Manish Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand and Ors

Judgment

1. Since com m on quest ions of fact and law are involved in t hese pet it ions, t herefore, t hese pet it ions are clubbed t oget her and decided by t his com m on j udgm ent . However, t he sake of brevit y and convenience, fact s of WPSS No. 616 of 2025 alone are being considered.

2. Pet it ioner in WPSS No. 616 of 2025 was appoint ed as Pat wari ( now Revenue Sub- I nspect or) by Dist rict Magist rat e, Alm ora, dat ed

15.05.2007. According t o him , pursued Pat wari/ Lekhpal Training Course during Academ ic Session 2006- 07 and in t he list of candidat es, who successfully com plet ed t he t raining course, pet it ioner is placed above t he privat e respondent s, yet t he privat e respondent s have been select ed for Supervisor Kanungo/ Revenue I nspect or Training, by ignoring his 1 claim .

3. I n sum and subst ance, cont ent ion of pet it ioner is t hat m erit of a candidat e, as reflect ed in t he result of Pat wari t raining course, should det erm ine seniorit y of Pat wari/ Revenue Sub- I nspect or.

4. I t is furt her t he case of pet it ioner t hat t he dat e of his subst ant ive appoint m ent is 01.05.2007, when Chief Revenue Com m issioner Ut t arakhand direct ed Dist rict Magist rat es t o appoint persons, who underwent Pat wari/ Lekhpal Training, during t he year 2005- 06.

5. Dist rict Magist rat e, Alm ora has filed count er affidavit in which reference is m ade t o Rule 15 of U.P. Pat wari Service Rules, 1963 ( from hereinaft er referred t o as “ Rules of 1963” ) , which provides t hat seniorit y in service shall be reckoned from t he dat e of order of subst ant ive appoint m ent , however, t wo or m ore persons are appoint ed on t he sam e dat e, in t hat case, t he one who passed Pat wari Training Course earlier shall be t reat ed as senior, and if, Pat wari Training Course is also passed in t he sam e year, in t hat case, t he m arks scored in Pat wari Training Course shall be t he det erm inat ive fact or for seniorit y and if m arks are also t he sam e, t hen t he one who is older in age shall be t reat ed as senior.

6. The aforesaid Rules are enclosed as annexure 5 t o t he writ pet it ion. A careful reading of Rule 6( 1) of t he Rules reveals t hat Collect or of each Dist rict shall m aint ain a list in t he prescribed perform a, of such 2 candidat es who have passed Special Pat wari School Exam inat ion and Rule 5 of t he said Rules provides t hat appoint m ent on t he post of Pat wari shall be m ade from t he candidat es whose nam es have been included in t he list , prepared under Rule 6. Rule 6( 3) of t he Rules of 1963 furt her provides t hat nam es t he list , cont em plat ed in Rule 6( 1) , shall be arranged year- wise and am ongst candidat es, who have passed Pat wari Training Course in t he sam e year, nam es shall be arranged as per t heir m arks scored in t he t raining course.

7. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat com plet ion of Pat wari Training Course m erely m akes a person eligible for appoint m ent as Pat wari/ Revenue Sub- I nspect or, as any ot her academ ic qualificat ion. He furt her subm it s t hat adm ission in Pat wari School or successful com plet ion of Pat wari Training do not aut om at ically result in appoint m ent as Pat wari/ Revenue Sub- I nspect or and appoint m ent is m ade from t he list prepared under Rule 6( 1) . He furt her subm it s t hat successful com plet ion of Pat wari Training Course result s in inclusion of nam e of a person in t he list , prepared under Rule 6( 1) and Dist rict Magist rat e/ Collect or has t o t ake nam es out of t hat list for m aking appoint m ent , as and when vacancies are available.

8. This Court finds force in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel. Pet it ioner is relying upon m arks scored by him in Pat wari Training Course Exam inat ion for cont ending t hat anyone, who scored less m arks in t he said exam inat ion t han him , is j unior t o him . Since successful com plet ion of Pat wari Training 3 Course do not aut om at ically result in appoint m ent as Pat wari and a t rained person m ay have t o wait for several years for appoint m ent , t herefore, m arks scored in Pat wari Training Exam inat ion becom e relevant only aft er appoint m ent , t hat t oo, when t wo or m ore Pat wari are appoint ed on t he sam e dat e and t heir year of passing Pat wari Training Course Exam inat ion is also t he sam e.

