While hearing a case regarding relaxation in qualifying service, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and M.R. Shah, held that just because the Rule governing recruitment permits certain relaxation, it does not mean that a writ of mandamus can be issued mandating the relaxation regarding certain employees in qualifying service.
Facts
The respondents were discharging their duties as Superintending Engineers. They claimed promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level – II, which is governed by the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1990”). As per Rule 5(iii) the promotion to the post of Chief Engineer shall be from amongst the substantively appointed Superintending Engineers in the Civil or Mechanical Branch who have completed 25 years of service (including at-least three years’ service as Superintending Engineer) on the first day of the year of recruitment.
The U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Relaxation Rules, 2006”) was also framed which prescribe that in case of non-availability of the required number of eligible persons, the prescribed minimum length of service may be relaxed upto 50% by the Government in the Administrative Department in consultation with the Personnel Department excluding the period of probation. The appointing authority determined 26 vacancies of Chief Engineer (Civil) Level -II for the Recruitment Year 2018-2019. The eligibility list was to be prepared three times the number of vacancies.
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.
Procedural History
The learned Single Judge of High Court quashed and set aside the eligibility lists of Superintending Engineer for promotion to the post and issued the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to prepare the eligibility list including the names of the respondents for promotion to the post granting them relaxation. Hence an appeal was filed in the Apex Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner and the Respondent
The learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the respondents did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 5(iii) of the Rules, 1990. As such the eligibility list prepared by the competent authority were in conformity with the provisions. The word used in Rule 4 of Relaxation Rules, 2006 is ‘MAY’ and only in a case where the required number of eligible persons are not available in the field of eligibility. Hence, relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It was also contended that the High Court erred in quashing and setting aside the eligibility lists which were in absolute consonance with the statutory provisions.
The learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly issued the writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to grant relaxation. since it was rightly considered that the eligibility list must be prepared applying the ratio of 1:3 to have more meritorious candidates. Solely on technical ground of not completing 25 years of service, the names of the original writ petitioners were excluded and since there are specific Relaxation Rules, 2006, which provide for relaxation in qualifying service, the High Court has not committed any error in issuing the writ of mandamus.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the respondents did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. 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. They also observed that:
“if a conscious decision is taken not to grant the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service.”
Judgment
The impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were held not sustainable in law. Consequently, the original writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed and the present appeal was allowed accordingly.
Case Name: State of U.P. & Ors. vs Vikash Kumar Singh & Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6868 OF 2021
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice M.R. Shah
Decided on: 22nd November, 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
