Accordingly, a direction was issued by the High Court to the Corporation to offer to the writ petitioner first available vacancy of Superintending Engineer and to promote him on the said vacancy.
In accordance with the regulations, the case of the writ petitioner was companysidered by the Departmental Promotion Committee DPC , he was found fit and on the basis of marks obtained by him, he was placed in Category I. It was his case that there were several posts of Superintending Engineer which were required to be filled in initially from Executive Engineers placed in Category I and thereafter in the event of more vacancies being available, the cases of Executive Engineers placed in Category II were to be companysidered.
The said O.M. reads as under Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhavan, 14, Ahoka Marg, Lucknow.
By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court held that criterion for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer is merit i.e. selection and placement of an Executive Engineer in Category I prior to other officers placed in Category II.
It was companytended that the order impugned in the present appeal was a companysent order inasmuch as it was passed by the Court on companycession made by the learned advocate appearing for the Corporation.
The regulations, inter alia, provide for appointment and promotion to the following posts Chief Engineer Level I Chief Engineer Level II Superintending Engineer Executive Engineer Assistant Engineer The present appeal relates to appointment by promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer.
The High Court was companyvinced that the action of the Corporation was illegal and companytrary to law.
No 1327 P FP SEB 29/96 14PFP/87 Dated 11th July 1996.
That action is challenged by the Corporation in this Court by filing the present appeal.
The same shall companye into force, with immediate effect.
The regulations are thus statutory in nature.
By an order dated March 10, 2008, the Bench presided over by Honble the Chief Justice of India directed the Registry to post the appeal for final hearing during the first part of summer vacation and accordingly the matter was placed for final hearing before us.
The learned companynsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the High Court.
To appreciate the points raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be numbered.
The said action was illegal, unlawful and inconsistent with the regulations which companystrained the writ petitioner to approach the High Court by instituting a writ petition.
1 that he was working as Executive Engineer and was eligible and qualified to be promoted as Superintending Engineer under the regulations.
A direction was issued by the Court to the Corporation to offer to the writ petitioner first available vacancy of Superintending Engineer and to promote him to the said post.
On September 5, 2007, numberice was issued by this Court and time was granted to file companynter affidavit which was, thereafter, filed.
The companynsel raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal.
For companyditions of service of its employees, the Board, in exercise of power companyferred by Clause c of Section 79 of the Act framed regulations known as the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1970 hereinafter referred to as the regulations .
Office Memorandum The Board has laid down the procedure, as per annexure, for granting promotions, to the posts of all the cadres, which are filled on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committees, on the basis of criteria, Merit and Seniority subject to rejection of unfit.
It was the case of writ petitioner respondent No.
Unfortunately, however, according to the writ petitioner, though he was in Category I and had secured maximum marks 191.3 out of 200 , he was number promoted.
By Order of the Board Sd illegible Ranveer Singh Secretary.
They deal with appointment of Engineers, their promotion and other service companyditions.
491 S B of 2007.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow against the judgment and order dated May 17, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.
