At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

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