IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 5451 (S/S)2001 (Old no. 1238 of 1992) 1. Ramanand Pande S/o Sri Suryamani Pande, 2. Raj Narain Tewari S/o Sri Chandra Shekhar Tewari, Both Survey Kanoongo C/o Ziladhikari/ Abhilekh Adhikari, Nainital. ---- Petitioner. Vs. 1. Commissioner & Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, 2. Dr. M.L. Dwivedi, Sahayak Bhumi Vyavastha Ayukt, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, 3. Ziladhikari/Abhilekh Adhikari, Nainital ---- Respondents. Sri S.N. Babulkar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Ji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, Learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri S.N. Babulkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Ji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri H.M. Raturi, Learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner have prayed for the following reliefs: a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.1991 passed by respondent no. 1 (annexure no. 6 to the petition), b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to permit the petitioner to work on the posts of Survey Kanoongo, 2 c. To issue any other order, direction, writ as in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, d. To award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner. Stand of the petitioner is that vide order dated 19th November 1991 they were provided promotion on the post of Survey Kanoongo, however by the impugned order dated 13th December 1991, the promotion order was cancelled by respondent no. 1. The ground taken in the cancellation of promotion order is that the promotion order was passed by the Authority, which was not competent to pass the promotion order. The cancellation of the promotion order has been assailed on various grounds. Firstly, the petitioner were not given opportunity of hearing prior to reverting them back to the post of Survey Lekhpal. Secondly, juniors to the petitioners have already been given promotion to the post of Survey Kanoongo. In para-17 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner have stated that S.Sri Pawan Kumar Tewari, Bharat Lal, Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma, Vichittra Narain, Nand Lal Prasad, Brij Bihari Singh, Santosh Kumar Shukla and Peer Mohammad have already been given promotion on the post of Survey Kanoongo and most of these persons are junior to the petitioner. Sri Bharat Lal and Sri Vichittra Narain were promoted in the year 1980 & 1986 whereas Sri Peer Mohammad was promoted in the year 1985 and rest of the persons were promoted in the year 1991. 3 It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order, itself exhibits that prior to cancellation of the promotion order, the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing and, in fact no notice was ever issued to the petitioners prior to cancellation of the promotion order. Further the order impugned is an ex-parte and a non speaking order, which has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the respondent no. 2 was fully competent to pass the promotion order therefore; he committed no illegality while passing the promotion order. The petitioner are fully eligible and qualified for being promoted on the post of Survey Kanoogo in the Department. Since the juniors of the petitioners have already been given promotion to the post of Survey Kanoongo, therefore the claim of the petitioners cannot be declined for being promoted mere refuting that the authority, which has passed the promotion order, was not competent to pass such order. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the Allahabad High Court initially granted stay order in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of that stay order, the petitioners are still continuing in their respective post of Survey Kanoongo. When a number of persons have already been promoted on the post of survey Kanoongo, though they were junior to the petitioners, and further the petitioners are eligible to be promoted to the post of Survey Kanoongo then why the petitioners were prevented to be continued on the post of Survey Kanoongo. The respondents did not refute the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners ultimately resulting to their admission towards the version of the petitioners. In the forgoing circumstances, the writ petition deserves to the allowed. 4 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13th December 1991 passed by respondents no. 1, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) May 8, 2007: NCM: .