TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Merit over Seniority: Promotion Upheld, Emphasizing Category Placement</h1> <h3>Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Versus Ayodhya Prasad Mishra and another</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision directing the Corporation to promote the writ petitioner to Superintending Engineer based on merit and ... Whether appointment by promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer was illegal and contrary to law ? Issues Involved:1. Legality of the High Court's decision regarding the promotion criteria from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer.2. Interpretation and application of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1970.3. Validity of the Corporation's action in not promoting the writ petitioner despite his placement in Category I.4. The role of inter se seniority within categories for promotion.5. The impact of a concession made by the Corporation's counsel during the High Court proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the High Court's Decision:The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (the Corporation) to promote the writ petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer based on his placement in Category I, which was determined by merit. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that the High Court correctly interpreted the statutory regulations.2. Interpretation and Application of Regulations:The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Service of Engineers Regulations, 1970, govern the promotion criteria. These regulations specify that promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer are based on merit. Executive Engineers are categorized based on marks obtained: Category I (180 or more marks), Category II (120 to 179 marks), and Category III (below 120 marks). The Supreme Court confirmed that the regulations prioritize merit over seniority for higher posts such as Superintending Engineer.3. Validity of Corporation's Action:The Corporation argued that seniority should be maintained across categories for promotion. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Executive Engineers in Category I must be promoted before those in Category II, regardless of seniority. The writ petitioner, having secured the highest marks and placed in Category I, was entitled to promotion over those in Category II.4. Role of Inter Se Seniority:The Supreme Court clarified that inter se seniority is relevant only within the same category. Once Executive Engineers are placed in Category I or II based on merit, their original seniority is retained only within that category. Therefore, an Executive Engineer in Category II cannot be promoted over one in Category I, even if the former is senior in the overall cadre.5. Concession by Corporation's Counsel:The Corporation's counsel conceded during the High Court proceedings that the writ petitioner should be given the first available vacancy of Superintending Engineer. The Supreme Court noted that a concession on a question of law is not binding. However, it found that the concession was consistent with the statutory regulations and the Constitution, thus supporting the High Court's decision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer must be based on merit as per the statutory regulations. The appeal by the Corporation was dismissed with costs, and the writ petitioner was entitled to the promotion based on his placement in Category I.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
