Jagdish Chand Kohli v. State of Uttarakhand and others

In its determination, the High Court was of the view, that Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules postulates only one criterion for promotion, namely, seniority. And that, seniority was the only relevant factor for determining onward promotion from group ‘D’ service to the lowest ministerial posts of Group ‘C’ service. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present controversy, we are of the view that the High Court erred in recording the aforesaid determination. Whilst there can be no doubt Rule 4 postulates seniority as the basis for onward promotion, but the Rule also provides, that promotions would be made subject to the “rejection of the unfit”. If the Government Orders dated 17.07.2004 and 08.11.2004 were the basis of determining the fitness of concerned employees for onward promotion and for adopting measures for “rejection of the unfit” then the two Government orders would squarely fall within the purview of Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules. Otherwise, they would be in conflict therewith.

11. We have extracted hereinabove both 3 Government Orders. We are satisfied that it was the endevour of the government to determine fitness of Group ‘D’ employees, for onward promotion to the lowest rank of ministerial posts in Group ‘C’ service. We say so because, it is apparent to us, that Group ‘D’, posts comprise of posts in the nature of Peons, Messengers, Chaukidars, Malies, Farrashes, Sweepers, Watermen, Bhistis, Tindals, Thelamen, Recerdfilters, Peon-Jamadars, Daftri, Book–Binders, Cyclostyle Operators, Farrash-Jamadar, Sweeper-Jamadars and Head Malis. The nature of duties of the posts referred to hereinabove, are too well-known. Merely because an employee while holding a Group ‘D’ post has been discharging the duties, of the nature referred to above, it cannot be presumed that he/she is suitable for onward promotion to a ministerial post. It is, therefore, that while determining the issue of onward promotion to ministerial posts, the State Government issued inter alia the above two Government Orders extracted hereinabove. Thereby, it would be possible to determine the fitness of those who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for promotion. We are satisfied that the aforesaid two Government Orders squarely fall within the ambit of competence of the appointing authority, to determine the minimum fitness standards postulated under Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules.

12. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the impugned orders passed by the High Court, whereby, the above two Government Orders were quashed, deserve to be set aside. The two Government Orders dated 17.07.2024 and 08.11.2024 are hereby upheld. The instant appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are therefore set aside.”

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner was 4 considered and decided by the competent authority vide impugned order dated 21.03.2013 and in the said order it has been observed that the promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ is to be made as per the departmental service rules of 2004, as amended in the year 2008 which provides that the promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ has to be made on the basis of examination, in which, 50 marks are for written examination, 20 marks are for annual confidential report, 20 marks are for the typing test and 10 marks are for the computer knowledge, as such, the examination would be of 100 marks and the provisions of Uttarakhand Government Servant (Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2004, would not be applicable in making promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’. It is further averred in the impugned order that the petitioner is working on the substantive post of Peon (Group ‘D’) and is getting salary for the said post and was paid the salary of Clerk from

31.03.1993 to 22.08.1995, i.e., during the period when he was allowed to work as Clerk. The impugned order, as such, specifies that the petitioner cannot be granted promotion on Group ‘C’ post in view of the specific provisions made in the departmental promotion Rules 2004, as amended in the year 2008.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition for consideration of his case for promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2012 and in pursuance thereof, the case of the petitioner was considered and was rejected by the impugned order. The 5 departmental authority has considered representation submitted by the petitioner on merits and it has rightly been observed that the promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ can be made as per the departmental rules of 2004 as amended in the year 2008.

8. The law is well settled that in case of any conflict between the Special Rules and General Rules, the Special Rules, i.e., the Departmental Rules shall prevail. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2009, State of Uttaranchal & others vs. C.S.R.K.S. Medical Health Services, Uttaranchal, has held that the promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ are not governed by the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2004, and the Government Orders dated 17.07.2004 and 08.11.2004, which held the field prior to the issuance of the departmental rules of 2004 were upheld.

9. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the decision taken by the departmental authority and there is no scope of interference in the present writ petition. The impugned order has been passed by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering his representation which has been decided on merit.

10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 22.12.2025 Kaushal 6