Allahabad High Court
U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. ... vs Subodh Chandra Vidyarthi & ... on 4 July, 2017
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ravindra Nath Mishra-Ii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 3
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 749 of 2013
Petitioner :- U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Through Managing Director, Lucknow
Respondent :- Subodh Chandra Vidyarthi & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashwani Kumar
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for claimant-respondent.
2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2011 passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as " Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 78 of 2011. Tribunal has directed petitioner to consider claimant-respondent for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f 05.09.2009 in 8.33% quota treating claimant-respondent as duly qualified in accordance with rules.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that quota of 8.33% was already abolished and it was not available in 05.09.2009 and Tribunal has wrongly applied the same. From the record it is evident that the said amendment was made in 2010 and quota of 8.33% was existing and operating when DPC held its meeting on 05.09.2009. It is also not in dispute that as per the amendment made in statutory relevant rules, requisite qualification of Sub-Engineer who could have been considered for promotion as prescribed in Rule 16 (4 &5) of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited (Engineers Architects) Service Rules ,1980 as inserted by resolution dated 18.06.1987 was as under:-
" (5) Provided further that vacancies in the post of Assistant Resident Engineers shall be filled up to the extent of 8-1/396 by promotion of Sub-Engineer who have acquired B.D/A.M.I.D Degrees and have put in at least 5 years of serve as Sub- Engineers in the Nigam and such promotion shall also be made through the regularly held Departmental Promotion Committee."
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the aforesaid rule the academic qualification of B.E/A.M.I.E ought to have been obtained by the Sub-Engineer during the course of employment in Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited . While in the present case, claimant-respondent had already acquired qualification before employment, therefore, he was not qualified in the aforesaid rule. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The rule provides two parts of qualification which are as under:-
(i) Sub-Engineer who have acquired B.E/A.M.I.E degree
(ii) Those who have put in atleast 5 years service as Sub- Engineer in the Nigam.
5. In the the first part, a Sub-Engineer must have obtained qualification of B.E/A.M.I.E. When qualification was obtained, that is not relevant. It has not been specified that it must have been obtained during the course of employment. The petitioner in reading these words i.e during the course of employment is trying to insert something in the rule in question which is not there. It is only with regard to experience, the requirement is that such experience must have been acquired while serving as Sub-Engineer in Nigam for the simple reason that the work experience in Nigam may be of different nature than experience if acquired by a Sub-Engineer while working in any other organisation. With regard to academic qualification since there is no difference with respect to time, therefore, no such condition has been provided in the aforesaid rule.
6. It is not in dispute that claimant-respondent possessed B.E qualification and also had five years experience as Sub-Engineer in Nigam when DPC held its meeting on 05.09.2009 and, therefore,he was wrongly held ineligible for promotion.
7. In view thereof, we find no manifest error in the judgment and order of Tribunal granting relief to the claimant-respondent.
8. Petition lacks merit.
9. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.7.2017
Pachhere/-
