UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus SUKANTA KAR AND ANR.

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus SUKANTA KAR AND ANR.

Respondent No. 1 did not possess the essential educational qualification (Degree in Civil Engineering) as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, and the Tribunal and High Court erred in holding him eligible for promotion; the special provision of Clause 11(2) does not substitute or dilute the qualification requirement.

Parties
Appellant: Union Public Service Commission; Respondent No. 1: Sukanta Kar; Respondent No. 2: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Recruitment by Promotion, Eligibility for Promotion, Interpretation of Recruitment Rules
Service Law Recruitment by Promotion Eligibility for Promotion Interpretation of Recruitment Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Public Service Commission

Appellant

Sukanta Kar

Respondent No. 1

Union of India

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent No. 1 was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Advisor (Training) under the Ministry of Works and Housing, Deputy Advisor (Training) Recruitment Rules, 1985

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No. 1 did not possess the essential educational qualification (Degree in Civil Engineering) as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, and the Tribunal and High Court erred in holding him eligible for promotion; the special provision of Clause 11(2) does not substitute or dilute the qualification requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 held ineligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Advisor (Training)
  • No order as to costs