# Dr. Rama Kant & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 469
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17113 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-rama-kant-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54515
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. St. Universities Act,
1973 - Section 35(2) - Lecturer for selffinance course - Appointment was put in
abeyance - No prior approval of Vice
Chancellor was taken - Effect - Held, the
provision of Sub Section 2 of Section 35
relating
to
prior
approval
of
Vice
Chancellor before dismissal or removal or
reduction in rank or any punishment do
not
make
any
distinction
between
aided/St.
financed
course
and
self
financed course - Statute 17.06 (3) is pari
materia to the provisions as contained
under Section 35(2) of the Act of 1973 -
The
power
of
the
Management
is
conditioned by the prior approval of the
Vice Chancellor. It is a prerequisite and
without that the college/Committee of
Management of the Institution is not at all
entitled in any manner to pass any
resolution and give it effect which may
have adverse civil consequences - The
Committee
of
Management
was
not
justified in putting the appointment of the
petitioners in abeyance. (Para 9, 10, 11
and 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

4 All. Dr. Rama Kant & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
Corporation are hereby quashed. The
respondents will have liberty to proceed
afresh against the petitioner from the stage
of the charge-sheet, subject to the condition
that a penalty higher than that awarded by
the impugned orders shall not be awarded.

20. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. Let the Registrar (Compliance)
communicate this judgment and order to
the
Chairman,
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation Limited, Lucknow and the
Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation Limited, Lucknow.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 469
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 17113 of 2018

Dr. Rama Kant & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pradeep Kumar, Sri Anil Kumar Singh,
Sri Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Gaurav Singh, Sri Praveen Kumar, Sri Uma
Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava, Sri
Rohit Pandey, Sri Uma Dutt Shukla

A. Service Law - U.P. St. Universities Act,
1973 - Section 35(2) - Lecturer for selffinance course - Appointment was put in
abeyance - No prior approval of Vice
Chancellor was taken - Effect - Held, the
provision of Sub Section 2 of Section 35
relating
to
prior
approval
of
Vice
Chancellor before dismissal or removal or
reduction in rank or any punishment do
not
make
any
distinction
between
aided/St.
financed
course
and
self
financed course - Statute 17.06 (3) is pari
materia to the provisions as contained
under Section 35(2) of the Act of 1973 -
The
power
of
the
Management
is
conditioned by the prior approval of the
Vice Chancellor. It is a prerequisite and
without that the college/Committee of
Management of the Institution is not at all
entitled in any manner to pass any
resolution and give it effect which may
have adverse civil consequences - The
Committee
of
Management
was
not
justified in putting the appointment of the
petitioners in abeyance. (Para 9, 10, 11
and 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish
Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Committee of Management of the college
concerned and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned
counsel for the University.

2. Petitioners before this Court were
initially engaged in a self-financed course
as a Lecturer in the subject of Sociology
with the approval of the Vice Chancellor
vide
orders
dated
22.10.2003
and
19.09.2007 respectively and continued as
such until the order impugned came to be
passed
on
24.07.2018
putting
their
appointment in the self finance course of
the college, in abeyance.

3. The argument advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
Committee of Management of the college
concerned was not legally authorized to
pass such kind of orders without seeking
prior approval from the Vice Chancellor as
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is indicated under Section 35(2) of the U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act of 1973'). The
provisions require every appointment,
according to him, and the termination of
appointment as well, to be subject to the
prior approval by the Vice Chancellor.
He has also taken the Court to the
Government Order dated 09.05.2000 to
advance a submission that in the event a
Committee of Management was having
any complaint against the petitioners
regarding their work and conduct or
otherwise then such order would amount
to be punitive in nature and, therefore,
was also to have preceded by the
approval of the Vice Chancellor.

4. Per contra, it is argued by
learned counsel for the Committee of
Management,
Sri
Ashish
Mohan
Srivastava, that though the self finance
course in question is being run by the
institution but because of the number of
students
getting
down/reduced
there
remained no further requirement of
having two faculty members in addition
to those who were already employed in
the institution and so the order putting in
abeyance appointment of petitioners have
been passed on the principle of last come
first go. He submits that in 2019 around
only nine students were enrolled in the
subject of Sociology and the first
semester and second semester there were
only 10 students and likewise in the
subject of Geography there were only 24
and 25 students respectively and since a
class consists of atleast 40 students,
therefore, the management cannot be
faulted with in putting the continuance of
the petitioner's services on hold.

