DIPLOMA ENGINEERS SANGH versus STATE OF U. P. AND ORS.

DIPLOMA ENGINEERS SANGH versus STATE OF U. P. AND ORS.

The office order dated 11.2.2003, prescribing interview alone as the qualifying examination for promotion of diploma-holder Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers, is contrary to Rule 9(ii) read with Rule 5(iv) of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936. 'Qualifying examination' under the Rules requires a written examination, not merely an interview, unless specifically provided. The High Court's order quashing the office order and directing a proper qualifying examination by written test is upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Diploma Engineers Sangh; Respondents: State of U.P. and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Qualifying Examination, Interpretation of Service Rules, Seniority Cum Merit, Recruitment
Service Law Promotion Qualifying Examination Interpretation of Service Rules Seniority Cum Merit Recruitment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diploma Engineers Sangh

Appellant

State of U.P. and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1936 Rules were in existence at the time the office order dated 11.2.2003 was issued
  2. 2 Whether interview can be considered as a 'qualifying examination' under Rule 9(ii) of the 1936 Rules
  3. 3 Effect of the office order dated 11.2.2003 vis-à-vis the 1936 Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The office order dated 11.2.2003, prescribing interview alone as the qualifying examination for promotion of diploma-holder Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers, is contrary to Rule 9(ii) read with Rule 5(iv) of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936. 'Qualifying examination' under the Rules requires a written examination, not merely an interview, unless specifically provided. The High Court's order quashing the office order and directing a proper qualifying examination by written test is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court quashing office order dated 11.2.2003 is upheld.
  • First respondent-Government and third respondent UP.PSC to conduct qualifying examination in accordance with the Rules within four months.