RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In this case, we are concerned with the recruitment to the ministerial Group "C" posts in the subordinate offices in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group "C" Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 (for short, 'the said Rules'). The said Rules have been framed in the exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides that recruitment to 20% of the vacancies of the ministerial Group "C" posts of the lowest grade shall be made by promotion through the Selection Committee from those who have been substantively appointed in Group "D" posts. Out of the 20%, 15% quota is for Group "D" employees who have passed the High School examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, or any other examination equivalent thereto, subject to a condition that the candidate must have completed five years of service on the first day of the year of recruitment. The remaining 5% quota is for Group "D" employees who have passed the Intermediate examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, or any other equivalent examination.

(3.) In the year 2010, the Promotion Committee prepared a seniority list of Group "D" employees working in the Collectorate, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh for promotion to Group "C" posts in terms of the said Rules. On 4/12/2014, the District Magistrate, Sitapur promoted respondent nos.5 to 11. The contention of the appellants is that though they were senior to some of the selected candidates, they were not selected. A representation was made by the appellants about the denial of promotion to them. Initially, the appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court did not entertain the writ petition on the ground that the remedy of approaching the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short, 'the Tribunal') was available. The Tribunal found irregularities in the process. Thereafter, there was a remand by the High Court and ultimately, the prayer of the appellants was rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection, a writ petition was filed by the appellants before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that Rule 5 of the said Rules only prescribes the source of recruitment and the criteria and procedure for promotion have been prescribed by Rule 8 of the said Rules. The High Court held that those who obtained higher marks were promoted.