WPSB/561/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 2515 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
                      SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
                                  AND
                       SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

16th August, 2022

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 561 OF 2021 Between:

Deep Chandra Pandey .....Petitioner.

and

State of Uttarakhand and others. ....Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to seek a direction to respondent Nos. 1 & 2, i.e.

the State of Uttarakhand and the Inspector General,

Stamps and Registration, State of Uttarakhand to convene

a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider

the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of

Sub-Registrar from the selection year when the petitioner

became eligible for being promoted to the said post,

which, according to the petitioner, fell vacant in the year

2017. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to initiate an inquiry and take action against

the delinquent officer, who failed to convene the DPC for

promotion to the said post of Sub-Registrar, Stamps and

Registration within a reasonable time.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner

was appointed on the post of Registration Clerk on 4th

June, 1993. He was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand

on 09.11.2000. On 29.09.2016, he was granted

substantive promotion to the post of Chief Registration

Clerk. Further case of the petitioner is that under the

Recruitment Rules in question, namely Uttarakhand Sub-

Registrar Service Rules, 2004, which were amended in

2015 vide Uttarakhand Sub Registrar (Amendment) Rules,

2015, the source of recruitment for the post of Sub-

Registrar, Grade-II, under Rule 5, was prescribed, inter

alia, as under:-

"35 percent posts by promotion-25 percent from amongst the permanent clerical cadre employees, Chief Registration Clerks and Registration Clerks, who have completed 15 years of minimum service as such:

Provided that 10 percent additional promotions from amongst such Chief Registration Clerks and Registration Clerks of the department, who hold law graduation in additional to the above mentioned qualifying service:-

Provided further that promotion shall be made in such a way that as far as possible the number of person promoted in any cadre should not exceed 35 percent of the total cadre strength;".

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that since the petitioner had the qualification

in law, he was entitled to be promoted against the 10

percent promotion quota from amongst the Chief

Registration Clerks, who hold the Law Graduation Degree.

Further case of the petitioner is that the previous

incumbent Shri M.L. Singhal, Registration Clerk, who had

been promoted to the post of Sub-Registration,

superannuated on 31.10.2017 and, therefore, that post

fell vacant, against which the petitioner could have been

promoted. However, the petitioner was not promoted,

though he was asked to officiate in the position of Sub-

Registrar in the year 2016 itself vide Office Order No. 407

dated 29th September, 2016. The petitioner attained the

age of superannuation on 30.09.2021 while officiating as

Sub-Registrar. He has been granted one year's extension,

which would expire on 30.09.2022. The grievance of the

petitioner is that the respondents did not hold the DPC for

promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar and, therefore, he

has been denied the right to be substantively retired as a

Sub-Registrar.

4. Respondent No. 1, on the one hand, and

respondent Nos. 2 & 3, on the other, have filed their

counter-affidavits. The reason for not holding the DPC

over the years is stated to be the pendency of a Special

Appeal before this Court with the title "Pratap Singh Rawat

vs. State of Uttarakhand", which relates to the

promotional exercise for the post of Sub-Registrar.

5. The submission of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the

learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondents

have not provided the particulars of the said Special

Appeal stated to be pending in this Court, and it is not

claimed by the respondents that there was any challenge

pending in respect of the 10 percent quota reserved for

Chief Registration Clerks, who hold a Law Degree.

Therefore, this could not be cited as a good reason for not

holding the DPC for nearly five years for promotion to the

post of Sub-Registrar.

6. We have considered the submissions of the

learned counsel. It is well settled that there is no vested

right of an employee to claim that merely because there is

a vacancy existing in a promotion post, the employer

should hold the promotional process to fill-up the said

vacancy while he is in service. Therefore, in our view, a

mandamus, as sought by the petitioner, cannot be issued

by the Court. The respondents have given their reason for

not holding the DPC. In our view that is a reason good

enough even if one were required to be cited. The

petitioner, having superannuated while officiating in the

position of Sub-Registrar, has not suffered any monetary

loss, since his pension would be fixed on the basis of the

last drawn pay.

7. We, therefore, dismiss the present writ petition

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any,

also stands dismissed.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 16th August, 2022 Rathour