# Rajendra Pratap Giri v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 484
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-10
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8266 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-pratap-giri-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54397
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24. Consequently, this court finds merit in the writ petition, therefore, the orders/letters
impugned dated 27.06.2023 and 17.07.2023, are hereby quashed.

25. The respondent-authorities are directed to take a fresh decision on the application of the
petitioner, dated 15-06-2020, within a period of eight weeks, from the date a certified of this order
is produced before them, adhering to the prevalent laws and the observations made hereinabove.

26. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 484
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 8266 of 2025

Rajendra Pratap Giri ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-consideration of various aspect indicated in Paragraph 7(7) of GO dated 27.09.2019, while
ascertaining the Benchmarks for promotion to the Post of Superintending Engineer.
(2) Applicability of Rule of Purposive Construction.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Promotion - Post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) -
Benchmark of 80 marks - Ascertainment - Criteria to be followed - Aspects indicated in
Paragraph 7(7) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 pertaining to capability, merit,
technological knowledge, special entries etc. was not considered while rejecting the candidature
- Validity challenged
Held : A conjoint reading of paragraphs 7(7), 7(11) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 and paragraph 9
read with Format - 4 of Government Order dated 04.10.2019 leads this Court to an inescapable conclusion
that the conditions indicated in paragraph 7(7) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 therefore are also
required to be taken into account for purposes of calculation of marks obtained by a candidate for purposes of
allocating the benchmark - Such a course of action having not been followed by the opposite parties renders
the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 vitiated and is therefore quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari. [Para 20 and 26]
(B) Interpretation of statute - Rule of Purposive Construction - Applicability
Held : A statute or a provision must be construed with regard to its intent, which is meaningful and fulfills the
object and purport of such intention. The doctrine also indicates that meaning of words used in a provision is
required to be comprehended to advance the purpose of object and to remedy the mischief, if any, which it
sought to remedy. Context includes reading the statute or the provision as a whole with the surrounding
circumstances so that its intention is in consonance with the policy in order to give it a meaningful object.
[Para 23] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
3 All. Rajendra Pratap Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
485
Vivek Narayan Sharma and others vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 3 SCC 1; X vs. Principal Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and another, (2023) 9 SCC 433 -
referred to.

List of Acts
Government Order dated 27.09.2019 - Paragraph 7; Government Order dated 04.10.2019.

List of Keywords
Promotion, Marks, Annual Character Roll Entries, Ascertainment of marks, Benchmark, Mechanical manner,
Determination of criteria, Purposive construction, Intention, Object, Surrounding circumstances, Meaningful
object, Promotional avenue.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the authority rejecting the petitioner's candidature for
promotion.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Sudeep Seth, Sr. Adv.; Sridhar Awasthi, Akhilesh Kumar Yadav
Advs. for the Respondents : V. K. Bajpai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel
for petitioner and Mr. V.K. Bajpai, learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27.02.2025 whereby petitioner's
representation for consideration for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer
(Electrical/Mechanical) has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier as well petitioner had filed Writ-A
No. 1293 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2025 directing the authorities
concerned to take a final decision with regard to grievance of petitioner. It is in pursuance thereof
that the impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel has submitted that with regard to such consideration for promotion, it is
the Government Order dated 27.09.2019 read with Government Order dated 04.10.2019 which is
implemented. It is submitted that Government Order dated 27.09.2019 indicates the procedure and
methodology of consideration for promotion with marks being allocated on the basis of entries
made in the annual character roll. It is submitted that the Government Order indicates a benchmark
of 80 marks out of 100 which are required to be obtained by a candidate for being considered for
promotion. It is submitted that a perusal of said Government Order indicates the marks required to
be allocated with regard to the annual character roll entries and places reliance on paragraph - 7 of
the aforesaid Government Order to submit that apart from the marks allocated for entries in the
Annual Character Roll, additional marks and consideration is required by the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) for the aspects indicated in the said paragraph pertaining to
capability, merit, technological knowledge, special entries, etc.
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. It is submitted that however, in the present case, petitioner's candidature for promotion
has been rejected only on the ground that he failed to attain the minimum benchmark of 80 without
considering the aspects indicated in paragraph - 7 of the Government Order dated 27.09.2019.

