Full Judgment Text
2023INSC792
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5610 OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17151 of 2019)
Rajendra Prasad & Ors. … Appellants
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Singh
Date: 2023.09.04
17:25:41 IST
Reason:
shall be made by promotion through the Selection Committee
from those who have been substantively appointed in Group
C.A.@SLP (C) No.17151 of 2019
Page 1 of 6
“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”
th
posts in terms of the said Rules. On 4 December 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
C.A.@SLP (C) No.17151 of 2019
Page 2 of 6
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.
th
4. On 29 July 2019, this case came up before this Court
and following was the order passed on that day:
“ Application for deletion of respondent
no.13 is allowed.
Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that under Rule 5
of the Rules of 2001 (Exhibit P-1), there
is a promotional quota in making
appointments to the clerical grade in
Group ‘Gha’ which comprises of: (i)15%
from amongst employees who have
passed the High School Examination;
and (ii)5% from employees who have
passed the Intermediate Examination.
In the present case, it has been
submitted that a combined list has
been prepared as a result of which the
15% quota earmarked for those who
had passed the High School
Examination is effectively obliterated.
Issue notice, returnable in six weeks. ”
th
5. After this case was fully heard on 25 April 2023, this
Court passed the following order:
C.A.@SLP (C) No.17151 of 2019
Page 3 of 6
“ The submissions are fully heard.
We direct the respondent-State
Government to file an affidavit giving
details of the promotion granted to the
ministerial group ‘C’ posts of the lowest
grade in subordinate office in terms of
Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group
‘C’ Posts of the Lowest Grade
(Recruitment of Promotion) Rules,
2001. The details of the processes
conducted from 2015 till date shall be
incorporated. The affidavit shall
specifically state that how many
candidates belonging to category of 15%
specified in Rule 5(1) were appointed.
The affidavit to be filed within ten days.
Needless to add that the State will have
to bring on record total number of
vacancies in Group ‘C’ posts of the
lowest grade so that the number of
posts against 20% can be determined.
th
List the matter on 9 May, 2023 as
part-heard. ”
th
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 25 April 2023, an
affidavit has been filed by Mr Gaurav Ranjan Srivastava, an
Officer of the first respondent–State of U.P. The said affidavit
discloses the following factual details:
i. In the year 2014, there were five posts under the 15%
quota for the candidates who had passed the High
School examination and two posts under the quota for
those candidates who had passed the Intermediate
examination;
C.A.@SLP (C) No.17151 of 2019
Page 4 of 6
ii. Those employees who ranked from serial nos.1 to 7
i.e. respondent nos.5 to 11 were promoted but the
appellants were not promoted;
iii. After the year 2015, the Selection Committee was not
constituted for granting promotion in respect of the
20% quota as per Rule 5 of the said Rules; and
iv. At present, 19 posts are vacant.
7. Thus, the posts available for the 20% quota are 3.8,
which can be rounded off to 4. Therefore, three candidates who
hold the qualification of the High School examination and one
candidate who holds the qualification of the Intermediate
examination can be considered against the said four posts
forming part of the 20% quota. The process of promotion has
not been conducted from 2015.
8. The provision regarding promotion, as contained in Rule
5 of the said Rules, ensures that Group “D” employees who
possess basic educational qualifications have some incentive
for performing well. A promotional avenue has been made
available to the Group “D” employees. Now, for the last eight
years, though there are vacancies, Group “C” posts have not
been filled from the source of recruitment as provided in Rule
5 of the said Rules. In the bargain, the case of the appellants
and other similarly situated persons has not been considered.
9. This is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India by directing the respondents to
C.A.@SLP (C) No.17151 of 2019
Page 5 of 6
grant promotion to four candidates (three having the High
School examination qualification and one having the
qualification of passing the Intermediate examination) who are
immediately below the candidates promoted in the process of
2014 in the merit list. Those who are appointed pursuant to
this direction shall be treated as promoted on the date on which
the order of promotion is issued. They will get seniority on the
basis of their actual date of appointment. We make it clear that
the selected four candidates will not be entitled to any
monetary relief except payment of salary and other perquisites
as admissible to Group “D” posts from the date on which the
appellants or any other candidates, as the case may be, are
appointed in terms of this judgment.
10. Necessary action shall be taken by respondent no.1–State
of Uttar Pradesh within a period of two months from today.
11. We make it clear that as this direction is issued under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this decision shall not
be treated as a precedent. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
There will be no order as to costs.
….…………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…..…………………...J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
September 04, 2023.
C.A.@SLP (C) No.17151 of 2019
Page 6 of 6