Smt Kamla Pande vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 4448 Del

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Special Appeal No. 292 of 2014

Smt. Kamla Pande                          ...........              Appellant

                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others           ...........            Respondents

      Present: Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anup
               Kumar Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
               Mr. Pradeep Kumar Joshi, Standing Counsel for the State of
               Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
               Mr. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4
               and 5.


Coram :         Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
                Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
                           JUDGMENT

Date: 15th September, 2014

K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant before us. She is working as a Clerk in the Municipal Board, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. She aspires to be appointed by promotion or on officiating basis on the post of Executive Officer. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant was not able to show any provision, under which she could claim for being appointed to a Centralized post while she actually belongs to non-centralized services. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pointed out that though the others are being given, but the learned Single Judge observed that two wrongs can not make a right and dismissed the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Sections 57 and 59 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. He also sought to draw support from the Palika Centralised Service Rules, 1966, but none of these

Rules as such appear to confer any right to the appellant. Then the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the State of U.P., orders have been made appointing persons like the appellant on the posts of Executive Officer. Those orders appear to be based on the Government Order dated 14th December, 1996. That order is not placed before us. He has further pointed out that a large number of people are being promoted in Uttarakhand also as Executive Officers or given at least officiating promotion.

3. In the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge as follows:-

If the appellant makes a representation to respondent No.1 within a period of three weeks from today, respondent No. 1 will take a decision on the same in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. We make it very clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the merits of the matter and merely because we have issued this direction, respondent No.1 need not feel compelled to appoint the appellant, if she is not otherwise entitled.

4. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

           (V.K. Bist, J.)                     (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
             15.09.2014                           15.09.2014
P. Singh