Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/584/2018 on 25 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5392-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SPA/584/2018
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate for the appellants.
2. There is no representation for the respondent.
3. This intra-court appeal is filed by Director
General, Border Roads Organisation challenging
judgment dated 22.03.2018, rendered by learned Single
Judge in WPSS No. 482 of 2009. By the said judgment,
writ petition filed by respondent claiming promotion to
the post of Superintendent BR-I / Superintendent EM-I,
along with consequential benefits, was allowed. The
impugned judgment is extracted below:-
"The petitioner was appointed as Survey Draughtsman
on 29.07.1983. The petitioner obtained Diploma in
Draughtsman Estimating and Design from C.M.E. Pune. The
petitioner, on the basis of his experience and qualification
was promoted to the post of Superintendent BR-II vide order
dated 17.12.1983. The persons promoted to the post of
Superintendent BR-II alongwith petitioner were further
promoted to the post of Superintendent BR-I.
The case of the petitioner has not been considered
purportedly on the ground that the petitioner does not possess
Diploma in Civil Engineering. It is true that the petitioner has
only passed Diploma in Draughtsman and has not obtained
any diploma in Civil Engineering.
The fact of the matter is that, the petitioner has been
promoted to the post of Superintendent BR-II on the basis of
Diploma of Draughtsman obtained by him on 19.08.1989.
Thus, on the basis of this qualification, the petitioner should
have been considered for promotion to the post of
Superintendent BR-I. The petitioner is working as
Superintendent BRII since 1993 and the similarly situated
persons were promoted in the month of July, 2007. The
petitioner has gained an experience. The experience gained
by the petitioner also as Superintendent BR-II is a substitute
for his qualification.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents
2025:UHC:5392-DB
are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Superintendent BR-I from the due
date i.e. July, 2007 within a period of ten weeks from today."
4. This appeal is filed by Director General, Border
Roads Organisation with the contention that respondent
was not qualified for promotion as Superintendent BR-I,
therefore, direction issued to consider him for promotion
is unsustainable.
5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that
respondent do not possess the requisite qualification for
promotion as Superintendent, Buildings and Roads,
Grade-I, as provided in the General Reserve Engineer
Force Group 'C' and Group 'D' Recruitment Rules,
1982, as amended vide notification dated 11.04.1984. He
drew our attention to Rule 2 of the amended Rules,
which is extracted below:-
"Promotion: Superintendent, Buildings and Roads,
Grade-II with recognised Diploma in Civil Engineering with
5 years regular service in that grade in General Reserve
Engineer Force/Survoyor Assistant Grade-II with 1st
examination of Royal Institute of Civil Survoyors London or
1st examination of Surveyor (India) with 5 years regular
service in the grade in General Reserve Engineer Force."
6. Perusal of the amended Rule, extracted above,
reveals that one should have recognized diploma in Civil
Engineering with 5 years regular service in Grade-II for
promotion as Superintendent BR-I.
7. Learned counsel for appellants drew our attention
to the averment made in paragraph no. 8 of the writ
petition, where respondent stated that he passed diploma
in Draughtsman Estimating and Design from EME, Pune.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that since
respondent do not possess the requisite qualification for
promotion as Superintendent BR-I, therefore, he could
2025:UHC:5392-DB
not be considered for promotion and learned Single
Judge erred in allowing his writ petition and directing the
competent authority to consider his case for promotion as
Superintendent BR-I.
8. Learned counsel for appellants further submits that
the respondent (writ-petitioner) filed Writ Petition (C)
No. 167/2013, along with other persons, claiming
promotion as Superintendent BR-I and the said writ
petition was dismissed by Division Bench of Delhi High
Court, vide judgment dated 11.01.2013. He further
submits that since the Writ Petition (C) No. 167/2013
was dismissed on merits, however this fact was
suppressed by him during the course of argument, before
learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment cannot
be sustained on merits and also because identical issue
raised by respondent was decided by Delhi High Court
against him.
9. We find substance in the said submission. The
respondent was not educationally qualified for promotion
as Superintendent BR-I, therefore, he cannot claim parity
with others, who were qualified and were promoted.
Moreover, the issue raised by respondent before learned
Single Judge was decided against him by Division Bench
of Delhi High Court, therefore, the Special Appeal is
allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.
(Subhash Upadhyay, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.)
25.06.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0
CHANDRA
a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9
A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.06.30 10:09:42 +05'30'
