RAM PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for respondents nos. 2,3 4.

(2.) The petitioner no. 1 who is presently working as Senior Assistant Engineer (Special Grade) in a pay band-2 with Grade Pay 5400/- at pay matrix level 9 and petitioner no. 2 who is working as Senior Assistant Engineer, pay band-2 with grade Pay- 4800/- at pay matrix level-8 in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IIT, Kanpur) seek to challenge an advertisement issued by IIT Kanpur advertising 5 posts of Executive Engineer of which three posts are in unreserved category, vide advertisement no. 1 of 2023.

(3.) Both the petitioners claim that they deserved promotion at much earlier point of time to a higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer, pay band-3 with grade pay 5400/- at pay matrix level 10 as the feeding cadre for promotion was either Senior Assistant Engineer, pay band-2, with grade pay 4800/- at pay matrix level 8, or Senior Assistant Engineer (S.G.) in pay band-2 with grade pay 5400/- at pay matrix level-9. According to them, the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with grade pay 5400/- at pay matrix level-10 is not only post for direct recruitment at entry level of Group-A post, but is equally a promotional post from Group-B to Group A as per rules, and therefore, according to them they would have been entitled to be promoted as Executive Engineer, pay band 3 with grade pay 6600/- at pay matrix level-11, a Group-A post, which is subject to advertisement by direct recruitment. Their basic contention is that post of Executive Engineer advertised, is a promotional post and not a post meant for direct recruitment. It is submitted that as per recruitment and promotion rules that have come to be notified and reframed on 27/11/2018 in suppression to 2013 Rules by the Board of Governors, the Apex Body of the institute with further modification in the year 2021.