High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Md. Firdos Rahmani Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Maria Fatima Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Samidha Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3. Mr. Abhishekh Pathak Advocate holding brief on behalf of Ms.Samidha learned counsel for opposite party No.4.

2. Rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit filed earlier is taken on record.

3. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authority for issuance of no objection certificate relieving petitioner from the Public Works Department, Govt. of U.P. to enable him to join on the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) at National Highways Authority of India on Deputation before the last extended date for joining i.e. 31st July, 2025.

4. It has been submitted that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by NHAI on 13th December, 2024, the petitioner had applied and information of such application had been provided to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Lucknow who also vide his letter dated 9th January, 2025 addressed to the concerned authority NHAI indicated acceptance of petitioner's application for deputation with the NHAI on basis of recruitment and confirmed that in case of selection, petitioner would be relieved within time framed stipulated by NHAI. The personal details of petitioner were also verified.

5. It is submitted that subsequently in pursuance of petitioner's application, he was selected as per select list dated 20th March, 2025 featuring petitioner at Sl. No.9.

6. In pursuance thereof, letter dated 21st March, 2025 was also issued by the NHAI to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D, U.P. requesting relieving of petitioner within a month from the date of issuance of letter for purposes of his joining on the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) on deputation with the NHAI.

7. It is submitted that despite such selection and letter having been issued, the opposite parties are not issuing the no objection certificate due to which petitioner is unable to join at the place of his deputation.

8. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that at present there are a total of 366 posts of Executive Engineers (Civil) sanctioned in the Public Works Department (PWD) out of which, total of 280 Executive Engineers are working and 86 posts are lying vacant due to which there is a shortage of Executive Engineers in department and in the case petitioner is relieved, it would adversely effect departmental work. It is also submitted that the earlier letter issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD, dated 9 January 2025, was without sanction or approval of State Government and since it is only the State Government, which can issue such a no-objection certificate, the aforesaid letter is without jurisdiction and authority and cannot be relied upon. It is also submitted that petitioner never took any consent or approval from the State Government for making such an application for deputation. It is also submitted that the example presented by petitioner pertaining to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj would be inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances since the said person is already working on deputation, which has merely been extended.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that in pursuance of advertisement issued for deputation on the basis of selection, petitioner had applied for same after due intimation to the Chief Engineer, PWD, who subsequently vide letter dated 9 January 2025 gave his consent for such deputation.

10. Although learned State Counsel has sought to discount the aforesaid letter dated 9th January 2025, it is evident that petitioner had clearly applied for deputation after giving due information to his higher authorities. If the Chief Engineer, PWD failed in his duties to apprise the State Government with regard to such an application, petitioner cannot be held liable for same since he was required to inform superior authorities only through an appropriate mode, which in the present case would be the Chief Engineer concerned. As such, this this Court does not find any good ground in the ground taken by State since it is a failure of communication between its own authorities.

11. It is also evident that petitioner has taken the ground of discrimination since the State Government vide letter dated 21st April 2025 has accorded such no objection in the case of one Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj who is also employed with the Public Works Department of the State Government on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).

12. Regarding aforesaid, counter affidavit states that the case of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj is distinguishable since the said person was already on deputation and no-objection was granted merely for his continuance.

13. The said assertion is required to be seen with the context of ground taken in the counter affidavit that the department is facing acute shortage of engineers. In view of such a ground being taken, it does not stand to reason as to why extension was granted to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj for continuing on deputation in case the department was facing such a severe shortage of Engineers.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, grant of no objection to one person in similar circumstances while denying the same benefit to petitioner is clearly discriminatory and thus arbitrary being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

15. The opposite party-State as a welfare State is required to act fairly granting equal treatments to persons who are placed equally. In the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that the case of petitioner was in parity with that of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj and therefore refusal to grant of no objection certified to petitioner while granting same to the said person is found to be discriminatory.

16. In view thereof, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no. 1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow to issue a no objection certificate for relieving of petitioner from the Public Works Department, Government of U.P. in order to enable him to join with the NHAI in pursuance of appointment letter dated 21st March, 2025. Appropriate orders for the same shall be passed within a period of ten days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

17. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Md. Firdos Rahmani Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Maria Fatima Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Samidha Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3. Mr. Abhishekh Pathak Advocate holding brief on behalf of Ms.Samidha learned counsel for opposite party No.4.

2. Rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit filed earlier is taken on record.

3. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authority for issuance of no objection certificate relieving petitioner from the Public Works Department, Govt. of U.P. to enable him to join on the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) at National Highways Authority of India on Deputation before the last extended date for joining i.e. 31st July, 2025.

4. It has been submitted that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by NHAI on 13th December, 2024, the petitioner had applied and information of such application had been provided to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Lucknow who also vide his letter dated 9th January, 2025 addressed to the concerned authority NHAI indicated acceptance of petitioner's application for deputation with the NHAI on basis of recruitment and confirmed that in case of selection, petitioner would be relieved within time framed stipulated by NHAI. The personal details of petitioner were also verified.

5. It is submitted that subsequently in pursuance of petitioner's application, he was selected as per select list dated 20th March, 2025 featuring petitioner at Sl. No.9.

6. In pursuance thereof, letter dated 21st March, 2025 was also issued by the NHAI to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D, U.P. requesting relieving of petitioner within a month from the date of issuance of letter for purposes of his joining on the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) on deputation with the NHAI.

7. It is submitted that despite such selection and letter having been issued, the opposite parties are not issuing the no objection certificate due to which petitioner is unable to join at the place of his deputation.

8. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that at present there are a total of 366 posts of Executive Engineers (Civil) sanctioned in the Public Works Department (PWD) out of which, total of 280 Executive Engineers are working and 86 posts are lying vacant due to which there is a shortage of Executive Engineers in department and in the case petitioner is relieved, it would adversely effect departmental work. It is also submitted that the earlier letter issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD, dated 9 January 2025, was without sanction or approval of State Government and since it is only the State Government, which can issue such a no-objection certificate, the aforesaid letter is without jurisdiction and authority and cannot be relied upon. It is also submitted that petitioner never took any consent or approval from the State Government for making such an application for deputation. It is also submitted that the example presented by petitioner pertaining to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj would be inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances since the said person is already working on deputation, which has merely been extended.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that in pursuance of advertisement issued for deputation on the basis of selection, petitioner had applied for same after due intimation to the Chief Engineer, PWD, who subsequently vide letter dated 9 January 2025 gave his consent for such deputation.

10. Although learned State Counsel has sought to discount the aforesaid letter dated 9th January 2025, it is evident that petitioner had clearly applied for deputation after giving due information to his higher authorities. If the Chief Engineer, PWD failed in his duties to apprise the State Government with regard to such an application, petitioner cannot be held liable for same since he was required to inform superior authorities only through an appropriate mode, which in the present case would be the Chief Engineer concerned. As such, this this Court does not find any good ground in the ground taken by State since it is a failure of communication between its own authorities.

11. It is also evident that petitioner has taken the ground of discrimination since the State Government vide letter dated 21st April 2025 has accorded such no objection in the case of one Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj who is also employed with the Public Works Department of the State Government on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).

12. Regarding aforesaid, counter affidavit states that the case of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj is distinguishable since the said person was already on deputation and no-objection was granted merely for his continuance.

13. The said assertion is required to be seen with the context of ground taken in the counter affidavit that the department is facing acute shortage of engineers. In view of such a ground being taken, it does not stand to reason as to why extension was granted to Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj for continuing on deputation in case the department was facing such a severe shortage of Engineers.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, grant of no objection to one person in similar circumstances while denying the same benefit to petitioner is clearly discriminatory and thus arbitrary being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

15. The opposite party-State as a welfare State is required to act fairly granting equal treatments to persons who are placed equally. In the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that the case of petitioner was in parity with that of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhardwaj and therefore refusal to grant of no objection certified to petitioner while granting same to the said person is found to be discriminatory.

16. In view thereof, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no. 1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow to issue a no objection certificate for relieving of petitioner from the Public Works Department, Government of U.P. in order to enable him to join with the NHAI in pursuance of appointment letter dated 21st March, 2025. Appropriate orders for the same shall be passed within a period of ten days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

17. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench