Uttarakhand High Court
Leela Devi And Others -Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 28 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3165-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI ASHISH NAITHANI
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 558 of 2021
Leela Devi and others -Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji
Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional CSC for the State
Mr. Yash Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna,
Advocate for the caveator
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. Petitioners are working as Anganwadi Karyakarti in
Department of Women Empowerment and Child
Development, Government of Uttarakhand. They are
aggrieved by Rule 5(ii) of Uttarakhand Mahila Evam
Balvikas Adhinasth (Supervisor) Seva Niyamavali,
2021, whereby qualification required for appointment
to Group-C post of supervisor, was enhanced from
Intermediate to Graduation. Thus feeling aggrieved,
petitioners have challenged validity of Rule 5 (ii) of the
aforesaid Rules.
2. It is contended that the qualification needed for
appointment as Supervisor earlier was Intermediate
which petitioners possessed; therefore, the qualification
cannot be upgraded to graduation so as to render
petitioners ineligible.
2025:UHC:3165-DB
3. It is contended that petitioners are serving as
Anganwadi Karyakartis for last several decades and
they were waiting all through for their
promotion/appointment to the next higher post of
supervisor, but when they became due for promotion,
the qualification needed for Supervisor was revised
from Intermediate to Graduation, which has resulted in
denial of their right to be considered for appointment.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that no
one can claim a vested right of appointment or
promotion and one must fulfill the eligibility conditions
mentioned in the applicable recruitment rules for
appointment to a public post.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that the post of
Supervisor is not to be filled by promotion and direct
recruitment is the only source of recruitment, however,
a separate quota has been provided to Anganwadi
Karyakarti for appointment as Supervisor.
6. Learned State Counsel further submits that with
changing times, it was felt that a candidate with
Intermediate qualification would not be able to
discharge the multifarious duties of Supervisor,
therefore, State Government decided to prescribe
Graduation as minimum qualification for appointment
as Supervisor.
7. He further submits that the State Government as
employer, has plenary power of deciding qualifications
needed for a particular post and State Government, in
its wisdom, has prescribed Graduation as the
2025:UHC:3165-DB
qualification, therefore, anyone who do not possess
that qualification, is ineligible. He further submits that
petitioners should upgrade their qualification if they are
desirous of appointment as Supervisor.
8. He further submits that right to be considered for
appointment has been declared to be a fundamental
right but one has to be eligible as per the applicable
rules for appointment and then only he can claim that
right.
9. He further submits that process of selection, which
was held as per the amended rules, has concluded and
it is not known as to whether any unfilled vacancies are
now available or not.
10. As per Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, a
public servant holds office at the pleasure of the
President or the Governor. This has a direct bearing on
the powers of Parliament or legislature to make laws or
the executive to make rules for specifying conditions of
service, as provided under Article 309. The relationship
between a state employee and the State originates in
contract, but by virtue of the constitutional constraint,
coupled with legislative and executive rules governing
the service, the relation attains a unique position. In
the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India,
reported in AIR 1967 SC 1889, Hon'ble Supreme
Court had an occasion to consider a similar question,
where by an amendment in the service Rules, the writ
petitioner became ineligible for promotion. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
2025:UHC:3165-DB
"6. We pass on to consider the next contention of the
petitioner that there was a contractual right as regards
the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the
time he entered Grade 'D' and the condition of service
could not be altered to his disadvantage afterwards by
the notification issued by the Railway Board. It was said
that the order of the Railway Board dated January 25,
1958, Annexure 'B', laid down that promotion to Grade 'C'
from Grade 'D' was to be based on seniority-cum-
suitability and this condition of service was contractual
and could not be altered thereafter to the prejudice of the
petitioner. In our opinion, there is no warrant for this
argument. It is true that the origin of Government service
is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in every
case. But once appointed to his post or office the
Government servant acquires a status and his rights and
obligations are no longer determined by consent of both
parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be
framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In
other words, the legal position of a Government servant is
more one of status than of contract. The hallmark of
status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights
and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere
agreement of the parties. The emolument of the
Government servant and his terms of service are
governed by statute or statutory rules which may be
unilaterally altered by the Government without the
consent of the employee. It is true that Article 311
imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of
removal granted to the President and the Governor under
Article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between
the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary
contract of service between a master and servant. The
legal relationship is something entirely different,
something in the nature of status. It is much more than a
purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into
between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the
law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an
interest. In the language of jurisprudence status is a
condition of membership of a group of which powers and
duties are exclusively determined by law and not by
agreement between the parties concerned. The matter is
clearly stated by Salmond and Williams on Contracts as
follows:
"So we may find both contractual and status-
obligations produced by the same transaction. The
one transaction may result in the creation not only of
obligations defined by the parties and so pertaining to
the sphere of contract but also and concurrently of
obligations defined by the law itself, and so pertaining
to the sphere of status. A contract of service between
employer and employee, while for the most part
pertaining exclusively to the sphere of contract,
pertains also to that of status so far as the law itself
has seen fit to attach to this relation compulsory
2025:UHC:3165-DB
incidents, such as liability to pay compensation for
accidents. The extent to which the law is content to
leave matters within the domain of contract to be
determined by the exercise of the autonomous
authority of the parties themselves, or thinks fit to
bring the matter within the sphere of status by
authoritatively determining for itself the contents of
the relationship, is a matter depending on
considerations of public policy. In such contracts as
those of service the tendency in modern times is to
withdraw the matter more and more from the domain
of contract into that of status."