5. It is further argued that since the
Committee of Management did not proceed
to dispense with the services of the
petitioner,
therefore,
there
arose
no
question for seeking any prior approval
from the Vice Chancellor. He submits that
it would have been necessary had the
Management proceeded to terminated their
services. Another argument advanced by
Sri Srivastava is that there were serious
complaints against the petitioners regarding
their act and conduct in the institution
against the management inasmuch as there
were other serious complaints from the
students against them and therefore, the
management got compelled to put in
abeyance their continuance in college as
teachers.

6. Sri Rohit Pandey, learned Advocate
appearing for the University submits that as
per the Act of 1973 which is applicable to
the institution in question, the services of
such teachers cannot be dispensed with
without prior approval of the Vice
Chancellor as their appointments are also
done with the prior approval of the Vice
Chancellor. He further submits that since
there was no proceeding drawn by the
Committee of Management against the
petitioners, nor there is any justification
shown in the order that services of the
petitioners were discontinued only for the
reason that there were serious complaints,
there was all the more no reason to order
petitioners to sit back. It is further
submitted that on the University portal that
contains a dash board with details of
faculty in the college does show the name
of these two teachers on the roll of the
faculty of the college even today. He has
also placed before the Court the current
status of the strength of students in the
subject of Sociology and Geography and
according to which he submits that there
are sufficient number of students for which
the petitioners can be gainfully engaged.
4 All. Dr. Rama Kant & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties, their arguments
raised across the bar and having perused the
pleadings raised in the writ petition, order of
appointment
and
orders
putting
their
appointments in abeyance, Government
Order dated 09.05.2000 as well as relevant
statute of the University, two points emerge
out for consideration:

a) Whether the Committee of
Management was justified and legally
entitled to put in abeyance the appointment of
the petitioners which was offered to them
after prior approval of the Vice Chancellor,
and

b) Whether such power to put on
hold on appointment duly made, is vested
with the college and that too without prior
approval of the Vice Chancellor of the
University.

8. It is nobody's case that the institution
in question is not affiliated with the
University in question, namely, Chhatrapati
Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kalyanpur,
Kanpur which is governed under the Act of
1973. It is also nobody's case that the first
statute of the University do not provide for
any prior approval of the Vice Chancellor in
the matter of appointment or termination of
services
of
the
teachers
of
the
affiliated/associated colleges. The petitioners'
institution being admittedly affiliated to the
University in question also stands governed
by the Statute. The relevant statute 35.1 and
35.2 of the Act of 1973 are reproduced
hereunder:

"35. Conditions of service of
teachers of affiliated or associated colleges
other than those maintained by Government
or local authority. - (1) Every teacher in an
affiliated or associated college (other than
a college maintained exclusively by the
State Government) 2[* * *] shall be
appointed under a written contract which
shall contain such terms and conditions as
may be prescribed. The contract shall be
lodged with the University and a copy
thereof shall be given to the teacher
concerned, and another copy thereof shall
be retained by the college concerned.

(2)
Every
decision
of
the
Management of such college to dismiss or
remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank
or to punish him in any other manner
shall before it is communicated to him, be
reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall
not take effect unless it has been approved
by the Vice-Chancellor:

Provided that in the case of
colleges established and administered by a
minority referred to in clause (1) of Article
30 of the Constitution of India, the decision
of the Management dismissing removing or
reducing in rank or punishing in any other
manner any teacher shall not require the
approval of the Vice-Chancellor, but, shall
be reported to him and unless he is
satisfied that the procedure prescribed in
this behalf I has been followed, the decision
shall not be given effect to."
(Emphasis added)

9. From bare reading of Sub Section 2
of Section 35 of the Act of 1973 it is quite
explicit that only order of dismissal or
removal of a teacher or to reduction in rank
or to punish him in any other manner shall
have to be reported first to the Vice
Chancellor and shall not be given effect to
unless and until it is approved by the Vice
Chancellor. The provisions do not make
any
distinction
between
aided/State
financed course and self financed course.

10. The terms and conditions upon
which a teacher has to be appointed are not
only governed under the Act of 1973 but
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also have to be as per procedure as may be
prescribed. The first Statute of the
University concerned has come to be
framed taking aid of Section 49 of the Act
of 1973 and it prescribes vide Statute 17.06
that any resolution contemplating removal,
dismissal or termination of services of a
teacher shall in the first instance be placed
before the Vice Chancellor for his
approval and shall not be operative unless
so approved. This Statute 17.06 (3) is pari
materia to the provisions as contained
under Section 35(2) of the Act of 1973.
Further I find that Clause 4 of Statute
17.06 also provides that no resolution of
the Management qua reduction of pay,
stoppage of any annual increments for a
specified period or deprivation of his pay
not including subsistence allowance etc.
shall be given effect to without prior
approval of the Vice Chancellor. Statute
17.06 is reproduced hereunder:

