Vivek Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 13 February, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                        2026:UHC:909



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                  NAINITAL
      Writ Petition (S/S) No. 85 of 2024
Vivek Negi                                        ... Petitioner
                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others                 ... Respondents


  Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the petitioner.
  Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel, for the State.


                        JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Petitioner was given compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant in Directorate of Treasury and Finance Services, vide order dated 11.02.2013. He is aggrieved by the promotion granted to respondent no. 3 to the post of Administrative Officer on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee convened on 11.10.2023. The relief sought in the writ petition are as follows:-

"I. Issue a Writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of certirorified mandamus to declare the action of the respondents for not granting the benefit of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer, Pay Band-7 w.e.f. 12.10.2023 on the basis of recommendations of the DPC dated 11.10.2023 as contained in (Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this petition) by which the DPC erred in saying that since the private respondent is senior in Head Assistant Cadre is unjust, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to law. And, to quash the same along with its effect and operation also after calling entire records from the respondents or to mould the relief appropriately by safeguarding the interest of the

2026:UHC:909

petitioner keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition.

II. Issue appropriate writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to treat the petitioner senior on the post of Head Assistant, Senior Assistant and Administrative Officer in view of the original seniority of feeding cadre of junior assistant and also to convene a review DPC to grant the benefit of promotion on the post of Administrative Officer on Pay Band-7, Head Assistant, Senior Assistant w.e.f. the date when the same was given to the private respondent along with all consequential benefits had it been the impugned order was never in existence."

2. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 3 although was appointed as Junior Assistant on 11.10.2006, however, her appointment was in Local Funds Account Audit Wing of Directorate of Treasury and Finance Services and her services were transferred to Directorate of Treasury and Finance Services, vide order dated 13.07.2013 with the condition that she will be junior to existing members of service in the cadre of Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Treasury and Finance Services. He, thus, submits that since petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Directorate of Treasury and Finance Services on 11.02.2013, therefore, he is senior to respondent no. 3, therefore, he had a better right of promotion compared to respondent no. 3. The minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 11.10.2023 are on record as Annexure-1 to the

2026:UHC:909

writ petition. The Departmental Promotion Committee has referred to the relevant recruitment Rules applicable to ministerial cadre, where it is provided that a Head Assistant, who has completed minimum three years of service on the first day of the year of recruitment and has completed total 17 years of service would be eligible for promotion. Petitioner was promoted as Head Assistant only on 01.12.2021, as is revealed from the document enclosed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Respondent no. 3, however was promoted as Head Assistant much earlier on 04.07.2018, as is evident from the document enclosed at page no. 49 of the writ petition.

3. Since petitioner had not completed three years of qualifying service on the post of Head Assistant, which was one of the condition for promotion as per the Rules, therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended respondent no. 3 for promotion as Administrative Officer.

4. Petitioner contends that since respondent no. 3 is junior to him, therefore, she could not have been promoted by ignoring seniority of the petitioner. He relies upon

2026:UHC:909

Government Order dated 23.06.2003 in support of his contention that senior person cannot be overlooked at the time of promotion.

5. The Rule position is admitted to learned counsel for the petitioner, who concedes that as per the Rules, one has to complete three years of qualifying service on the feeder post of Head Assistant for promotion to the next higher post of Administrative Officer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and another v. V.M. Joseph, reported as (1998) 5 SCC 305, in paragraph no. 6 has held as under:-

"6. .... Even if an employee is transferred at his own request, from one place to another on the same post, the period of service rendered by him at the earlier place where he held a permanent post and had acquired permanent status, cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion, though he may have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place. Eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors."

6. The decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee is in consonance with the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Thus, recommendation made in favour of respondent no. 3 cannot be faulted.

2026:UHC:909

7. Although, petitioner's counsel relied upon Government Order dated 23.06.2003, however, reliance upon the said Government Order is misplaced, as it does not provide that junior person has to be promoted even if he does not meet the requirement of the Rules. The recruitment Rules provide qualifying service of three years on the feeder post, which petitioner does not meet, while respondent no. 3 had completed three years qualifying service on the feeder post.

8. Even otherwise also, Government Orders are in the nature of executive instructions, which cannot override or supplant the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Moreover, Rules were framed in 2015, therefore, a Government Order containing guidelines cannot override Statutory Rules framed in 2011 and amended in 2015. Rule 2 of 2011 Rules, notified on 01.06.2011, contains non-obstante Rules.

9. In such view of the matter also, reliance on Government Order issued in 2003 is misplaced.

2026:UHC:909

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then raised the issue of wrong fixation of seniority of the petitioner in the ministerial cadre.

11. The Departmental Promotion Committee has rightly held that petitioner is not eligible for promotion for want of requisite three years of qualifying service on the feeder post, therefore, raising seniority dispute at this stage by the petitioner would be inappropriate and would make no difference on the merits of the case.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.02.2026

Navin

NAVEEN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da8 2a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,

CHANDRA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643A F56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.02.17 18:49:03 +05'30'