MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

ALLHABAD HIGH COURT UPHOLDS PROMOTION OF JUNIOR ENGINEERS - THE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY RULES IN THE PROMOTION PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Uttar Pradesh has upheld the promotion of Junior Engineers (Technical) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department "Group-B" Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004. The judgment, delivered by a bench of the High Court, has resolved the controversy surrounding the promotion process and clarified the eligibility criteria for the said promotion.

"The inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is valid," stated the court in its ruling, emphasizing the adherence to the promotion quota amendment of 1992, which increased the promotion quota from 20% to 50%. The court highlighted that eligibility for promotion is determined based on seniority and years of substantive service as Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer, in accordance with the Rules.

The court examined the interplay between various rules, including the Rules of 1968, 1984, and 2004, to interpret the promotion opportunities for Draftsmen and the unity of the cadre between directly recruited Junior Engineers (Technical)/Computers and promotee Junior Engineers (Technical). It acknowledged the prerogative of the Engineer-in-Chief to determine the source/feeder post for promotion, while also emphasizing that the court cannot amend statutory Rules or determine qualifications for promotion.

"The compliance with statutory rules in the promotion process is essential," the court emphasized, affirming the authority of the Engineer-in-Chief to decide the eligibility for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer. It further noted that the promotion challenge raised by the petitioners, who delayed their objections, was not maintainable.

Addressing the requisition for promotion, the court found no illegality in the impugned requisition dated 28.5.2022, thereby validating the promotion process undertaken. While the writ petitions challenging the inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list were dismissed, one writ petition filed by promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) was allowed. The court ordered the quashing of an order and directed the consideration of their case for promotion based on seniority.

The ruling has brought clarity to the promotion process for Junior Engineers (Technical) aspiring to become Assistant Engineers (Civil) within the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department. It ensures compliance with the applicable rules and emphasizes the importance of timely objections to maintain the integrity of the promotion process.

This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on the promotion policies and procedures within the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department, providing a benchmark for future promotion-related disputes.

Date of Decision: 04 July 2023

Kishan Kumar and another vs  State of U.P. 

Latest Legal News