High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the other petitioner Mulayam Singh Yadav, who is respondent no. 5 in writ petition filed by Mohd. Moiz Ilyas. Shri Abhijit Saxena, learned counsel for U.P. Public Service Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent.

2. In both the petitions, the petitioners who are working as Junior Engineer (Electrical Safety) in the respondent establishment, have set up their claims for promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Electrical Safety) in the respondent establishment taking recourse to the relevant provisions of the Service Rules namely Engineering (Electrical Safety Directorate) Service Rules, 2002.

3. The petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas claims that he having special qualification of Bachelor of Technology in engineering stands on a better footing in a sense that Under Rule 5(4)(iii), a candidate who possesses special degree can be promoted on the post of Assistant Director (Electrical Safety) on the said basis and not necessarily following the seniority, whereas the other petitioner Mulalyam Singh Yadav respondent no. 5 of second writ petition contends that since he has already completed ten years of service as a Junior Engineer and also having possessed the qualification of Bachelor of Technology, stands on a better footing both in terms of seniority and merit.

4. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas submits that Mulayam Singh Yadav respondent no. 5, petitioner of second writ petition may be senior but he obtained degree of Bachelor of Technology in the year 2024 and that cannot be considered by way of precedence over and above the claim of the present petitioner as on the date of vacancy he had the degree.

5. Learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission submits that the requisition earlier sent by the State Government was duly examined at the level of the Public Service Commission and for clarifying certain anomalies and discrepancies point wise, issues were raised vide letter written to the State Government to examine the matter afresh after considering the representation of the respective parties.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, who has obtained instructions and has placed the same before the Court, submits that the report was called from the Director (Electrical Safety) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as to the claim set up by the respective parties and the report has been submitted on 06.06.2025 in which claim of the petitioner has been rejected whereas the claim of the other petitioner Mulayam Singh Yadav has been considered to be deserving one.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas at this stage submits that he is not aware of any such recommendations ever made by the Director on 06.06.2025 as according to him it has seen the light of the day only through instructions that have been placed before the Court, copies whereof have been supplied just now to him.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material available on records, I find that both the petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 are contesting their claims for promotion on the basis of Uttar Pradesh Engineering (Electrical Safety Directorate) Service Rules, 2002. While petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas claims preference on the basis of he acquiring requisite special qualification of B.Tech. prior in point of time, respondent no. 5 of this petition claims seniority coupled with the qualification of the B.Tech. which as he too has acquired may be recently in the year 2024. It is not disputed at this stage and I also find that no dispute is raised by the learned Standing Counsel while placing instructions before the Court that the while Directorate forwarded the report on 06.06.2025, none of the parties were heard and therefore, the report can be termed to be ex pare one. In view of the fact that parties have set up their rival claims for promotion, it would meet the ends of justice if both the parties are also heard before any final recommendation is made to the Public Service Commission in response to its letter dated

24.05.2025. Hence I dispose of these petitions with direction, in the first instance to the petitioners of both the writ petitions to submit their explanations/defence in support of their respective claims within a maximum period of four weeks from today before the State Government and soon after receiving the representations of the respective parties namely the petitioners of both the writ petitions, the State Government shall proceed to decide the matter afresh as to the rival claims set up by the respective parties. It is further provided that while examining the report of the Directorate dated 06.06.2025 as well as the representation made by the respective parties, the State Government shall definitely be scrutinizing examining the relevant service rules to find out and come to a definite conclusion whether the promotion in the matter under the relevant rules shall strictly be governed by the principle of "seniority subject to rejection of unfit" in the event both the rival claimants have the requisite qualification on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. An appropriate decision shall be taken by the State Government within a maximum period of two months of receipt of the representations of the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 and shall also be communicating the same to the respective parties before forwarding it to the Public Service Commission for its approval. State Government would certainly be addressing the points raised by the Secretary of the Public Service Commission its letter dated 24.05.2025.

9. It is also provided that Public Service Commission will hold any Departmental Promotion Committee qua post in question only after receiving fresh report from the State Government as directed here-in-above. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Sharad/- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the other petitioner Mulayam Singh Yadav, who is respondent no. 5 in writ petition filed by Mohd. Moiz Ilyas. Shri Abhijit Saxena, learned counsel for U.P. Public Service Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent.

