High Court · 2025

Presence: - Mr. Vinay Kum ar, Advocat e for t he pet it ioners in WPSB No. 258 of 2021 and Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocat e, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocat e for pet it ioner in WPSB No. 54 of 2021 Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deput y Advocat e General w it h Mr. Sushil Vashist ha, St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUD GM EN T Pet it ioners have challenged j udgm ent dat ed

24.12.2020 rendered by Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Pet it ion No. 33/ DB/ 2019. Since t he sam e j udgm ent is under challenge in bot h t he writ pet it ions and grounds are also t he sam e, t herefore bot h t he pet it ions are being heard and decided t oget her 1 by t his com m on j udgm ent . However, for t he sake of brevit y, fact s of Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 258 of 2021 alone are being considered and discussed here.

2. Mr. Sunil Thakur ( respondent no. 1 herein) appoint ed Labourer, Cat egory P-I Ut t arakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Lim it ed w.e.f.

15.07.2008; while Mr. Girish Kum ar ( respondent no. 2) was appoint ed as such w.e.f. 06.10.2006. The next prom ot ional post available t o bot h was Oiler/ skilled labourer in Cat egory P- 2, and Mr. Sunil Thakur ( respondent no. 1) was prom ot ed t o t he said post vide order dat ed 05.07.2014 by giving benefit of relaxat ion in qualifying service; while, Mr. Girish Kum ar ( respondent no. 2) , who was not given benefit of such relaxat ion, was so prom ot ed w.e.f. 30.06.2015.

3. Thereaft er, prom ot ion exercise was again init iat ed pursuant t o office com m unicat ion dat ed

06.08.2018 for supplying vacancies in TG- I I cat egory during select ion year 2018- 19. Mr. Girish Kum ar ( respondent no. 2) was prom ot ed as P- 4 on

08.03.2019. I n t hat prom ot ion exercise, Mr. Sunil Thakur ( respondent no. 1) was rem oved from t he eligibilit y list vide order dat ed 10.10.2018, passed by Execut ive Engineer, on t he ground t hat since he was given benefit of relaxat ion in qualifying service earlier, t herefore, he cannot be given t hat benefit again. The said order was com m unicat ed t o Mr. Sunil Thakur ( respondent no. 1) on 01.12.2018.

4. Mr. Sunil Thakur approached Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal, seeking a direct ion t o prom ot e 2 him t o t he post of P- 4 from t he dat e when Mr. Girish Kum ar ( respondent no. 5 in claim pet it ion) was prom ot ed. Learned Tribunal allowed t he claim pet it ion.

5. Thus, feeling aggrieved, Mr. Girish Kum ar as well as t he em ployer ( Ut t arakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Lim it ed) has approached t his Court .

6. Learned counsel for pet it ioner subm it s t hat Mr. Sunil Thakur did not challenge t he order dat ed

10.10.2018, passed by Execut ive Engineer, whereby his nam e was rem oved from t he eligibilit y list on t he ground t hat he cannot be given benefit of relaxat ion in qualifying service, t wice. Learned counsel t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat Mr. Girish Kum ar ( respondent no. 2) is senior as he was appoint ed earlier in point of t im e as Labourer. He point s out t hat Mr. Girish Kum ar was appoint ed as Labourer on 06.10.2006; while Mr. Sunil Thakur ( respondent no. 1) was appoint ed as Labourer on 15.07.2008. He furt her subm it s t hat Mr. Sunil Thakur was given benefit of relaxat ion qualifying service for prom ot ion t o t he post of Oiler, Cat egory- P3, t herefore, he could not be given relaxat ion again for prom ot ion t o next higher post . He subm it s t hat since Mr. Girish Kum ar was not given benefit of relaxat ion in qualifying service earlier, t herefore, he was given relaxat ion in t he exercise held for prom ot ion t o t he post of P- 4.

7. He subm it s t hat since an express order was passed against Mr. Sunil Thakur ( respondent no. 1) for rem oving him from t he field of eligibilit y, which was also com m unicat ed t o him on 01.12.2018, t herefore, 3 wit hout set t ing aside t he said order, no relief could have been grant ed t o Mr. Sunil Thakur. He subm it s t hat t he order dat ed 10.10.2018 passed by Execut ive Engineer was brought t o t he not ice of learned Tribunal and it was t aken not e of in paragraph no. 5 of t he im pugned j udgm ent . Thus, he subm it s t hat learned Tribunal was not j ust ified int erfering wit h t he prom ot ion given t o Mr. Girish Kum ar.

8. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel for t he pet it ioners.

9. Since t he nam e of Mr. Sunil Thakur was rem oved for t he eligibilit y list by passing an express order by t he Com pet ent Aut hority, and t hat order was also com m unicat ed t o Mr. Sunil Thakur, t herefore, wit hout set t ing aside t he said order, whereby, he was declared t o be ineligible, no relief could have been grant ed t o Mr. Sunil Thakur nor he could have any grievance against prom ot ion given t o Mr. Girish Kum ar. Learned Tribunal, however, overlooked t his vit al aspect of t he m at t er. Thus, t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal is unsust ainable.

10. The writ pet it ions are, accordingly, allowed t he im pugned j udgm ent dat ed 24.12.2020 hereby set aside. ( 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.) 11.08.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006 da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87564 3AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 4