7. We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner has
no vested contractual right in regard to the terms of his
service and that Counsel for the petitioner has been
unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the
case."
11. In the case of State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar,
reported in (2023) 3 SCC 773, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has summarized the legal position on the status
of a employee serving under the State. Paragraph nos.
27 & 28 of the said judgment are reproduced below:-
"27. The principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon case is
followed in a number of decisions of this Court. The
following are the propositions emanating from the
principles laid down in these precedents:
27.1. Except as expressly provided in the Constitution,
every person employed in the civil service of the Union or
the States holds office during the pleasure of the
President or the Governor (Article 310). Tenure at
pleasure is a constitutional policy for rendering services
under the State for public interest and for the public
good, as explained in Tulsiram Patel .
27.2. The Union and the States are empowered to make
laws and rules under Articles 309, 310 and 311 to
regulate the recruitment, conditions of service, tenure
and termination. The rights and obligations are no longer
determined by consent of the parties but by the legal
relationship of rights and duties imposed by statute or the
rules. The services, thus, attain a status.
27.3. The hallmark of status is in the legal rights and
obligations imposed by laws that may be framed and
altered unilaterally by the Government without the
consent of the employee.
2025:UHC:3165-DB
27.4. In view of the dominance of rules that govern the
relationship between the Government and its employee,
all matters concerning employment, conditions of service
including termination are governed by the rules. There
are no rights outside the provision of the rules.
27.5. In a recruitment by the State, there is no right to
be appointed but only a right to be considered fairly. The
process of recruitment will be governed by the rules
framed for the said purpose.
27.6. Conditions of service of a public servant, including
matters of promotion and seniority are governed by the
extant rules. There are no vested rights independent of
the rules governing the service.
27.7. With the enactment of laws and issuance of rules
governing the services, Governments are equally bound
by the mandate of the rule. There is no power or
discretion outside the provision of the rules governing the
services and the actions of the State are subject to
judicial review.
28. In view of the above principles, flowing from the
constitutional status of a person in employment with the
State, we have no hesitation in holding that the
observations in that posts which fell vacant prior to the
amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and
not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of
law. We have already explained that the status of a
government employee involves a relationship governed
exclusively by rules and that there are no rights outside
these rules that govern the services. Further, the Court
in Rangaiah has not justified its observation by locating
such a right on any principle or on the basis of the new
Rules. As there are a large number of judgments which
followed under the assumption that an overarching
principle has been laid down in Rangaiah, we have to
necessarily examine the cases that followed Rangaiah .
We will now examine how subsequent decisions
understood, applied or distinguished.
12. In view of legal position, as discussed above, we
do not find any reason to interfere with Rule 5 (ii) of
the applicable recruitment rules for appointment as
Supervisor. However, in view of the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioners, we dispose of the
writ petition with liberty to petitioners to make
representation to the State Government. If petitioners
2025:UHC:3165-DB
make representation for relaxing the condition of Rule
5(ii) of the applicable recruitment rules, then
competent authority shall take decision on the
representation, within four months from the date of its
receipt, along with certified copy of this order.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
__________________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 28th April, 2025
Mahinder
