LexDILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 955 DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANOTHER A v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2007) MARCH 3, 2009 B [R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] UP. Public works Department Group-B Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004: c r. S(ii) - Recruitment to post of Assistant Engineer - Rule providing fifty percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Junior Engineers with seven years service - HELD: There is no unconstitutionality/ .. illegality in the provision - Decision to treat all Junior Engineers, whether degree holders or diploma holders as D equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision not to be ordinarily interfered by court- Administrative authorities are in the best position to decide requisite qualification for promotion and it is not for court to sit over their decision like E a court of appeal - Administrative Law - Policy decision - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. In the instant appeal the dispute related to validity of Rule 5(ii) of the U.P. Public works Department Group-B Civil Engineering Service Rules 2004. It was contended F - for the appellants-degree holders that under the U.P. Service of Engineers (Building and Road Branch) (Class II) Rules, 1936, as amended in the year 1966, a diploma holder Junior Engineer could be promoted as Assistant Engineer provided he either acquired the requisite G qualification or passed the qualifying examination, but r.5(ii) of the 2004 Rules having done away with the requisite technical qualification or passing a qualifying examination, and providing for promotion of a diploma 955 H 956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. A holder Junior Engineer who completed seven years $ervice as such, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because it makes unequal, as equals. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. There is no unconstitutionality or illegality In r.S(ii) of the U.P. Public works Department Group-B Civil Engineering Service Rules 2004. It is entirely for the authorities to decide whether the degree holders and diploma-holders should be treated at par or not for the C purpose of promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. Merely because in the past degree holder Junior Engineers and diploma holder Junior Engineers have been treated differently does not mean that they cannot be treated identically o subsequently. [Para 15 and 16) [962-A-E] Mohammad Shujat Ali & others vs. Union of India & others AIR 1974 SC 1631 and P. Murugesan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (1993) 2 sec 340, relied on. E Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi Development Authority & others, AIR 1989 SC 307 and State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & others AIR 1974 SC 1, referred to. 1.2. Article 14 of the Constitution of India should not F be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning t>f the administration impossible. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion. The decision to treat all Junior Engineers, whether degree holders or diploma G holders, as equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision, and that this Court would not ordinarily Interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear violation of some constitutional provision or the statute. There is no such violation in the instant case. [Para 17 and 19) H (962-E, F, H; 963-A] • - DILIP KUMAR GARG AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND 957 ORS. Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others 2008 (9) SCC A 242; Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others 2008 (10) SCC 1; J. Ranga Swamy vs. Govenrment of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1990 SC 535; State of Rajasthan and others vs. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642 and Tata Cellular vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11, relied on. B Case Law Reference: AIR 1974 SC 1 referred to para 10 1974 SC 1631 relied on para 11 c AIR 1989 SC 307 referred to para 12 (1993) 2 sec 340 relied on para 13 1990 SC 535 relied on para 14 .. D 2002 SC 2642 relied on para 14 2008 (9) sec 242 relied on para 17 2008 (10) sec 1 relied on para 17 AIR 1996 SC 11 relied on para 19 E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2007 . • From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2006 of the F High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. in W.P. No. ~· 78513 of 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.