Supreme Court Upholds State’s Promotion Rules: State of UP vs. Vikash Kumar Singh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 727

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court compel the government to relax service rules for promotion? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that relaxation in qualifying service is discretionary and not a matter of right. This ruling came in a case concerning promotions of Superintending Engineers to Chief Engineers in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, which had mandated the state to consider certain engineers for promotion despite them not meeting the minimum service requirement. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the promotion process for Chief Engineer (Civil) Level-II in the Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh. The respondents, who were working as Superintending Engineers, were seeking promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. According to the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990, a Superintending Engineer needed to complete 25 years of service, including at least three years as Superintending Engineer, to be eligible for promotion. The State Government also had the U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006, which allowed for relaxation in the minimum service requirement up to 50% if enough eligible candidates were not available. In 2018-2019, the department had 26 vacancies for Chief Engineer. Initially, 74 Superintending Engineers were considered, but the names of the original writ petitioners were excluded as they did not meet the 25-year service requirement. Several revised lists were made, excluding the original writ petitioners. Aggrieved, the original writ petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), arguing that they were entitled to relaxation in the minimum qualifying service.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The original writ petitioners challenged the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the petitioners, issuing a writ of mandamus to the competent authority to consider them for promotion by granting relaxation in the minimum service requirement. The Single Judge also quashed the eligibility lists. The State of U.P. appealed this decision before the Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, dismissing the State’s appeal. The State of U.P. then approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decisions.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the following rules:

• U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990: Rule 5(iii) of the Rules, 1990 states that promotion to the post of Chief Engineer shall be from amongst the substantively appointed Superintending Engineers who have completed twenty-five (25) years of service (including at-least three years’ service as Superintending Engineer) on the first day of the year of recruitment.
• U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006: These rules allow the government to relax the minimum length of service by up to 50% if the required number of eligible persons are not available. Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006 states, “Where the required number of eligible persons are not available in the field of eligibility for promotion, the Government in the Administrative Department may, in consultation with the Personnel Department, relax the prescribed minimum length of service up to fifty percent, excluding the period of probation.”
• Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986: Rule 4 of these rules provides that the eligibility list should contain the names of the senior most candidates, as far as possible, three times the number of vacancies.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of U.P.):

• The State argued that the original writ petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria as per Rule 5(iii) of the Rules, 1990, since they had not completed 25 years of service. Therefore, their exclusion from the eligibility list was valid.
• The State contended that the grant of relaxation under the Relaxation Rules, 2006, is discretionary, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the competent authority to grant such relaxation. The word “may” in Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006, indicates that relaxation is not a matter of right.
• The State submitted that the eligibility lists were prepared in conformity with the provisions of Rule 5(iii) and 8(iii) of the Rules, 1990, and the High Court erred in quashing them.

Arguments by the Respondents (Original Writ Petitioners):

• The original writ petitioners argued that the High Court rightly issued a writ of mandamus to grant relaxation as per Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006.
• They contended that the eligibility list should be prepared by applying the ratio of 1:3 to have more meritorious candidates.
• They submitted that their names were excluded solely on the technical ground of not completing 25 years of service, and since the Relaxation Rules, 2006, provide for relaxation in qualifying service, the High Court was correct in issuing the writ of mandamus.

The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the word “may” in Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006. The State argued that “may” indicates discretion, while the original writ petitioners argued that it implies a duty to consider relaxation, especially when meritorious candidates are available.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service as per Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006, and consequently quashing the eligibility lists dated 18.03.2019 and 10.05.2019.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Rule 5(iii) of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990: This rule specifies the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, requiring 25 years of service, including at least three years as Superintending Engineer.
• Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006: This rule allows the government to relax the minimum length of service by up to 50% if the required number of eligible persons are not available.
• Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986: This rule specifies that the eligibility list should contain the names of the senior most candidates, as far as possible, three times the number of vacancies.

The Court did not cite any specific case laws in its judgment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of U.P. The Court held that the High Court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to grant relaxation in qualifying service. The Supreme Court stated that the word “may” in Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006, indicates that relaxation is discretionary and not a matter of right. The Court quashed the judgments of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 5(iii) of the U.P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Service Rules, 1990: The Court upheld the validity of this rule and stated that the eligibility lists were prepared in accordance with it.
• Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006: The Court interpreted the word “may” in this rule to mean that the relaxation is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the word “may” in Rule 4 of the Relaxation Rules, 2006. The Court emphasized that the relaxation in qualifying service for promotion is discretionary and not a matter of right. The Court also noted that the eligibility lists were prepared in accordance with the statutory provisions of Rule 5(iii) and 8(iii) of the Rules, 1990. The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a discretionary act.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal interpretation (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The primary focus was on the discretionary nature of the relaxation rule and the statutory compliance of the eligibility lists.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Relaxation in qualifying service for promotion is discretionary and not a matter of right.
• A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a competent authority to grant relaxation in service rules.
• Eligibility lists prepared in accordance with statutory provisions should not be quashed if the rules are followed.
• The interpretation of the word “may” in rules is crucial in determining whether an action is discretionary or mandatory.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with the discretionary powers of the government unless there is a clear violation of law. It also clarifies the interpretation of “may” in service rules, emphasizing that it typically indicates discretion rather than a mandatory duty. This ruling is likely to be relied upon in future cases involving similar issues of relaxation in service rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than quashing the High Court’s judgments and dismissing the writ petition.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that relaxation in qualifying service for promotion is a discretionary power of the government and cannot be mandated by a writ of mandamus. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the word “may” in service rules, emphasizing that it indicates discretion rather than a mandatory duty. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Vikash Kumar Singh & Ors. clarifies that relaxation in qualifying service for promotion is a discretionary power of the government and not a right that can be enforced through a writ of mandamus. The Court upheld the State’s position that the eligibility lists were prepared in accordance with the statutory provisions and that the High Court erred in directing the competent authority to grant relaxation. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with the discretionary powers of the government unless there is a clear violation of law.