RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 23-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 87 
RAJENDRA 'KUMAR AGRAWAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9091-9092 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 
B 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
SeNice Law: 
c 
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Appointment and 
Conditions of SeNice of Chief Engineer) Regulations, 1990 
- Selection -
Vacant post of Chief Engineer - Selection 
process for regular promotion from the post of Superintendent 
Engineer - Power to relax the qualification as to minimum D 
length of seNice under Reg. 20 - Permissibility of - Held: 
On facts, the power of relaxation under the Regulations was 
always available and has been exercised in a manner which 
does not call for any interference - Order of High Court that 
it amounts to retrospective amendment of rules of eligibility 
after the selection process has begun and that it was for E 
dubious reasons only to accommodate the appellant cannot 
be accepted - Direction to the Parishad and the State 
Government to expedite the process of selection - U.P. 
Eligibility List Rules 1986 - r. 4. 
F. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. After the judgment of this Court dated 
27.4.12 in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. 
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. there was no impediment in the G 
~ 
way of the Parishad in proceeding with regular selection 
~ 
for filling up the vacant post of Chief Engineer in a regular 
manner. This Court had directed for making officiating 
arrangement by selecting a suitable Superintending 
87 
H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014) 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Engineer to hold additional charge of the post of Chief 
Engineer only on account of order of status quo qua the 
process of regular promotion in pending civil appeals. 
The Parishad committed an act of impropriety in not 
bringing the subsequent vacation of status quo order on 
B 
account of disposal of pending civil appeals on 27.4.2012 
and in not seeking formal permission of this Court to fill 
up the post of Chief Engineer on regular basis. However, 
now it would not be proper to direct the Parishad to fill 
up the vacancy only on officiating basis. [Para 8) [96-D-
C 
H; 97-A] 
1.2. Rule 4 of the U.P. Eligibility List Rules 1986 
shows that the power of relaxation available to the 
concerned authority under different service rules for 
filling a post by promotion ha.s been sought to be 
D regulated with a condition that prescribed minimum 
length of service may be suitably relaxed up to the 
prescribed extent if the required number of eligible 
persons are not available in the field of eligibility. The 
Parishad acted as per letter of the State Government and 
E 
granted relaxation to the extent permissible although this 
exercise could result in enlargi6g the zone of 
consideration only to six candidates.[Para 19) [104-D-E; 
105-8-C] 
• 
F 
1.3. The process for selection of suitable candidate 
for regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer could 
not be initiated due to pendency of civil appeals in which 
order of status quo was operating qua regular promotion. 
For that very reason even by order dated 27.3.2012 this 
G Court directed to undertake elaborate process of 
selection but only for making officiating arrangement by 
conferring additional charge for the post in question on 
the selected candidate. It was only after said impediment 
got removed on account of judgment in the pending civiL, 
appeals on 27.4.2012 that the concerned authorities got 
H liberty to initiate the selection process for regular 
'> 
RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL v. STATE OF U.P. 
89 
promotion. Thus, the High Court erred in holding that the 
A 
selection process for regular promotion to the post of 
Chief Engineer had already commenced. The 
. Government was yet to constitute a proper Committee 
and the list of eligible candidates was also not finalized 
till the issue of relaxation was taken up as per directions 
B 
of the State Government. The High Court mistook the 
process for making officiating arrangement as the 
process for selection for filling up the post on regular 
basis. [Para 20] [105-F-H; 106-A, E-G] 
c 
1.4. The pleadings in the writ petition show that no 
·factual malafide was alleged against any person in 
authority nor such authority was impleaded by name. In 
absence of impleadment of any member of the parishiid 
or any of the officers of the State Government by name 
and merely on vague or bald assertions no case of D 
malafide could be made out so as to invalidate the 
deci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.