"17.06. (1) No order dismissing,
removing, or terminating the services of a
teacher on any ground mentioned in
clause (1) or clause (2) of Statute 16.04
(except in the case of a conviction for an
offence involving moral turpitude or of
abolition of post) shall be passed unless a
charge has been framed against the
teacher and communicated to him with a
statement of the grounds on which it is
proposed to take action and he has been
given adequate opportunity ?

i)
of
submitting
a
written
statement of his defense;

ii) of being heard in person, if he
so desires; and

iii) of calling and examining
such witnesses in his defense as he may
desire;

Provided that the Management
or the officer authorised by it to conduct
the inquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be
recorded in writing, refuse to call any
witness.

(2) The Management may, at the
time, ordinarily within two months from the
date of the inquiry officer's report, pass a
resolution dismissing or removing the
teacher
concerned
from
service,
or
terminating his service mentioning the
grounds of such dismissal, removal or
termination.

(3) The resolution shall forthwith
be communicated to the teacher concerned
and also be reported to the Vice Chancellor
for approval and shall not be operative
unless so approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

(4)
The
Management
may
instead
of
dismissing,
removing,
or
terminating services of the teacher pass a
resolution inflicting one or more of the
following lesser punishments, namely-

i. reduction of pay for a specified
period;

ii.
stoppage
of
annual
increments for a specified period not
exceeding three years;

iii. deprivation of his pay not
including subsistence allowance during
the period of his suspension, if any.

the
resolution
by
the
Management inflicting such punishment
shall be reported to the Vice Chancellor
and shall be operative only when and to
the
extent,
approved
by
the
Vice
Chancellor."
(Emphasis added)

11. It is thus absolutely clear that the
power of the Management is conditioned
by the prior approval of the Vice
Chancellor. It is a prerequisite and without
that the college/Committee of Management
of the Institution is not at all entitled in any
manner to pass any resolution and give it
effect which may have adverse civil
consequences and which may include both
4 All. Dr. Rama Kant & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
major
action
of
removal/dismissal/
termination of service or in any manner
reduction of pay or withholding payment of
salary.

12. Here an argument could be that in
view of the provisions as contained under
statute 17.04(4) a teacher appointed in
temporary or officiating capacity can be
removed from the employment by giving
one month's notice or payment of one
month's salary in lieu there of in advance.
This provision also authorizes such a
teacher to resign from the employment in a
similar fashion. Provisions as contained
under statute 17.04(4) are reproduced
hereunder:

"(4) In the case of any other
teacher appointed in a temporary or
officiating capacity his services shall be
terminated, by one month notice or on
payment of salary in lieu thereof on either
side."

13. Statute 17.06 bars termination of
service of a teacher on any ground
mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of
statute 17.04 except with prior approval of
the Vice Chancellor in view of Clause (3)
of statute 17.06. The petitioners having
been appointed on a contract basis in a self
finance course can claim to be falling in
such category of teachers as mentioned in
clause (4) of statute 17.04 (supra). The
statute if taken to be totally silent qua the
appointment of teachers in self finance
course and their conditions of service. It is
the Government Order issued by the State
Government in that behalf on 09.05.2000
shall then have to be applied. Para 2(1) of
the Government Order provides that
appointments of teachers under self finance
course have to be made from the panel
prepared by the University Executive
Council and the Vice Chancellor and para
2(2)
says
that
upon
contract,
an
appointment coming to end, fresh process
for appointment shall be undertaken but
prior to that, candidature of already
working teachers have to be accorded due
consideration. Such a teacher vested with
the power to resign by giving three months'
notice in advance and the Management is
equally empowered to draw disciplinary
proceedings against teachers, if it is not
satisfied with the work and conduct of such
teachers, but then prior approval of such
final action by the management has to be
obtained from the Vice Chancellor.

14. Para 2(1) and 2(2) of the
Government Order dated 09.05.2000 are
reproduced hereunder:

"2- उपयुजि िासनादेि विहित धिक्षकों
की चयन प्रहिया उनका िेतन धनिाजरण एिं
अिजताओं के समबन्ि में राज्य सरकार द्वारा
समयक विचार करने के उपरान्त धनममानुसार
धनणजय धिया गया िै-

