Uttarakhand High Court
The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That ... vs District on 7 December, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.440 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate, for the
respondent No.1.
Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate, for the
respondent Nos.2 to 7.
The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioners have come up in the writ petition
being aggrieved as against the impugned order
of 31.01.2020, passed by the District Judge,
Haridwar, whereby, it had set aside the
promotion order of the petitioners, as it was
granted to them vide Administrative Order
No.159, dated 21.12.2018, whereby the services
of the petitioners from Class IV posts to the
Class III posts against the quota earmarked for
the purposes to be filled in through promotion
from amongst the eligible Group D employees.
If the impugned order is scrutinized, in
fact the basis of passing of the order had been
the judgment of this Court, which has been
rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No.489 of
2019, "Rajesh Kumar & another Vs District
Judge, Haridwar", wherein, the coordinate
Bench of this Court, while deciding the claim
of the petitioners, therein, who had claimed for
their respective promotions, had disposed of the
writ petition with the direction that the District
Judge, Haridwar, would consider their claim for
promotion, as against the respective available
percentage of quota provided to be filled in
from promotion to be made from the Group D
employees.
The learned coordinate Bench of this
Court vide its judgment dated 10.01.2020, had
passed the following order:-
"17. Having considered the pleadings of
the parties as well as the relevant rules
governing the field, this Court is
convinced that the Selection Committee
after issuing the
notification/advertisement dated
04.12.2018 has fixed a criteria of 50%
qualifying marks, which is neither
mentioned in the advertisement nor
prescribed in the Rules. Thus, the
decision of fixing the criteria of 50%
qualifying marks is against the rules and
advertisement. Thus, the criteria fixed
by the respondent and the Selection
Committee constituted by it is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion,
the writ petition succeeds. Since out of
09 posts only 03 posts have been filled
up from amongst the candidates having
High School pass qualification, thus the
respondent is directed that the
remaining 06 posts reserved for High
School pass candidates be filled up
from the suitable candidates, as per
merit, who had participated in the
selection process in the judgeship
Haridwar pursuant to the advertisement
dated 04.12.2018 and if the petitioners
comes in the merit on the basis of
written examination and the marks
obtained by them as per their respective
ACRs, they shall be given promotion to
Group 'C' posts in the judgeship
Haridwar, as per their merit."
It is in compliance of the said judgment,
the learned District Judge, Haridwar, had
proceeded with the matter to consider the inter
se claim of promotion of the petitioners as
directed, and has called for a report by the
Committee which had been constituted for the
said purpose by the District Judge, and
exclusively based on the Committee's report,
the District Judge, Haridwar, had taken a
decision through Administrative Order No.47,
dated 13.01.2020, whereby the learned District
Judge, Haridwar, while recommending the
promotion to be made through Departmental
Promotion Committee, for promotion of all the
listed Group D employees, having an
intermediate qualification which is the basic
required qualification for promotion to the
clerical cadre i.e. Group C posts, by the
concluding part of the order had set aside the
earlier order of promotion of the petitioners i.e.
No.159, dated 21.12.2018, and thereby the
consequential promotion which was already
granted to the Group D employees to Group C
posts namely, Smt. Malka Devi, Smt. Asha
Joshi, Shri Lalit Kishore and Shri Amit Kumar,
i.e. (the petitioner, herein), their promotion was
set aside.
The entire records of the writ petition as
well as the counter affidavit filed by the parties,
nowhere it has been pleaded by the respondents
that prior to the passing of the order dated
31.01.2020, the leaned District Judge, Haridwar
had ever issued notices to them prior to
cancellation of their promotion; nor had
provided any opportunity of hearing to those
candidates, who already stood promoted by an
order of 21.12.2018, before passing the order
dated 31.01.2020, while complying with the
decision taken by the coordinate Bench of this
Court on 10.01.2020.
This Court is of the view, that once the
petitioners' were already accorded promotion
way back in the year 2018, and they were
working on their respective promotional post, if
at all any decision was required to be taken by
the District Judge, Haridwar, in the light of the
directions issued by the coordinate Bench of
this Court, having an implication on the
promotion of the Group D employees to Group
C employees, including that of the petitioners
and such other similarly promoted employees,
as referred above. If any order was required to
be passed, which would be detrimental to the
interest of the already promoted employees, it
was administratively expected that the learned
District Judge, Haridwar, should have exercised
prudence, and he ought to have heard those
persons whose promotion already granted was
likely to be affected by any decision, which was
to be taken by the District Judge, Haridwar.
On that short premise itself, this writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
31.01.2020, is hereby quashed.
However, it is made clear that the matter
is remitted back to the learned District Judge,
Haridwar, with a direction that, if at all, it has
to consider and decide the matter in the light of
the judgment dated 10.01.2020, which was
rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No.489 of 2019,
"Rajesh Kumar & another Vs District Judge,
Haridwar", the District Judge, Haridwar, would
hear all the persons who are likely to be
affected by any decision, which is likely to be
taken by him, including the petitioners.
Subject to the above exception carved
out, the writ petition is allowed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
07.12.2021
NR/
