STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus VIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 22-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
v.
VIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6868 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Promotion of Superintending Engineer to the
post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II – Promotion to the post of
Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II is governed by U.P. Service of
Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990
– As per r.5(iii) of Rules, 1990, promotion to the post of Chief
Engineer shall be from amongst the substantively appointed
Superintending Engineers who have completed 25 years of service
– Original writ petitioners-Superintending Engineers were not
considered for promotion as they had not completed 25 years of
service as required by Rules of 1990 – High Court quashed the
eligibility lists and issued writ of mandamus commanding the
competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service, which
as such was permissible under r.4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006 –
Hence instant appeal – Held: It is an admitted position that the
original writ petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria having
not completed 25 years of service – The eligibility lists were prepared
by the department absolutely as per r.5(iii) and r.8(iii) of the Rules,
1990 – Therefore, as such, the High Court ought not to have set
aside the said eligibility lists, which as such were prepared absolutely
in accordance with the Rules, 1990 – The word used in r.8 of
Relaxation Rules, 2006 is “May” – Therefore, the relaxation may
be at the discretion of the competent authority and cannot be prayed
as a matter of right – If a conscious decision is taken not to grant
the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of
mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant
relaxation in qualifying service – High Court committed a grave
error in issuing the writ of mandamus – U.P. Government Servants
Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 – r.4 –
U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service
Rules, 1990 – r.5(iii).
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 359
359
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The eligibility lists were prepared by the
department absolutely as per Rule 5(iii) and Rule 8(iii) of the
Rules, 1990. The names of the original writ petitioners were
excluded from the eligibility list of Superintending Engineer for
promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on the ground that they
did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per Rule 5(iii) of the Rules,
1990. Therefore, as such, the High Court ought not to have set
aside the said eligibility lists, which as such were prepared
absolutely in accordance with the Rules, 1990. [Para 7][364-G-
H; 365-A]
2. The word used in the Rule 8 of Relaxation Rules, 2006
is “MAY”. Therefore, the relaxation may be at the discretion of
the competent authority. The relaxation cannot be prayed as a
matter of right. If a conscious decision is taken not to grant the
relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of
mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to
grant relaxation in qualifying service. Therefore, the High Court
has committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus
commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the
qualifying service. Consequently, the High Court has also erred
in quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019
and 10.05.2019, which as such were prepared absolutely in
consonance with the Rules, 1990 and Rules, 2006. [Para 7.1][365-
B-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6868 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal
(Defective) No.187 of 2020.
Sakha Ram Singh, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Pandey, Ashiwan
Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Abhijit Banerjee, Advs. for the
Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) by which the Division
Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special Appeal (Defective
Complaint No.187 of 2020) filed by the appellants herein- State of U.P.
and Others confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge quashing a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.