(1) स्िावित्त पोवषत मिाविद्याियों में
अध्यापकों के चयन के धिए वििेषज्ञ का
नामांकन विश्वविद्यािय द्वारा हकया जायेगा।
चयन का अनुमोदन विश्वविद्यािय से कराया
जायेगा. म्जससे चयधनत व्यवि के समबन्ि में
सूचना विश्वविद्यािय में भी उपिब्ि िो जायेगी।
विश्वविद्यािय
के
कुिपधत
कायजपररषद्
के
अनुमोदन से प्रत्येक विषय के धिए वििेषज्ञों
का एक पैनि बनायेंगे, जो तीन िषों तक प्रभािी
िोगा। प्रबंि तंर्त्र को म्जस विषय में अध्यापक
का चयन िो इस पैनि में से वििेषज्ञों का
चयन प्रबंि तंर्त्र द्वारा कर धिया जायेगा।

(2) स्िवित्त पोवषत मिाविद्याियों में
प्रबंिकों की धनयुवि तीन िषज अर्थिा पांच िषज
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
की संविदा पर की जायेगी। संविदा की अिधि
समाप्त िो जाने के बाद प्रबंि तंर्त्र द्वारा हफर से
चयन की कायजिािी प्रारमभ करने पर पूिज से
कायजरत व्यवि के नाम पर धनम्श्चत रूप से
विचार हकया जायेगा। इन मिाविद्याियों में
धनयुि धिक्षक सस्र्था के प्रबंि तंर्त्र को तीन
माि का नोहर्स देकर सेिा का त्यागपर्त्र दे
सकता िै। परन्तु यहद प्रबंि तंर्त्र धिक्षक कायज
से सतुष्ट न िो तो प्रबंि तंर्त्र अनुिासनात्मक
कायजिािी कर समबम्न्ित धिक्षक को सेिा से
िर्ा सकते िैं परन्तु अनुिासधनक कायजिािी की
म्स्र्थधत में कुिपधत का अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना
आिश्यक िोगा।"

15. There is no other provision under
the Government Order that may empower
to Committee of Management to place
appointment of a teacher in a suspended
animation. Thus, even in case of temporary
teachers and teachers appointed on contract
basis, the power of Management are not
absolute.

16. Now applying the above law to
the order impugned, I find that the
petitioner's services have been put in
abeyance on 24.07.2018 in following
terms:

"प्रापक,

 डॉ० रमाकान्त प्रििा

 - भूगोि

वि० िा० मिा० हदवबयापुर

विषयः सेिा स्र्थधगत के संबंि में।

मिोदय,

एतदर्थज सूधचत हकया जाता िै हक
आपके विषय में सर्त्र 2018-19 में िार्त्रों का
अभाि िोने के कारण आपकी सेिायें अगिे
आदेि तक स्र्थधगत की जाती िै।
भिदीय
(रामिंकर गुप्त)
मंर्त्री/प्रबन्िक"

17. In respect of petitioner no.2 an
identical order has been passed as quoted
above. This order clearly states that the
services of the teacher concerned is being
put in abeyance. This order even does not
refer to any resolution of the Committee of
Management, nor does it show that any
kind of communication preceded with the
University. Now looking to the Clause 4 of
the Statute 17.06 of first statute this order is
clearly unsustainable because it puts the
payment of salary of the petitioner also on
hold. Naturally, if a teacher is not
continued in employment may be is kept in
suspended animation, he/she will equally
be not entitled for the payment of salary on
the principle of ' NO WORK NO PAY'.
Thus order dated 24.07.2018 passed in
respect of the petitioners brought on record
as Annexure-1 to the writ petition is clearly
unsustainable and deserves quashment.

18. Coming to the second question as
to whether the Committee of Management
could have put an appointment in abeyance
like the case in question, I find that only
provision that empowers the Committee of
Management to take such decision is
contained under Statute 17.06 as far as
statute is concerned. The various clauses of
the said statute only deal with the
management's power to put a teacher under
termination, dismissal or removal or even
can subject him to an order which may
amount to any kind of stoppage of annual
increment allowances or salary, but the first
statute 17.06 vide its clause 3 puts a rider
4 All. Dr. Rama Kant & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475
upon
this
exercise
of
power
of
Management which according to the
Statute requires prior approval of the Vice
Chancellor. This provision being pari
materia as I have already observed, to Sub
Section 2 of Section 35, therefore, the
Manager's power is also held to be not
absolute one. There is no other power
vested
with
the
Committee
of
the
Management under the Statute of the
University or of the Act of 1973 by which a
teacher duly appointed with the prior
approval of the Vice Chancellor can be
placed in suspended animation except
where
management
intends
to
hold
disciplinary proceedings vide statute 17.04.
Therefore, in my considered view the
Committee
of
Management
was
not
justified in putting the appointment of the
petitioners
in
abeyance.
Even
the
Government Order (supra) that deals with
the conditions of service of teachers in selffinance
course,
does
not
authorize
management to place working of teacher in
a suspended animation and then not to pay
salary to such teachers. This exercise of
power is held to be absolutely without any
authority vested in law and hence null and
void.

