Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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