6. He has also adverted to paragraph - 9 and Schedule - I of the Government Order dated
04.10.2019 to submit that the schedule indicates the format which is required to be forwarded to the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as indicated in Format - 4 whereunder comments are
also required to be made in terms of paragraph - 7 of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 but no
such consideration has been made with regard to petitioner.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that both Government Orders dated
27.09.2019 and 04.10.2019 indicate merit based selection for which a benchmark of 80 marks has
been prescribed and it is only those candidates or employees who secure 80 or more marks who are
classified under the suitable category and included in the selection list subject to availability of
actual vacancies and in order of seniority within feeding cadre.

8. It is submitted that for selection year 2022-23, the selection committee convened on
27.09.2022 and based on the ACRs of preceding ten years, a computation chart was prepared
whereunder petitioner secured only 73.65 marks which was below the prescribed benchmark of 80
marks and therefore he was classified under the unsuitable category.

9. It is thus submitted that since petitioner was unable to obtain the benchmark of 80
marks, there is no error in excluding his candidature for consideration for promotion.

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal
of material on record, the aspect requiring adjudication is:-

 (i) Whether the provisions indicated in paragraph - 7 (7) of the Government Order dated
27.09.2019 are required to be taken into account for ascertaining benchmark of 80 marks or
subsequent thereto?

11. With regard to aforesaid aspect, a perusal of the Government Order dated 27.09.2019
reveals the aspects required to be considered for consideration of employees for promotion. The
Government Order indicates that for purposes of ascertainment of merit, ACRs of the entire service
period may be seen with special consideration being given to the ACRs of preceding ten years. It
also indicates that apart from seniority, merit is also a consideration required and for which
purpose, a benchmark has to be indicated for consideration of candidates who are suitable and have
obtained more than the benchmark of 80 marks.

12. Paragraph - 3 (2) of the Government Order dated 27.09.2019 has also indicated the
aspect that the word 'benchmark' is not to be applied in mechanical manner and the method and
procedure to be followed is at the discretion of the selection committee as per its collective wisdom
and the numerical aspects would not bound the selection committee from consideration of suitable
candidates.
3 All. Rajendra Pratap Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
487
13. Paragraph - 7 of the Government Order thereafter indicates the method of marking for
purposes of obtaining the minimum benchmark marks by a candidate.

14. It is sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 7 of the aforesaid Government Order which is
relevant for purposes of adjudication of the present writ petition. The sub-paragraph (7) is as
follows:-

 "(7) संबंि धत काि मक की सत्य ि नष्ठा , नेतृत्व प्र दान करने व त् व ि रत ि नणयय लेने की क्ष
मता,तकनीकी/ि वषयज्ञ ा न, ि िवशष्ट उपिलब्ध यों /योगदान, कायर् की सुगमता से ि नष्पा दन की क्ष
मता,ि वशेष प्र ि िवष्ट यों , व्य ि क्त गत पत्रा वली में उपलब्ध अन्य िअभलेखों एवं ि वभागीय पदोन्न
ि तिसिमत के संज्ञा न में लाये गये अन्य तथ्ों के आधार पर भी ियन िसिमत द्व ा रा संबंि धत काि मकके
अंक घटाये या बढा ये जा सकते है। इसके ि लए तथ्ों एवं आधारों का उल्ले ख ि वभागीयियन िसिमत द्व ा
रा अवश् य ि कया जायेगा।"

15. It is a relevant fact that paragraph 7(11) of the aforesaid Government Order indicates
that after determination of all the criteria indicated in sub-paragraphs (1) to (10) of Paragraph 7 of
the Government Order, the marks obtained by a candidate are required to be calculated in order to
ascertain whether he has crossed the benchmark or not. Relevant sub-paragraph is as follows:-

