Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... vs Haridesh Kumar Sharma And Others on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3561-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. 137 of 2019
State of Uttarakhand and Others -Petitioners
Versus
Haridesh Kumar Sharma and Others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand/petitioners.
Mr. A.D. Tripathi and Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocates for the respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
State has challenged the judgment dated
13.11.2018, passed by learned Uttarakhand Public
Services Tribunal, Bench at Nainital, in Claim Petition
No.11/NB/DB/2016. By the said judgment, the Claim
Petition filed by respondents was allowed; the order
dated 16.03.2016, whereby junior persons were
promoted as Cane Development Inspector, was set-aside;
and the Authorities were directed to initiate promotion
exercise afresh, as per Rules, and also as per the
observation made in the judgment.
2. State has challenged the said judgment on the
ground that, in view of Rule 16 of the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Cane (Group-I and Group-II General)
Service Rules, 2013, promotion has to be made, as per
the Uttarakhand Promotion by Selection in Consultation
with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 2003.
Rule 16 of the applicable Recruitment Rules is extracted
below for ready reference:-
"Recruitment by promotion shall be made on the
basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit
in accordance with the Uttarakhand Promotion by
2025:UHC:3561-DB
selection in consultation with Public Service
Commission (Procedure) Rules, 2003 as amended
from time to time"
3. Learned State Counsel has also relied upon the
provision contained in Regulation 3(2) of Uttarakhand
(Within the Purview of Public Service Commission)
Criterion for Selection (Promotion in Government
Services on the Basis of Seniority Subject to Rejection of
Unfit and Merit) Regulations, 2010, which is extracted
below:-
"Regulation 3 (2)- bl izfØ;k gsrq lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dh
izksUufr ds Bhd uhps ds in ij dk;Z djus dh vof/k dh v|ru 10 o'kZ dh
miyC/k pfj= izfof'V;k¡ ns[kh tk;saxh vkSj ;fn 10 o'kkZas ls de dh izfof'V;k¡ gh
miyC/k gksa rks miyC/k lHkh izfof'V;k¡ ns[kh tk;sxa hA"
4. Thus, learned State Counsel submits that the
promotion exercise was held strictly, as per the
Regulations framed by Public Service Commission,
therefore, the interference made by learned Tribunal with
the promotion order, was unwarranted.
5. This Court does not find any substance in the
submission made by learned State Counsel.
6. As per Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules, i.e.
Uttarakhand Subordinate Cane (Group-I and Group-II-
General) Service Rules, 2013, the criteria, for promotion
to the post of Cane Inspector, is seniority, subject to
rejection of unfit. Although, Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission has framed Regulations for regulating the
procedure for promotion to different category of posts,
for which criteria for promotion is seniority subject to
rejection of unfit, however, the Selecting Body, i.e. Public
Service Commission cannot rely upon the Regulations
framed by it for making promotion, based on a criteria
different from the one, provided in the Recruitment Rules.
7. Law is well settled that every Selecting Body,
including Public Service Commission, is bound by
2025:UHC:3561-DB
Recruitment Rules applicable for the post, which are
framed by the employer, under proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, and in case of conflict between
Recruitment Rules, and Procedure Regulations framed by
the Selecting Body, the Recruitment Rules will prevail,
and the Procedure Regulations, framed by the Selecting
Body, will have to give way to the Recruitment Rules.
8. Learned Tribunal has returned a categorical
finding that the petitioners (respondents herein) were
denied promotion to the post of Cane Development
Inspector, even though they were senior in the cadre of
Cane Supervisor, by applying wrong criteria of promotion.
9. Learned Tribunal was justified in interfering
with the promotion order dated 16.03.2016.
10. When the Rules provide that promotion has to
be made on criteria of seniority, then criteria of merit
cannot be applied under any circumstances. Thus,
learned Tribunal rightly allowed the claim petition.
11. We do not see any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails,
and is, hereby, dismissed.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
__________________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 7th May, 2025
Shiksha
SHIKSHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12
f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001,
BINJOLA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED0
0E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.05.08 18:30:16 +05'30'
