Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appellant's claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after being appointed as a Junior Engineer on an adhoc basis in 1987. The appellant's appointment was made following the selection process under the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985, but lacked the necessary concurrence from the U.P. Public Service Commission, leading to its classification as irregular. The appellant obtained a Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree in 1987 and sought promotion based on his qualifications and continuous service. His claims for promotion were rejected by the State, prompting him to file a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The appellant argued that his case was similar to that of another employee, Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi, who was granted promotion under similar circumstances. The State contended that the lack of concurrence rendered the appointment illegal. The Supreme Court analyzed the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, concluding that the appellant's appointment was irregular but not illegal. The court referenced previous judgments affirming that continuous service should be counted for promotion eligibility when the appointment was made following the rules, even if irregular. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's order and declaring the appellant entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion Eligibility - Continuous Service Consideration - U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985, Rule 24 - The court held that the appellant's continuous service from the date of initial appointment should be considered for promotion eligibility, despite the irregularity in appointment due to lack of concurrence from the U.P. Public Service Commission. The court emphasized that the appointment was made after following the selection process and the appellant possessed the requisite qualifications (Paras 30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer despite the irregularity in his initial appointment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and declared the appellant entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Promotion eligibility
- irregular appointment
- continuous service
- constitutional principles
- seniority determination
