Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Shri B.M. Bhatt And Others on 14 February, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Ravindra Maithani, Alok Kumar Verma
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Clarification Application (MCC No. 19229 of 2024)
Clarification Application (MCC No. 19230 of 2024)
In
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 579 of 2017
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.
........Petitioner
Versus
Shri B.M. Bhatt and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate with Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 8.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. C.S. Dalakoti,
Advocate for the respondent nos. 17, 19 & 22.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no. 6.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The instant petition was decided on 27.06.2024. In para
22 of the judgment, the Court passed the final directions. It reads as
follows:-
"22. In view of the above discussion, the present Writ
Petitions are being allowed. The order of the Tribunal is being
set-aside. A direction is being given to the Uttarakhand Power
Corporation Ltd. to fix the seniority after giving the benefit of
seniority to all the Assistant Engineers, who joined in the
year 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 from the date of their
joining the department, and keeping in view the rota quota
between the direct recruits and the promotes. The entire
exercise shall be completed with a period of eight weeks from
the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment."
2. Now, the respondent nos. 17, 19 and 22 have filed
clarification application (MCC No. 19229 of 2024), by which
modification is sought in para 18 of the judgment dated 27.06.2024.
3. The petitioner has also filed clarification application
(MCC No. 12930 of 2024). In para 4 of the clarification application, the
petitioner writes that "Thus, from what has been stated hereinabove
a reasonable and genuine confusion has arisen - As to whether for
application of rota-quota the Corporation has to take into
consideration the date when Recruitment Process had
commenced or the Date of Joining of the concerned incumbent?"
While raising its concern, the petitioner has referred to paras 18, 20
and 22 of the judgment dated 27.06.2024.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
insofar as the seniority is concerned, it may not be difficult to
determine pursuant to the judgment dated 27.06.2024, but insofar as
rota quota is concerned, there is some confusion by virtue of
observations made in para 18 of the judgment, therefore, clarification
is required.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 17, 19
and 22 would submit that in para 18 of the judgment dated
27.06.2024, this Court has made reference to the judgment in the case
of Union of India and others, etc. v. S.D. Gupta and others, AIR 1996
SC 3325, but some observations are beyond as to what has been held
in the case of S.D. Gupta (supra), particularly while fixing the rota
quota.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 would submit
that there is no confusion as such. He would submit that a short point
had fallen for consideration in the instant writ petition i.e. as to
whether the period of training has to be counted as part of service or
not? He would submit that so far as question of rota quota is
concerned, it would be fixed in accordance with statutory
rules/regulations.
8. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 8 would submit
that no clarification as such is required.
9. In para 18 of the judgment dated 27.06.2024, this Court
has referred to the judgment in the case of S.D. Gupta (supra) and
observed as follows:-
"18. At this stage, the only dispute in the present
case is with respect to the seniority, whether the period of
training is to be counted as part of service. This issue has
already come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union
of India and others etc. v. S.D. Gupta and others, AIR
1996 SC 3325. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was examining the question of seniority of direct recruits vis-
à-vis the promotes. As far as the direct recruits were
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even if
a person is appointed by way of direct recruitment on ad hoc
basis, he will be confirmed after probation, however, he
become part of the service cadre on the date of his initial
appointment, and if a promote is given promotion on the
basis of rota quota of vacancies, where in a cadre 40% quota
is to be filled by promotes, and 60% quota by way of direct
recruits, the promotes, who are given promotion against their
quota post, cannot be made junior to a direct recruit, even if
the vacancy of direct recruit arose before their promotion.
The direct recruit becomes part of the cadre only after
appointment."
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
nos. 17, 19 & 22 would submit that the observation of the Court in
para 18 of the judgment that "where in a cadre 40% quota is to be
filled by promotes, and 60% quota by way of direct recruits, the
promotes, who are given promotion against their quota post,
cannot be made junior to a direct recruit" is creating confusion. He
would submit that rota quota is to be made applicable as per statutory
rules. He would also submit that the observation in the case of S.D.
Gupta (supra) was on different aspect. Such observation was not made
in the case of S.D. Gupta (supra).
11. This Court had in clear terms given direction as to what
this Court has decided and this has been so stated in para 22 f the
judgment. With regard to rota quota as such no direction has been
made. The Court has simply stated "...and keeping in view the rota
quota between the direct recruits and the promotees".
12. This Court only intends to clarify that rota quota shall be
given in accordance with the existing statutory rules/regulations.
13. Clarification applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J)
14.02.2025
Avneet/