9. As per Rule 15 of The U.P. Pat wari Service Rules, 1963, seniorit y of Pat wari has t o be reckoned t he dat e of t heir subst ant ive appoint m ent . Pet it ioner cont ends t hat he was appoint ed on

01.05.2007 when Chief Revenue Com m issioner Ut t arakhand issued a let t er. Learned St at e Counsel, however, refers t o annexure no. 4 t o t he writ pet it ion and subm it s t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed on

15.05.2007, when Dist rict Magist rat e, Alm ora offered appoint m ent t o 32 persons, including t he pet it ioner.

10. I t is not in disput e t hat Dist rict Magist rat e, and not t he Chief Revenue Com m issioner, t he Appoint ing Aut horit y for t he post of Pat wari. Let t er dat ed 01.05.2007, relied by learned counsel for t he pet it ioner, is a com m unicat ion by Chief Revenue Com m issioner, whereby all Dist rict Magist rat es were request ed t o issue appoint m ent let t er t o persons, who had successfully com plet ed Pat wari Training Course, during 2005- 06. Thus, t he cont ent ion raised by learned counsel for t he pet it ioner t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed on 01.05.2007 cannot be accept ed and learned St at e Counsel is right in subm it t ing t hat dat e of order of subst ant ive appoint m ent t he pet it ioner 4

15.05.2007.

11. Pet it ioner is aggrieved by a list issued by Board of Revenue Ut t arakhand on 28.03.2025. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner cont ends t hat som e of t he Pat waries included in t he said list , have scored less m arks t han pet it ioner t he Pat wari Training Exam inat ion, t herefore, pet it ioner has preferent ial right by virt ue of seniorit y.

12. From t he Schem e of t he U.P. Pat wari Service Rules, 1963, it is revealed t hat Collect or of every Dist rict is required t o m aint ain a list of Pat wari t rained candidat es for m aking appoint m ent as Pat wari. Pat wari Training is im part ed only in Pat wari Training I nst it ut e, Alm ora. Persons, who underwent t raining and passed Pat wari Training Course wit h t he pet it ioner, are appoint ed in different Dist rict s, as per provisions cont ained in Rules 5 & 6 of relevant Service Rules. Thus, persons, who scored less m arks t han pet it ioner in t he Pat wari Training Exam inat ion, m ay have been appoint ed before t he dat e when pet it ioner was appoint ed, because of m ore vacancies available in t he Dist rict , where t hey were appoint ed. Thus, m arks scored in t raining would lose relevance and dat e of appoint m ent would becom e relevant for seniorit y.

13. As discussed earlier, m arks scored in Pat wari Training Exam inat ion becom e relevant only when t he dat e of subst ant ive appoint m ent , year of passing t raining course et c. are t he sam e for t wo or m ore persons appoint ed in one Dist rict . I t is not clear t hat t he persons, who allegedly scored less m arks t han 5 pet it ioner in t he Pat wari Training Exam inat ion, were also appoint ed in Dist rict Alm ora, where pet it ioner is serving.

14. The next prom ot ional post available t o Pat wari/ Revenue Sub- I nspect or Supervisor Kanungo/ Revenue I nspect or. The m ode of recruit m ent and condit ions of service of Supervisor Kanungo are governed by separat e Rules not ified on 19.03.1983, which are known as “ U.P. Subordinat e Revenue Execut ive ( Supervisor Kanungo of Hill Pat t ies of Kum aon and Garhwal) Service Rules, 1983 ( in short “ Rules of 1983” ) .

15. The said Rules cont em plat e t hat perm anent Pat waries, who have undergone requisit e t raining in land survey and m aint enance of revenue records from a Governm ent I nst it ut e, shall be eligible for prom ot ion. Rule 19 of t he said Rules provides t hat perm anent Pat wari shall be select ed for prom ot ion by applying t he crit eria of seniorit y subj ect t o rej ect ion of unfit and t hen shall be sent for Supervisor Kanungo Training. Rule 19( 2) ( ga) of t he Rules of 1983 provides t hat Com m issioner shall consider t he nam e of Pat waries received from different dist rict s and he shall arrange t he nam es wit h reference t o t heir dat e of subst ant ive appoint m ent .

