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).
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-GH; 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][365B-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.