IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 280 of 2004 Kanthi Singh Rawat and others ….…… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Addl. Advocate General (State of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 02.12.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Petitioners were Group ‘D’ employees working in the Secretariat. In accordance with the Rules, they were entitled to be promoted to Group ‘C’ posts. In Group ‘C’, there are many posts. Lowest of them is the post of typist. Petitioners were promoted to Group ‘C’ posts of typist on 20th May 2002, 2nd August 2001 and 18th June 2002. At that time, the Secretariat was full of deputationists. On 22nd June 2002, the State made certain Rules and thereby permitted absorption of such deputationists. In the Rules thus made, it was provided that a junior clerk shall be absorbed in the post of typist, i.e., the lowest post in Group ‘C’, to which the petitioners had been promoted. The Rules made it clear that the deputationists thus absorbed will be treated to have been substantively appointed in the cadre from the date of their absorption, and that, their seniority will be counted after the persons already in service in the cadre. In terms of the said Rules, some junior clerks were absorbed. Thereupon, a seniority list was prepared, where it was shown that petitioners are senior to those absorbed junior clerks. On 7th September 2004, an amendment was effected to the Rules made on 22nd June 2002. In terms of the amendment thus made, which was in the nature of substitution, junior clerks, drawing salary of senior clerks, became entitled to be absorbed as lower division clerks; a post in Group ‘C’, but higher than the 2 post of typist. In terms of the amended Rules, some of those junior clerks, who had been absorbed and were shown to be juniors to the petitioners in the seniority list, on being absorbed in the posts of lower division clerk, became senior to the petitioners; and that appears to be the grievance in the writ petition. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that in terms of the Rules made on 22nd June 2002, the rights of the existing employees in the cadre, including that of the petitioners, were protected. By the amendment to the said Rules, such rights had been sought to be interfered with, which is not permissible. The Rules made on 22nd June 2002 did not deal with the petitioners at all; the Rules dealt with the deputationists. In as much as the Rules permitted absorption of deputationists, it was made clear in the Rules that from the date of their absorption they shall be treated to have been appointed in the cadre and, accordingly, their seniority shall be counted therefrom and they shall be placed below those who are already in the cadre. That being the situation, the said Rules did not deal at all with anything pertaining to the petitioners. The Rules permitted junior clerks on deputation to be absorbed as typists. Similarly, the Rules permitted absorption of other clerks in other Group ‘C’ posts. In terms of the amended Rules, junior clerks, drawing salary of senior clerks, became entitled to be absorbed as lower division clerk. By that, the right of such clerks to be absorbed, had been dealt with without touching the petitioners at all. It is true that by reason of the original Rules, junior clerks to be absorbed as typists, would be below the petitioners in the seniority list, but by reason of the altered Rules, they having been permitted to be absorbed as lower division clerks, provided they are drawing salary of senior clerk, they would be treated to be higher up in the seniority ladder of Group ‘C’ employees and, accordingly, will certainly affect the petitioners. However, the merger policy depicted in the altered Rules, while deals with the rights of merged employees, it does not deal with the rights of the existing employees and, accordingly, the said altered Rules too do not affect any of the existing employees, including the petitioners. But then, by reason of such merger, petitioners have lost their seniority, in 3 as much as many people, who were in foreign services, have been permitted to be merged in the cadre and, in particular, in the posts available in Group ‘C’ and, accordingly, affected the seniority of the petitioners. In those circumstances, petitioners’ grievance should be deemed to be against the merger policy itself. However, the writ petition does not throw a challenge thereto, and further, the parties likely to be affected thereby have not also been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. Therefore, the conclusion would be that this Court is unable to do anything in the circumstances. 3. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 02.12.2010 02.12.2010 Amit