2. In both the petitions, the petitioners who are working as Junior Engineer (Electrical Safety) in the respondent establishment, have set up their claims for promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Electrical Safety) in the respondent establishment taking recourse to the relevant provisions of the Service Rules namely Engineering (Electrical Safety Directorate) Service Rules, 2002.

3. The petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas claims that he having special qualification of Bachelor of Technology in engineering stands on a better footing in a sense that Under Rule 5(4)(iii), a candidate who possesses special degree can be promoted on the post of Assistant Director (Electrical Safety) on the said basis and not necessarily following the seniority, whereas the other petitioner Mulalyam Singh Yadav respondent no. 5 of second writ petition contends that since he has already completed ten years of service as a Junior Engineer and also having possessed the qualification of Bachelor of Technology, stands on a better footing both in terms of seniority and merit.

4. In reply learned counsel for the petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas submits that Mulayam Singh Yadav respondent no. 5, petitioner of second writ petition may be senior but he obtained degree of Bachelor of Technology in the year 2024 and that cannot be considered by way of precedence over and above the claim of the present petitioner as on the date of vacancy he had the degree.

5. Learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission submits that the requisition earlier sent by the State Government was duly examined at the level of the Public Service Commission and for clarifying certain anomalies and discrepancies point wise, issues were raised vide letter written to the State Government to examine the matter afresh after considering the representation of the respective parties.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, who has obtained instructions and has placed the same before the Court, submits that the report was called from the Director (Electrical Safety) Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as to the claim set up by the respective parties and the report has been submitted on 06.06.2025 in which claim of the petitioner has been rejected whereas the claim of the other petitioner Mulayam Singh Yadav has been considered to be deserving one.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas at this stage submits that he is not aware of any such recommendations ever made by the Director on 06.06.2025 as according to him it has seen the light of the day only through instructions that have been placed before the Court, copies whereof have been supplied just now to him.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material available on records, I find that both the petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 are contesting their claims for promotion on the basis of Uttar Pradesh Engineering (Electrical Safety Directorate) Service Rules, 2002. While petitioner Mohd. Moiz Ilyas claims preference on the basis of he acquiring requisite special qualification of B.Tech. prior in point of time, respondent no. 5 of this petition claims seniority coupled with the qualification of the B.Tech. which as he too has acquired may be recently in the year 2024. It is not disputed at this stage and I also find that no dispute is raised by the learned Standing Counsel while placing instructions before the Court that the while Directorate forwarded the report on 06.06.2025, none of the parties were heard and therefore, the report can be termed to be ex pare one. In view of the fact that parties have set up their rival claims for promotion, it would meet the ends of justice if both the parties are also heard before any final recommendation is made to the Public Service Commission in response to its letter dated

24.05.2025. Hence I dispose of these petitions with direction, in the first instance to the petitioners of both the writ petitions to submit their explanations/defence in support of their respective claims within a maximum period of four weeks from today before the State Government and soon after receiving the representations of the respective parties namely the petitioners of both the writ petitions, the State Government shall proceed to decide the matter afresh as to the rival claims set up by the respective parties. It is further provided that while examining the report of the Directorate dated 06.06.2025 as well as the representation made by the respective parties, the State Government shall definitely be scrutinizing examining the relevant service rules to find out and come to a definite conclusion whether the promotion in the matter under the relevant rules shall strictly be governed by the principle of "seniority subject to rejection of unfit" in the event both the rival claimants have the requisite qualification on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. An appropriate decision shall be taken by the State Government within a maximum period of two months of receipt of the representations of the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 and shall also be communicating the same to the respective parties before forwarding it to the Public Service Commission for its approval. State Government would certainly be addressing the points raised by the Secretary of the Public Service Commission its letter dated 24.05.2025.

9. It is also provided that Public Service Commission will hold any Departmental Promotion Committee qua post in question only after receiving fresh report from the State Government as directed here-in-above. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Sharad/- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad