Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2007. Case: Dilip Kumar Garg and Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.A. Bobde, Sr. Adv., D.K. Singh, Pradeep Shukla and Abhijit Sengupta, Advs and For Respondents: Ramesh P. Bhatt, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ajay Kumar Rai and Vijay Hansaria and Mahendra Anand, Sr. Advs., Kuldeep S. Parihar and H.S. Parihar, Advs. |
| Judges | R.V. Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 309 |
| Citation | 2009 (121) FLR 396 , JT 2009 (3) SC 202 , 2009 (3) SCALE 521 , (2009) 4 SCC 753 , 2010 (1) SLJ 131 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | March 03, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Markandey Katju, J.
-
This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 78513 of 2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
-
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
-
The dispute in this appeal is regarding the validity of Rule 5(ii) of the U.P. Public works Department Group-B Civil Engineering Service Rules 2004 (in short the 2004 Rules').
-
Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules states:
5. Recruitment to the posts in the service shall be made from the following sources:
(i) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the Commission.
(ii) Fifty percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst the substantively appointed Junior Engineers (Civil) and Junior Engineers (Technical) who have completed seven years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment.
Provided that the promotion shall be made in such a manner that ninety percent posts shall be filled up by Junior Engineers (Civil) and ten percent posts shall be filled up by Junior Engineers (Technical).
-
The dispute is between the Junior Engineers of the PWD department of the U.P. Government who are degree holders and those who are only diploma holders.
-
The submission of Shri B.A. Bobde, learned counsel for the appellants (the degree holders) is that while the U.P. Service of Engineers (Building and Road Branch) (Class II) Rules, 1936 (in short the 1936 Rules) provided in Rule 9(ii) thereof that no Junior Engineer who was only diploma holder would be promoted as Assistant Engineer unless he has passed the qualifying examination that the Government may prescribe, this requirement has been done away with by rule 5 of the 2004 Rules.
-
It may be mentioned that in 1966 there was an amendment to the 1936 Rules which provided that a Junior Engineer who is a diploma holder could be promoted as Assistant Engineer provided he either acquired the qualification prescribed in Rule 9(1) or he passed the qualifying examination.
-
Thereafter certain amendments were made to the Rules, but in our opinion they are not relevant in the present case.
-
The submission of Shri Bobde is that Rule 5(ii) of the 2004 Rules violates Article 14 of the Constitution, because it makes unequals as equals by completely divesting the requirement for the Junior Engineers who are only diploma holders either of acquiring the requisite technical qualification or passing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1559 of 1997. Case: Bhagvan Singh Guleria Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
...of malice, legal or factual, no details and basis are stated and pleaded. These are missing. In Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 753 the Supreme Court has 15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administrati......
-
W.P. (C) No. 27855 of 2009. Case: Asokan Vs State of Kerala. High Court of Kerala (India)
...are: Rajendra and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 317, Dilip Kumar Garg and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 753 and State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 286. Reliance is also placed on C.L Agrawal's case (1997) 5 SCC 1), es......
-
W.P. No. 30271 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008. Case: C. Kumaresan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Law Department, The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and The Controller of Examinations. High Court of Madras (India)
...Court. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 753. The following passages found in paragraphs 15 to 17 may be usefully extracted 15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too fa......
-
Case: Amolak Singh Chhabra Vs State of M.P. and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...mis-grading of confidential reports. In another judgment, i.e., Dilip Kumar Garg and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 753, while dealing with the scope of interference in the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Apex Court has held that the Courts must respe......
-
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1559 of 1997. Case: Bhagvan Singh Guleria Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
...of malice, legal or factual, no details and basis are stated and pleaded. These are missing. In Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 753 the Supreme Court has 15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administrati......
-
W.P. (C) No. 27855 of 2009. Case: Asokan Vs State of Kerala. High Court of Kerala (India)
...are: Rajendra and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 317, Dilip Kumar Garg and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 753 and State of U.P. v. Section Officer Brotherhood and Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 286. Reliance is also placed on C.L Agrawal's case (1997) 5 SCC 1), es......
-
W.P. No. 30271 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008. Case: C. Kumaresan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Law Department, The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and The Controller of Examinations. High Court of Madras (India)
...Court. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 753. The following passages found in paragraphs 15 to 17 may be usefully extracted 15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too fa......
-
Case: Amolak Singh Chhabra Vs State of M.P. and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
...mis-grading of confidential reports. In another judgment, i.e., Dilip Kumar Garg and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 753, while dealing with the scope of interference in the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Apex Court has held that the Courts must respe......