St at e of Ut t arakhand and Ot hers - Pet it ioners v. Haridesh Kum ar Sharm a and Ot hers

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i ) St at e has challenged t he j udgm ent dat ed

13.11.2018, passed by learned Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal, Bench at Nainit al, in Claim Pet it ion No.11/ NB/ DB/ 2016. By t he said j udgm ent , t he Claim Pet it ion filed by respondent s was allowed; t he order dat ed 16.03.2016, whereby j unior persons were prom ot ed as Cane Developm ent I nspect or, was set - aside; and t he Aut horit ies were direct ed t o init iat e prom ot ion exercise afresh, as per Rules, and also as per t he observat ion m ade in t he j udgm ent .

St at e has challenged t he said j udgm ent on t he ground t hat , in view of Rule 16 of t he Ut t arakhand Subordinat e Cane ( Group- I and Group- I I General) Service Rules, 2013, prom ot ion has t o be m ade, as per t he Ut t arakhand Prom ot ion by Select ion in Consult at ion wit h Public Service Com m ission ( Procedure) Rules, 2003. Rule 16 of t he applicable Recruit m ent Rules is ext ract ed below for ready reference: - “ Recruit m ent by prom ot ion shall be m ade on t he basis of seniorit y subj ect t o t he rej ect ion of t he unfit in accordance wit h t he Ut t arakhand Prom ot ion by 1 consult at ion wit h Public Service select ion Com m ission ( Procedure) Rules, 2003 as am ended from t im e t o t im e”

3. Learned St at e Counsel has also relied upon t he provision cont ained in Regulat ion 3( 2) of Ut t arakhand ( Wit hin t he Purview of Public Service Com m ission) Crit erion Select ion ( Prom ot ion in Governm ent Services on t he Basis of Seniorit y Subj ect t o Rej ect ion of Unfit and Merit ) Regulat ions, 2010, which is ext ract ed below: - “ Regulat ion 3 ( 2) - bl izfØ;k gsrq lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dh izksUufr ds Bhd uhps ds in ij dk;Z djus dh vof/k dh v|ru 10 o’kZ dh miyC/k pfj= izfof’V;k¡ ns[kh tk;saxh vkSj ;fn 10 o’kkZas ls de dh izfof’V;k¡ gh miyC/k gksa rks miyC/k lHkh izfof’V;k¡ ns[kh tk;saxhA”

4. Thus, learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat t he prom ot ion exercise was held st rict ly, as per t he Regulat ions fram ed by Public Service Com m ission, t herefore, t he int erference m ade by learned Tribunal wit h t he prom ot ion order, was unwarrant ed.

5. This Court does not find any subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel.

6. As per Rule 16 of t he Recruit m ent Rules, i.e. Ut t arakhand Subordinat e Cane ( Group- I and Group- I I - General) Service Rules, 2013, t he crit eria, for prom ot ion t o t he post of Cane I nspect or, is seniorit y, subj ect t o rej ect ion of unfit . Alt hough, Ut t arakhand Public Service Com m ission has fram ed Regulat ions for regulat ing t he procedure for prom ot ion t o different cat egory of post s, for which crit eria for prom ot ion is seniorit y subj ect t o rej ect ion of unfit , however, t he Select ing Body, i.e. Public Service Com m ission cannot rely upon t he Regulat ions fram ed by it for m aking prom ot ion, based on a crit eria different from t he one, provided in t he Recruit m ent Rules.

7. Law is well set t led t hat every Select ing Body, including Public Service Com m ission, is bound by 2 Recruit m ent Rules applicable for t he post , which are fram ed by t he em ployer, under proviso t o Art icle 309 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia, and in case of conflict bet ween Recruit m ent Rules, and Procedure Regulat ions fram ed by t he Select ing Body, t he Recruit m ent Rules will pr evail, and t he Procedure Regulat ions, fram ed by t he Select ing Body, will have t o give way t o t he Recruit m ent Rules.

8. Learned Tribunal has ret urned a cat egorical finding t hat t he pet it ioners ( respondent s herein) were denied prom ot ion t o t he post of Cane Developm ent I nspect or, even t hough t hey were senior in t he cadre of Cane Supervisor, by applying wrong crit eria of prom ot ion.

9. Learned Tribunal was j ust ified in int erfering wit h t he prom ot ion order dat ed 16.03.2016.

10. When t he Rules provide t hat prom ot ion has t o be m ade on crit eria of seniorit y, t hen crit eria of m erit cannot be applied under any circum st ances. Thus, learned Tribunal right ly allowed t he claim pet it ion.

11. We do not see any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent . Accordingly, t he Writ Pet it ion fails, and is, hereby, dism issed. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. __________________________ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 7 t h May, 2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12 f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED0 0E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 3