U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ORS versus NARINDER KUMAR AGARWAL

U.P. JAL NIGAM AND ORS versus NARINDER KUMAR AGARWAL

Since the criteria of zone of consideration was validly adopted and the respondent did not come within that zone, and since in the graduates quota selection was on merit and ability, with no evidence showing the selected candidates lacked superior merit, there was no illegality. The respondent was subsequently promoted by High Court order, so no interference was needed.

Parties
Appellant: U.P. Jal Nigam and Others; Respondent: Narinder Kumar Agarwal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 17.1.92 of the Allahabad High Court in C. Misc. W.p. No. 14229 of 1984
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Promotion, Quota for Promotion, Graduate Quota, Seniority Vs. Merit, Relaxation of Recruitment Rules
Service Law Promotion Quota for Promotion Graduate Quota Seniority Vs. Merit Relaxation 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U.P. Jal Nigam and Others

Appellant

Narinder Kumar Agarwal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 17.1.92 of the Allahabad High Court in C. Misc. W.p. No. 14229 of 1984

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was wrongly denied consideration or selection for promotion to Assistant Engineer under the 25% general quota and 5% graduates quota.
  2. 2 Whether the process of selection and promotion followed by the U.P. Jal Nigam was legal and valid.

Ratio Decidendi

Since the criteria of zone of consideration was validly adopted and the respondent did not come within that zone, and since in the graduates quota selection was on merit and ability, with no evidence showing the selected candidates lacked superior merit, there was no illegality. The respondent was subsequently promoted by High Court order, so no interference was needed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No costs imposed.