SHRI GOVIND PRASAD versus SH. R.G. PRASAD AND ORS.

SHRI GOVIND PRASAD versus SH. R.G. PRASAD AND ORS.

The office memorandum dated 7.1.1980 did not amend or supersede the existing executive instructions or statutory rules applicable to promotions from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the Electrical and Mechanical branches. The eligibility criterion for promotion remained 10 years of service, as the memorandum was merely a policy decision to be implemented in future by amending service rules, and did not have retrospective effect or specific application to the Electrical and Mechanical branches. The selection made in 1983 based on the existing 10-year rule was valid.

Parties
Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad; Respondents: Sh. R.G. Prasad and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Connected Matters / Appeal From Judgment of Allahabad High Court (w.p. No. 37 of 1984)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Promotion Criteria, Executive Instructions, Applicability of Memoranda, Conditions of Service in Public Works Department
Service Law Promotion Criteria Executive Instructions Applicability of Memoranda Conditions of Service in Public Works Department

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shri Govind Prasad

Appellant

Sh. R.G. Prasad and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Connected Matters / Appeal From Judgment of Allahabad High Court (w.p. No. 37 of 1984)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the office memorandum dated January 7, 1980 laid down conditions of service regarding eligibility for promotion to Assistant Engineer in Electrical and Mechanical branches of the U.P. Public Works Department.
  2. 2 Whether the said memorandum reduced the eligibility service for promotion from 10 years to 7 years and applied retrospectively.
  3. 3 Whether the selection made in 1983 based on earlier executive instructions was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The office memorandum dated 7.1.1980 did not amend or supersede the existing executive instructions or statutory rules applicable to promotions from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the Electrical and Mechanical branches. The eligibility criterion for promotion remained 10 years of service, as the memorandum was merely a policy decision to be implemented in future by amending service rules, and did not have retrospective effect or specific application to the Electrical and Mechanical branches. The selection made in 1983 based on the existing 10-year rule was valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • The selection made by the State Government in 1983 is upheld; select list notified in memorandum dated November 5, 1983 is valid and operative.
  • Selected candidates are deemed appointed as Assistant Engineers from their respective appointment dates, if not already appointed.