16. Learned St at e Counsel point s out t hat Pat waries have a dist rict level cadre, as t hey are appoint ed by Dist rict Level Aut horit y; Revenue Division consist s of four or m ore dist rict s, t herefore, Dist rict Level seniorit y of Pat wari becom es irrelevant 6 det erm ining seniorit y at t he Divisional Level. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat no dist rict can be given precedence while fixing seniorit y at t he Divisional Level nor Pat wari serving in any Dist rict can be placed en bloc below pat wari serving in ot her dist rict s, t herefore, as per Rules of 1983, seniorit y of Pat wari has t o be re- det erm ined based on t he dat e of t heir subst ant ive appoint m ent in a part icular dist rict . He subm it s t hat even t hough som e person, who scored less m arks in t raining t han t he pet it ioner, m ay have been included in t he list prepared by Divisional Com m issioner and pet it ioner ’s nam e m ay not have been included in t he said list , however, t hat it self does not give any cause of act ion t o pet it ioner and none of his legal right is violat ed. He furt her subm it s t hat m erit of a candidat e, as reflect ed t he m ark- sheet of Pat wari Training Exam inat ion becom es relevant cert ain cont ingencies which has not arisen here.

17. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel. Seniorit y of Pat wari is m ade at t he dist rict level, however, select ion of Pat waries for Supervisor Kanungo Training has t o be m ade at t he Divisional Level. Since Division consist s of several dist rict s, t herefore, as per Rules, nam es of Pat waries forwarded by Dist rict Magist rat e have t o be re- arranged at t he Divisional Level wit h reference t o dat e of order of subst ant ive appoint m ent of all t he Pat waries. The year of passing Pat wari Training Course and t he m arks scored in Pat wari Training Exam inat ion, it s relevance while det erm ining seniorit y of Pat waries at t he Divisional Level. 7

18. I t is not t he cont ent ion of pet it ioner t hat seniorit y for nom inat ion for t raining at t he Divisional Level was not prepared as per Rule 19 of t he Rules of

1983. I f t he exercise undert aken is as per Rules, t hen pet it ioner cannot have valid grievance against t he list .

19. Learned St at e Counsel point s out t hat a candidat e, who scored m ore m arks in Pat wari Training Exam inat ion, m ight get delayed appoint m ent because of non- availability of vacancy in t he Dist rict from where he was select ed and persons, wit h lesser m arks t han him , m ay be appoint ed earlier in ot her dist rict s because of availabilit y of m ore vacancies in t hose dist rict s.

20. Since crit eria for det erm ining seniorit y in t he Rules of 1963 as well as t he Rules of 1983 is t he dat e of order of subst ant ive appoint m ent , t herefore, m arks scored by pet it ioner in t he Pat wari Training Exam inat ion by it self do not support his claim for seniorit y.

21. The issued by Board of Revenue, Ut t arakhand on 28.03.2025 r eveals t hat Pat wari appoint ed upt o 05.05.2007 and Lekhpal appoint ed upt o

07.05.2007 were nom inat ed for Supervisor Kanungo Training. Pet it ioner was appoint ed only on 15.05.2007, t hus he is j unior t o t he persons who are nom inat ed for Supervisor Kanungo Training.

22. As per Rules, crit eria for select ion is seniorit y subj ect t o rej ect ion of unfit , t herefore, pet it ioner cannot have any grievance against select ion of persons, who are senior, wit h reference t o dat e of subst ant ive appoint m ent t o him . 8

23. Since t he list im pugned by t he pet it ioner has been prepared as per relevant provisions of Rules of 1983 and learned counsel for t he pet it ioner could not show any illegalit y or

infirm it y t he said list , t herefore, t his Court do not find any reason t o int erfere in t he m at t er.

24. Learned counsel t he pet it ioner t hen subm it t ed t hat t ent at ive seniorit y Pat wari/ Revenue Sub- I nspect or was prepared by Dist rict Magist rat e, Alm ora and obj ect ions were invit ed but seniorit y list was not finalized t hereaft er.

25. Rule 9 of Ut t arakhand Governm ent Servant Seniorit y Rules, 2002 ordains t hat Appoint ing Aut horit y shall issue a final seniorit y list aft er disposing of t he obj ect ions received against t ent at ive seniorit y list .

26. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he writ pet it ions are disposed of wit h a direct ion t o Dist rict Magist rat e, Alm ora t o finalize t he seniorit y list of Revenue Sub- I nspect or, serving in t he Dist rict , wit hin t hree m ont hs from t he dat e of receipt of cert ified copy of t his order. ________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J.

12.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A5853172 6FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL 9