IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 122 of 2010 Sri Vinod Prakash Nautiyal and others ……… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .………. Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate and Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Date of Judgment: 02.07.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioners is, that respondent Nos. 3 to 9 are substantively holding the posts of Junior Engineer, but have been granting officiating charge against the next higher posts of Assistant Engineer. It is, in this context, that the petitioners have made, inter alia, the following prayers for setting aside the action of the official respondents in granting officiating charge to the private respondents: “1. Writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders as contained to Annexure No. 1 colly to this petition along with its effect and operation also after calling the entire record from the respondents and to declare the officiating arrangements on the post of Assistant Engineers civil of private respondents dehors the rule and not permissible in eyes of law. 2. Writ rule or direction in the nature of quo-warranto against the private respondents showing their authority to hold the post of Assistant Engineer Civil even on the officiating basis although they are not eligible to hold the same as per service rules. 3. Writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents No. 1 & 2 to start the regular promotion in the P.W.D. State of Uttarakhand in every cadre and to determine year wise vacancy for each and every cadre of post upto the post Chief Engineer Level I to Assistant Engineer Civil to ascertain the resultant vacancy and actual vacancies under promoted quota and to consider the case for promotion of each and every candidate eligible for the same in light of Government order dated 04.07.2007, 23.06.2003 and 27.08.1997. 2 4. Issue suitable order or direction appropriate in nature by invoking the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India to take appropriate action against the respondents for the violation of order of this Court. 5. Issue any other suitable direction or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” The claim of the petitioners to assail the action of the respondents is also based on provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Rescission of Provisions regarding Temporary and Officiating Appointments) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “1991 Rules”). It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the officiating charge granted to the private respondents is in clear violation of the mandate of the 1991 Rules. 2. The petitioners have also sought a further direction, namely, a writ in the nature of mandamus, requiring the respondents to carry out a regular process of selection for promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer. In so far as the issue of grant of officiating charge, as also regular promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers is concerned, a controversy identical to the one raised in the instant writ petition came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal and others versus State of Uttarakhand and others (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 154 of 2009, decided on 02.06.2010). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by passing the following orders: “The issue, which is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the petitioners, is the grant of promotion to the private respondents by vesting in them officiating charge of the higher post of the rank of Assistant Engineer. After arguments were addressed for some time, learned counsel for the rival parties agreed, that the instant writ petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to complete the process of regular promotion, which we have been made to understand has already been initiated, within two months from today. Status quo shall continue to maintain in the meantime qua the parties in the present writ petition. In case the process of regular promotion is not finalized within the time specified hereinabove, officiating charge granted to the private respondents shall stand revoked after the expiry of period of two months. The instant writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.” 3 3. In sum and substance, the claim raised by the petitioners in the instant writ petition stands fully adjudicated upon by the order dated 02.06.2010 (extracted hereinabove). 4. The only remaining claim is, whether the officiating charge granted to the private respondents should not be given effect to till regular promotions are made in terms of the order darted 02.06.2010. In so far as the instant prayer made at the hands of the petitions is concerned, we are satisfied, that the same does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners, in as much as the petitioners have also been granted officiating charge against the posts of Assistant Engineer (although they are substantively holding the posts of Junior Engineer). To that extent, there is hardly any difference between the petitioners and private respondents Nos. 3 to 9. The claim raised by the petitioners on the basis of the 1991 Rules (referred to hereinabove) equally applies to the petitioners as well. In case, officiating charge has to be taken away from respondent Nos. 3 to 9, the same must be taken away from the petitioners as well. 5. Keeping in mind the order passed by this Court on 02.06.2010 (extracted above), we are of the view, that any directions to the official respondents to take away the responsibilities vested in respondent Nos. 3 to 9, would may not be in administrative exigency. Since regular promotions have already been ordered to be made, by following the prescribed procedure, before 01.08.2010, we are of the view, that the direction sought by the petitioners to restrain the official respondents from giving effect to the orders passed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 9, is clearly uncalled for. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 02.07.2010 02.07.2010 Amit