Bharat Chandra Bhat t & Ot hers v. Chief Secret ary, Governm ent of Ut t arakhand and Ot hers

respondent nos.4 and 5 in 2015 was challenged by pet it ioners by filing a claim pet it ion before t he Tribunal in 2019 only on t he ground t hat t here were only t wo post s of Deput y Developm ent Com m issioner exist ing in Ut t arakhand Rural Developm ent Depart m ent before enforcem ent of 2011 Rules, t herefore, t wo Principals serving in Training Cadre could not have been prom ot ed as Deput y Developm ent Com m issioner, for whom only 25% quot a was available. Learned Tribunal t ook not e of Governm ent Order dat ed 03.05.2010, whereby t he cadre of Rural Developm ent Depart m ent was rest ruct ured, which indicat es t hat t here were as m any as 08 sanct ioned post s of Deput y Com m issioner or equivalent before enforcem ent of Rules in 2011, and held t hat t here was not hing wrong if 02 m em bers of Training Cadre prom ot ed Deput y Com m issioner.

6. Governm ent Order dat ed 03.05.2010 enclosed as Annexure No.CA1 t o t he count er affidavit dat ed 16.11.2019 filed by Mr. Sandeep Kum ar Verm a, Principal Ext ension Training Cent re, Shankarpur, 3 Dehradun on behalf of St at e Governm ent . The said Governm ent Order refers t o rest ruct uring done earlier vide Governm ent Order dat ed 24.06.2005 as well as Governm ent Order dat ed 10.12.2008.

7. Careful perusal of t he Governm ent Order dat ed 03.05.2010 indicat es t hat it is t he t hird t im e t hat cadre of Rural Developm ent Depart m ent was being rest ruct ured. I t furt her indicat es t hat t hree different post s carrying sam e Pay Scale, nam ely, Deput y Com m issioner, Chief Developm ent Officer and Joint Secret ary, j oint ly com prise t he cadre of Deput y Com m issioner.

8. Thus, t he conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal cannot be fault ed. Before enforcem ent of 2011 Rules, t here were as m any as 08 sanct ioned post s of Deput y Com m issioner or equivalent . Out of t hose 08 post s, Principal serving in Ext ension Training Cent re were ent it led t o 25% quot a for prom ot ion t o t he post of Deput y Com m issioner in t erm s of j udgm ent rendered by Division Bench in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No.152 of

2012. Thus t here is no illegalit y in prom ot ion of respondent nos.4 and 5.

9. Mr. D.S. Pat ni, learned Senior Counsel t hen subm it s t hat Governm ent Order dat ed 03.05.2010 reorganized only t he cadre of Block Developm ent Officer, t herefore, m em bers of Training Cadre i.e. t hose serving as Principal ( Group “ A” ) Ext ension Training Cent re were not eligible t o be prom ot ed against 08 post s of Deput y Com m issioner creat ed in t he cadre of Block Developm ent Officer or Provincial Developm ent Service ( PDS) . However, when a point ed query was 4 posed t o learned counsel for pet it ioners as t o whet her t he Rules t here is anyt hing t o indicat e t hat prom ot ion of Mem bers of Training Cadre in PDS Cadre is prohibit ed, he could not show any provision in t he Rules from which it m ay be inferred t hat Principal ( Group “ A” ) Ext ension Training Cent res, are not eligible t o be prom ot ed as Deput y Com m issioner in PDS Cadre. Since t he Rules do not different iat e bet ween m em bers of PDS Cadre and Training Cadre, t herefore, t here was no illegalit y in t he prom ot ion given t o respondent nos.4 and 5 as Deput y Com m issioner. Learned Tribunal was t hus j ust ified in not int erfering wit h t heir prom ot ion.

10. Learned counsel for pet it ioners t hen subm it s t hat pet it ioners had also challenged Office Mem o dat ed

03.10.2013 issued by Chief Secret ary, Governm ent of Ut t arakhand, whereby 10 post s of Chief Developm ent Officer were earm arked t o be filled by m em bers of Provincial Civil Service or I ndian Adm inist rat ive Service. Annexure- A t o 2011 Rules provides t hat 05 post s of Chief Developm ent Officer are available t o be filled by depart m ent al officers.

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5 subm it s t hat how m uch post s are t o be set apart for depart m ent al officers and how m any for ot hers is a policy decision of St at e Governm ent , t herefore, learned Tribunal chose not t o adj udicat e t he said aspect .

12. Be t hat as it m ay, since pet it ioners challenged t he prom ot ion given t o respondent nos.4 and 5 as Deput y Com m issioner and learned Tribunal, for valid reasons, has t urned down t heir challenge, 5 t herefore t his Court is not inclined t o int erfere wit h t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal. Alt hough pet it ioners incident ally challenged Governm ent Order dat ed 03.10.2013 also whereby cert ain posit ions of Chief Developm ent Officer in t he St at e were earm arked for m em bers of Provincial Civil Service/ I ndian Adm inist rat ive Services, however t his Court is not inclined t o go int o t hat aspect at t his st age.

13. The writ pet it ion is, t hus, disposed of wit h libert y reserved t o pet it ioners t o challenge Governm ent Order dat ed 03.10.2013 in independent proceedings before appropriat e forum . ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 30.07.2025 SS SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8 a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D 72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH 6