 vacancies prior to 17 .5.1999, those vacancies should have been filled as per the Rules existing at the time the vacancies occurred, and, therefore, the appellants were entitled to be considered for the said 10 vacancies under H - DEEPAK /.GARWAL & ANR. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 151 Rule 5(2). The stand of the respondents, on the other A hand, was that no selection before the amendment had taken place and that the amendment of the Rules was based on a conscious decision taken by the Government upon consideration of representations of both the sides. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. Service conditions of the appellants and the private respondents are governed by U.P. Excise Group 'A' Service Rules, 1983, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the C Constitution of India. A perusal Rule 5(3) of the 1983 Rules and Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 would indicate that the appellants would have been eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority, as determined under D the Note to Rule 8. However, the said right for consideration to be promoted on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner has been taken away by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Grou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.