WPSB/131/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 746 UK

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                AT NAINITAL
                         SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

                                        AND

                             SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 131 OF 2022

14TH MARCH, 2022

BETWEEN:

Manoj Bargali                                                .....Petitioner.
And

State of Uttarakhand & others                                ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner               :      Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned
                                                counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1          :      Mr. Vikas Pande, learned
                                                Standing Counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2          :      Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned
                                                counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent No.3.         :      Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned
                                                Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
                                                Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned
                                                counsel.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT :(per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for

the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned action and the advertisement dated 01.09.2021 in relation to the department of Uttarakhand Pey Jal Evam Swachhata Vibhag (Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan).

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to appropriately modify the advertisement pertaining to the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Evam Swachhata Vibhag (Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan) and prescribe the qualification in accordance with Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Engineering Services Rules, 2011 to the post of Assistant Engineer.

iii. Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

2. It is apparent from the submission and records that

the petitioner is a Mechanical Engineer. At present,

Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan is in requirement of Civil Engineer

to discharge engineering functions relating to civil work.

3. Mr. C.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, relies upon Rule 12(1) of the Uttarakhand Jal

Sansthan Engineering Services Rules, 2011, and submits that

Rule 12(1) defines only Assistant Engineer. It does not create

a category of Civil Engineer. It is appropriate to note the

exact words used by the statutes.

"शैि क अहताएं 12 (1) सहायक अिभयंता:- भारत की िविध ारा थािपत िकसी िव िव ालय से िसिवल/ िवद् युत/ यां ि क अिभयंि की म ातक उपािध या सरकार ारा उसमे समक मा ता ा कोई उपािध या िसिवल/ िवद् युत/ यां ि क अिभयं ि की म इं ू ट ऑफ़ इं जीिनयस (इं िडया) की 'क' व 'खा' की परी ा उ ीण की हो।

(2) किन अिभयंता:- शासन ारा मा ता ा सं था या िव िव ालय से िसिवल/ िवद् यु त/ यां ि क अिभयंि की म 03 वष का िड ोमा िकया हो"।

4. A plain reading of this provision clearly reveals that

the Assistant Engineer from the streams of Civil/Electrical/

Mechanical can be appointed.

5. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondent No.3, submits that, at present,

the Jal Sansthan is in requirement of Civil Engineers.

Therefore, the advertisement for the said post has been

issued.

6. We do not find any force in the contention raised by

Mr. C.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is,

hereby, dismissed.

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued to the

parties on proper application.

(S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.)

(R.C. KHULBE, J.) Dated: 14TH March, 2022 NISHANT