2021 (11) TMI 1215 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to setting aside the eligibility lists of the Superintending Engineers (Civil) for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II - inclusion of names of the Respondents-original writ Petitioners for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II by granting them relaxation in minimum length of service in accordance with the U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules 2006 - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge issued the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant the relaxation as per Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules 2006 in qualifying service and consequently has quashed and set aside the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such as per Rule 5(iii) of the Rules 1990 one of the conditions to be eligible is that the Superintending Engineer must have completed 25 years of service (including at-least three years service as Superintending Engineer). It is an admitted position that the original writ Petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as they did not have the qualifying service of having completed 25 years of service. Thus 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. Conclusion - The eligibility lists prepared were found to be in accordance with the applicable rules. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

- Whether the original writ Petitioners were entitled to be included in the eligibility list for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II despite not meeting the 25-year service requirement as per Rule 5(iii) of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990.

- Whether the High Court was correct in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service under the U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Eligibility Criteria for Promotion:

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II is governed by the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990. Rule 5(iii) specifies that a Superintending Engineer must have completed 25 years of service, including at least three years as a Superintending Engineer, to be eligible for promotion.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the original writ Petitioners did not meet the 25-year service requirement. The eligibility lists were prepared in accordance with Rule 5(iii) and Rule 8(iii) of the Rules, 1990, which were not met by the Petitioners.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The eligibility lists prepared on various dates excluded the original writ Petitioners due to their failure to meet the service requirement. The High Court's decision to quash these lists was based on the potential for relaxation under the Relaxation Rules, 2006.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the eligibility lists were prepared correctly under the Rules, 1990, and that the Petitioners' exclusion was justified.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State argued that the eligibility criteria were not met, while the Petitioners contended for relaxation under the Relaxation Rules, 2006. The Court sided with the State, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the relaxation.

- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the eligibility lists were validly prepared, and the original writ Petitioners were rightfully excluded.

Relaxation of Qualifying Service:

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 allows for relaxation of up to 50% of the required service period if the number of eligible candidates is insufficient.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the word "MAY" in Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006 indicates discretion, not obligation, for the competent authority to grant relaxation.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The High Court's writ of mandamus was based on the assumption that relaxation should be granted. However, the Court found this assumption incorrect, as relaxation is not a right but a discretionary power.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the discretionary nature of the rule, determining that no writ of mandamus could compel the granting of relaxation.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Petitioners argued for mandatory relaxation, while the State maintained that it was discretionary. The Court agreed with the State's interpretation.

- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the High Court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus for relaxation, as it is not a matter of right.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The word used in the Rule 4 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."

- Core Principles Established: The eligibility criteria for promotion must be strictly adhered to unless the competent authority, in its discretion, decides to grant relaxation. The discretion to grant relaxation under the Relaxation Rules, 2006 cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus.

- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgments were quashed. The eligibility lists prepared were found to be in accordance with the applicable rules, and the writ petition by the original writ Petitioners was dismissed.