19. Now coming to another argument
advanced by learned counsel appearing for
the Committee of Management that the
number of students have got reduced and,
therefore, it became necessary to put the
appointment of the petitioners on hold,
suffice it to observe that even in such
matters where the number of students had
gone down and that the college did not
require any more services of such teachers,
the
matter
was
required
to
be
communicated to the University in the first
instance to seek approval of the Vice
Chancellor but in any case putting in
abeyance the appointment of any teacher is
not contemplated either under Section 35 of
the Act of 1973 or the first Statute of the
University.

20. Besides the above, considering
the current status of the strength of the
students which are more than 60 taking
both the semesters together in both the
subjects and the fact that the college is
continuing with the courses, there is no
justification to keep the petitioner's
appointment in abeyance.

21. So far as the argument of learned
counsel appearing for the Committee of
Management,
Sri
Ashish
Mohan
Srivastava, as to the complaints by the
student are concerned, the Government
Order dated 09.05.2000 empowers the
Committee of Management for this purpose
to hold an enquiry and then take
appropriate action. While pleadings have
been raised in the counter affidavit
regarding complaints but the pleadings are
absolutely silent about any enquiry being
held in the matter as contemplated under
the Government Order and even if such an
enquiry was held the enquiry report was
liable to be communicated to the petitioner
and then to the University in compliance of
the principles of natural justice. On this
count also, I do not find the orders passed
to be sustainable.

22. In view of the above, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

23. The order passed by the
Committee
of
Management
dated
24.07.2018 putting the appointments of
respective petitioners in abeyance by two
separate orders are hereby quashed.

24. Consequences to follow.
----------
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 4 ILRA 476
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 19126 of 2023

Ram Pratap Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Avneesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Vijay Kuamr
Mishra

A. Service Law - Institute of Technology
Act, 1961 - Sections 13(1), 13(2)(c) &
33(1)(b) - Recruitment and Promotion
Rules, 2018, as modified on 28.05.2021 -
Rule 6 - Post of Executive Engineer -
Advertisement
for
direct
recruitment
issued - Power of Board of Governor to
frame Rules was challenged - Held, Board
has been vested with power to provide for
direct recruitment even U.P.on post that
are prescribed not at entry level but by
way of lateral entry - Residuary power
lies with Board, which is not provided
elsewhere - Taking recourse to the
harmonious
constructions
of
the
provisions as contained under Section
13(1) and 13(2)(c) and 33(1)(b) and 38(c)
of the IT Act, 1961, it can safely be
concluded that Board of Governors being
Apex Body of the IIT Kanpur under the
Act, 1961 is fully empowered to frame
recruitment and promotions rules. (Para
16, 21 and 22)

B.
Service
Law
-
Recruitment
and
Promotion Rules, 2018, as modified on
28.05.2021 - Rule 6 - Post of Executive
Engineer
-
Departmental
promotion
claimed
-
Petitioner
possessed
no
eligibility
-
Entitlement
to
claim
promotion - Held, Rules vide P-19 to the
schedule make post of Executive Engineer
at pay matrix level- 11 in the GroU.P.-A to
be filled U.P. by promotion only from
Assistant Executive Engineer, pay matrix
level 10 - Petitioners cannot question the
advertisement as far as post of Executive
Engineer is concerned because they have
nothing to put on stake, being not eligible
even by way of promotion U.P.on the
posts in question. (Para 26 and 27)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & ors. Vs Dr.
H. N. Nabachandra Singh & ors.; (2020) 20 SCC
312

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Avneesh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
V.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the Union
of India and Sri Rohan Gupta, learned
counsel for respondents nos. 2,3 4.

2. The petitioner no. 1 who is
presently working as Senior Assistant
Engineer (Special Grade) in a pay band-2
with Grade Pay 5400/- at pay matrix level 9
and petitioner no. 2 who is working as
Senior Assistant Engineer, pay band-2 with
grade Pay- 4800/- at pay matrix level-8 in
the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
(IIT, Kanpur) seek to challenge an
advertisement
issued
by
IIT
Kanpur
advertising 5 posts of Executive Engineer
of which three posts are in unreserved
category, vide advertisement no. 1 of 2023.

3. Both the petitioners claim that they
deserved promotion at much earlier point
of time to a higher post of Assistant
Executive Engineer, pay band-3 with grade
pay 5400/- at pay matrix level 10 as the