 "7(11) उपयुक्तय उप प्रस् त र-1 से 10 के आधार पर 100 अंकों में से 80 अंक का बेन्च
माकर्ि नधार्ि रत करते हु ए 80 या 80 से िअधक अंक पाने वाले अभ्य थीर् /काि मक को "उपयुक्त " श्रे
णीमें वगीर् कृत करते हु ए, वास्त ि वक ि ररक्त यों .की उपलब्ध ता की सीमा तक, उनकी पोषक संवगर्
कीिवरष्ठ ता के क्र म में, ियन सूिी में शाि मल ि कया जायेगा तथा उनकी पोषक संवगर् की ज् येष्ठ ताके
आधार पर उनके पदोन्न ि त के आदेश ि नगतय ि कये जायेंगे। ज्ञ ा तव्य हो ि क 'उपयुक्त ' श्रे णी मेंवगीर्
कृत िअधकाि रयों के मध्य मेि रट के आधार पर कोई ि वभेद नहीं होगा। अथात्य िियनतिअधकाि रयों का
िअधक्र मण (Supersession) नहीं होगा। 80 अंक से कम पाने वालेअभ्य ि थयों को अनुपयुक्त श्रे णी में वगीर्
कृत ि कया जायेगा।

 उपयुक्तय के िअितरक्त ियद 80 अंक के बेन्च माकर् के आधार पर ि ररक्त यों की संख्या के अनुरू
प 'उपयुक्त ' श्रे णी में वगीर् कृत काि मक उपलब्ध नहीं हो पाते है, तो िसुन िसिमत उक्त 80 अंक केबेन्च
माकर् को घटाने हेतु सक्ष म होगी।"

16. From a perusal of the aforesaid sub-paragraph (11) of paragraph 7, therefore it is
evident that the criteria for marking indicated in sub-paragraphs (1) to (10) of paragraph 7 of the
Government Order would have a bearing in the calculation of marks obtained by a candidate for
purposes of ascertainment of his suitability for being considered for promotion, and for obtaining
benchmark.

17. The wordings of the aforesaid sub-paragraph (11) of paragraph 7 of the Government
Order therefore clearly ascribes the aspect that the conditions indicated in sub-paragraph (7) of
paragraph 7 of the Government Order would also be one of the conditions required to be taken into
account for purposes of ascertainment of benchmark pertaining to a particular candidate.
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. The said aspect is clarified in paragraph 9 of the Government Order dated 04.10.2019
which is as follows:-

 "(9) उपयुक्तय के िअितरक्त काि मक ि वभाग के शासनादेश संख्या -4/2019/13(2)/2007/ का-12019, ि दनांक 27.09.2019 के प्रस् त र-7 में िउल्ल ि खत सामान्य मागदयशीर् ि सद्धां तों केआलोक में संलग्न
प्र ारू प-4 पर पात्र िअधकाि रयों के अंकों एवं सुसंगत् तथ्ों का िअधकारीवाररववरण भी उपलब् ध कराया
जाय।"

19. The said paragraph alludes to Format - 4 appended to Government Order dated
04.10.2019 which specifically indicates relevant aspects apart from the ACRs.

20. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 7(7), 7(11) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019
and paragraph 9 read with Format - 4 of Government Order dated 04.10.2019 leads this Court to an
inescapable conclusion that the conditions indicated in paragraph 7(7) of Government Order dated
27.09.2019 therefore are also required to be taken into account for purposes of calculation of marks
obtained by a candidate for purposes of allocating the benchmark.

21. Upon perusal of impugned order, it is also evident that petitioner's representation has
been rejected only on the ground that as per the ACR entries for the preceding ten years, he has
obtained less than the benchmark of 80 marks and was therefore categorized as unsuitable.

22. It is thus evident that the aspects required to be taken into account in paragraph 7(7) of
Government Order dated 27.09.2019 have not been taken into account by opposite parties who
have delved only on the markings as per the ACR.

23. With regard to interpretation of the Government Order dated 27.09.2019, the aspect of
purposive construction would be applicable. The said aspect signifies that a statute or a provision
must be construed with regard to its intent, which is meaningful and fulfills the object and purport
of such intention. The doctrine also indicates that meaning of words used in a provision is required
to be comprehended to advance the purpose of object and to remedy the mischief, if any, which it
sought to remedy. Context includes reading the statute or the provision as a whole with the
surrounding circumstances so that its intention is in consonance with the policy in order to give it a
meaningful object. Aforesaid proposition has been enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Vivek Narayan Sharma and others(Demonetisation Case-5 J.) v. Union of India and others reported
in (2023) 3 SCC 1 in the following manner:-

 "137. A statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent. It has to be
meaningful. A construction which leads to manifest absurdity must not be preferred to a
construction which would fulfil the object and purport of the legislative intent."

