COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 5374/2001 (Old No. 31831 Of 1997) Tajwar Singh Vidyarthi …….Petitioner Versus State of U.P. through Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Lucknow & Others …….Respondents Sri S.K. Posti, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel (U.P.) for the respondent no. 1 & 2. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel (Uttarakhand) for the respondent no. 3 to 5. 21st May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 1.7.1997, which is contained in Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Supply Clerk from the post of Supply Inspector. 2. The petitioner was appointed and posted as Supply Clerk in Food and Civil Supplies Department of Uttar Pradesh in district Pauri Garhwal and was continuing on the post of Supply Clerk in the office of District Supply Officer, Pauri till 1984 as stated in the counter affidavit. Eleven persons including the petitioner were given ad hoc promotion on the post of Supply Inspector by the order dated 4.11.1984, which is not disputed in the counter affidavit except that a vague statement has been made in 2 the counter affidavit that some of them were not fully eligible to be promoted to the post of Supply Inspector under the provisions of Rules of 1980. It has not been specifically stated in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not eligible. 3. The rules known as the U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Promotion (On Posts Within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 provide that an employee who was promoted on or prior to 1.1.1985 and is continuing in service shall be eligible to be considered for regularization on the commencement of these rules subject to the condition that he has completed three years and if not, he shall be entitled for regularization whenever he completes three years. 4. The petitioner was promoted by the order dated 4.11.1984 and the Committee, constituted to consider the regularization of eligible candidates under the Regularization Rules of 1988, considered the candidature of those candidates and recommended the names of eligible candidates including the name of the petitioner for regularization vide its report dated 21.3.1993. The District Magistrate, who is the appointing authority, passed the order that the regularization order be issued. 5. Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed in the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the juniors have been promoted and the seniors have been left out. Several matters relating to such promotions came up for hearing in the form of Writ Petitions, Civil Appeals, Contempt Petitions, Review Petitions and S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The main Writ Petition being no. 1131/1991, Mahmood Hasan v. State of U.P. & Others 3 and S.L.P. No. 8726/1992 filed by the State Government. The Apex Court disposed of the S.L.P. and the Writ Petitions in the following terms: “The exceptional situation has arisen because the number of officials seeking promotion on the ground that their juniors have been promoted is almost as large as the total strength of the promotional cadre. The proper course in such a situation is for the juniors to vacate and to make room for their senior colleagues. To restore the balance, it is necessary to recall the orders dated 28.01.1985, 04.12.1987 and 01.10.1991 and to set aside all orders of the High Court passed in the matter after 28.01.1985 as well as all orders for promotion made by the State Government during this period and to direct that promotion be made, keeping in view all relevant rules and norms, with retrospective effect from the date a vacancy arises for an incumbent according to the State Level Seniority List now prepared and submitted to the Court. However, those promoted prior to 01.01.1985 and protected by the U.P. Regularization of Ad hoc Promotions (On Posts Within the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 need not be disturbed. It is needless to say that those promoted with retrospective effect will be entitled to all pecuniary benefits of such promotion. However, those who will have to step down on account of this correctional process need not refund the pecuniary or other 4 benefits enjoyed by them for they had actually worked as Supply Inspectors during that period. We order accordingly. All the writ petitions, the appeal, the interim application, the review petition and the contempt petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.” 6. The above highlighted and underlined portion of the judgment protects the persons who were promoted prior to 1.1.1985 and their promotions were directed not to be disturbed. Since the petitioner was promoted by the order dated 4.11.1984, much before the cutoff date i.e. 1.1.1985 and his ad hoc promotion was ordered to be regularized and the appointing authority had accepted the recommendation of the Committee constituted under the Regularization Rules of 1988 for regularization of the petitioner and ordered for issue of regularization order, therefore, petitioner’s promotion could not have been cancelled, whose promotion was protected by the Apex Court’s decision itself. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 1.7.1997, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.5.2008 Prabodh