Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a promotion matter involving Superintending Engineers in the Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh seeking promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II. The recruitment was governed by the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990, which under Rule 5(iii) required candidates to have completed 25 years of service, including at least three years as Superintending Engineer. The original writ petitioners did not meet this eligibility criterion. The competent authority prepared eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019, excluding the petitioners' names due to insufficient service. The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court, arguing entitlement to relaxation under the U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006, which allows relaxation of up to 50% in minimum service requirements when eligible persons are not available. The learned Single Judge quashed the eligibility lists and issued a writ of mandamus directing the authority to grant relaxation. The Division Bench dismissed the State's special appeal, confirming the Single Judge's order. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the High Court erred in quashing the eligibility lists prepared per statutory rules and in issuing a mandamus for relaxation. The State contended that the petitioners were ineligible under Rule 5(iii), relaxation was discretionary under Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006, and no mandamus could issue to compel it. The petitioners argued that relaxation was warranted to maintain a 1:3 ratio for meritorious candidates. The Supreme Court analyzed that the eligibility lists were prepared in absolute consonance with Rule 5(iii) of the Rules, 1990, and the exclusion of petitioners was justified. It emphasized that Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006, uses 'MAY', indicating discretion, and relaxation cannot be claimed as a right; thus, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct its grant. The Court held that the High Court committed a grave error in quashing the lists and issuing the mandamus. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgments, and upheld the validity of the eligibility lists.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Service Law - Promotion Eligibility - U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990, Rule 5(iii) - Original writ petitioners, Superintending Engineers, sought promotion to Chief Engineer but lacked 25 years of service as required by Rule 5(iii) - Their names were excluded from eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019, which were prepared in accordance with the Rules, 1990 - Held that the eligibility lists were valid and the High Court erred in quashing them (Paras 7-7.1). B) Administrative Law - Service Law - Relaxation in Qualifying Service - U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006, Rule 4 - High Court issued writ of mandamus directing competent authority to grant relaxation to original writ petitioners under Rule 4, which uses the word 'MAY' - Held that relaxation is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right; no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel grant of relaxation (Paras 7.1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in minimum qualifying service for promotion under the U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006, and in quashing the eligibility lists prepared in accordance with the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, and upheld the validity of the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019.
Law Points
- Promotion eligibility criteria under service rules
- discretionary nature of relaxation provisions
- writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel exercise of discretionary power
- statutory rules must be strictly followed
