STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus VIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus VIKASH KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

The eligibility lists were prepared strictly in accordance with Rules, 1990 (including the 25 years qualifying service requirement) and the Relaxation Rules, 2006 use the word 'may', making relaxation discretionary; therefore the High Court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to grant relaxation and in quashing the eligibility lists prepared as per the statutory rules.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P. & Ors.; Respondent: Vikash Kumar Singh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgments quashed and set aside; writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Eligibility Criteria, Relaxation of Qualifying Service, Writ of Mandamus
Service Law Administrative Law Promotion Eligibility Criteria Relaxation of Qualifying Service Writ of Mandamus

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P. & Ors.

Appellant

Vikash Kumar Singh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relaxation under U.P. Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 (Rule 4) is discretionary or can be claimed as a matter of right
  2. 2 Whether the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to grant relaxation and set aside eligibility lists prepared in accordance with U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The eligibility lists were prepared strictly in accordance with Rules, 1990 (including the 25 years qualifying service requirement) and the Relaxation Rules, 2006 use the word 'may', making relaxation discretionary; therefore the High Court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to grant relaxation and in quashing the eligibility lists prepared as per the statutory rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgments quashed and set aside; writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2020 of the Division Bench of the High Court quashed and set aside
  • Judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14962(S/S) of 2019 quashed and set aside