 "148. It is thus clear that it is a settled principle that the modern approach of
interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic. An interpretation which advances the purpose
of the Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen and the other
which leads to absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and conflict between its various
3 All. Rajendra Pratap Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
489
provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the
enactment must be eschewed. The primary and foremost task of the Court in interpreting a statute
is to gather the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, it
is the duty of the Court to strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and
purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary, the Court may even depart from the
rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no
meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or
absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be justified in departing from the socalled golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment.
Ascertainment of legislative intent is the basic rule of statutory construction."

24. Similarly, in the case of X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and another reported in (2023) 9 SCC 433, the Rule
of purposive interpretation has been indicated as follows:-

 "31. The cardinal principle of the construction of statutes is to identify the intention of the
legislature and the true legal meaning of the enactment. The intention of the legislature is derived
by considering the meaning of the words used in the statute, with a view to understanding the
purpose or object of the enactment, the mischief, and its corresponding remedy that the enactment
is designed to actualise. [ Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (Lexis Nexis,
2016), at p. 12; State of H.P. v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 351 : 1992 SCC
(L&S) 874; Union of India v. Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd., (2001) 4 SCC 139] Ordinarily, the
language used by the legislature is indicative of legislative intent. In Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi
Sadhukhan [Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 8 : AIR 1957 SC 907]
, Gajendragadkar, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) opined that ?the first and primary rule
of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the
legislature itself?. But when the words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, they
should be construed in light of the object and purpose of the enactment. The purposive construction
of the provision must be ?illumined by the goal, though guided by the word?. [Kanta Goel v. B.P.
Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814] Aharon Barak opines that in certain circumstances this may indicate
giving ?an unusual and exceptional meaning? to the language and words used. [ Aharon Barak,
Purposive Interpretation in Law, (Princeton University Press, 2007), at p. 306.]"

25. Although the aforesaid judgments pertain to statutory interpretation but in the
considered opinion of this Court, they would be applicable in the present circumstances as well
with regard to procedure indicated in the Government Order dated 27.09.2019 particularly since it
indicates the aspects which are required to be kept in mind for purposes of consideration of
employees for promotional avenues. Once a specific procedure has been indicated without any
ambiguity, the same is required to be adhered to in totality without any deviation in order to give a
purpose and meaning to all the conditions indicated therein.

26. As indicated here-in-above, for purposes of ascertainment of suitability of a candidate,
the aspects indicated in paragraph 7(7) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 were thus required
to be taken into account by the opposite parties. Such a course of action having not been followed
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the opposite parties renders the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 vitiated and is therefore
quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.

27. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party
No.2, Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow or any other
competent authority to re-consider petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Superintending
Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) for the selection years 2021-22 onward taking into account
aspects indicated in paragraph 7(7) of the Government Order dated 27.09.2019.

28. Such a consideration shall be made expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from
the date a certified copy of this order is served upon authority concerned.

29. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 490
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ A No. 9798 of 2023

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Anshul Jagannath ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Consequence of not completing the disciplinary proceeding within the timeline as fixed by the High Court
in writ petition arising out of the suspension order.
(2) Effect of non-consideration of the reply of charged employee before passing the punishment order.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Allegation of committing negligence
and slackness in the discharge of his duties while working as Assistant Commissioner (Mobile
Squad), Commercial Tax - Earlier, the High Court directed to complete the disciplinary
proceeding within two months, failing which the suspension order would stand revoked -
However, the proceeding was continued even after the timeline fixed by High Court - Effect
Held : Consequence of not completing the disciplinary proceedings within the time fixed by the Court was
only to the extent that the suspension order shall stand revoked. This cannot, by any interpretation, be
construed to mean that the disciplinary proceedings could not continue after the timeline fixed by the Court -
The timeline fixed by this Court while passing the judgment and order dated 29.09.2021 in Writ Petition No.
21920 (SS) of 2021 was only in reference to the continuation of the suspension order and not with respect to
the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings after the lapse of the two months timeline fixed by the Court.
[Para 15 and 20]
(B) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Stoppage of four increments with
permanent effect along with an entry of Censure - The order of punishment nowhere refers to