U.P. Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Tube-well Technical Employees Association vs State of U.P. and another

D. K. Seth, J.—In this writ petition the Association have claimed that the Mistri employed in the U. P, Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee. should be eligible for being promoted on similar terms on which such benefits are accorded to their counterparts in the department placed outside Irrigation Research Institute. This writ petition has been taken up along with Writ Petition No. 25611 of 1996. Only one counter-affidavit has been filed. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out in paragraph 17 that such Mistris are entitled to next pay scale after completing 6 years of service in terms of Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989 and selection grade scale after completion of 16 years of regular service. Thus, there are provisions for promotion available to these persons by means of grant of next higher scale on two stages. Then again. there are scope of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in terms of the U. P. Irrigation Department Junior Engineer Service Rules. 1992, which prescribes filling up of the post where there has been different percentage of quota, as has been fixed for employees working In the department for being promoted to the post on the basis of requisite qualification as prescribed therein. Unless a person fulfils the prescribed qualification, he cannot claim promotion. Thus, if one fulfils the requisite qualification in that event, he can get promotion under the said rules. But no claim for promotion could be accepted without fulfilling the prescribed qualification. Since in the Irrigation Research Institute, the scope of promotion should be limited to the said Institute itself, therefore, in order to save stagnation, provision for allowing the next higher scale at two stages having been made. It cannot be said that there is no scope for promotion to those engaged in the Irrigation Research Institute. In such circumstances, the contention of Mr. Pathak in respect of the petitioners in this writ petition that they should be given the same benefit, cannot be accepted.

Thus, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.