IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 137 of 2006 Date of Decision: 01.12.2009 State of Uttaranchal and another ……. Appellants Versus Mahesh Chandra Joshi & another …… Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE TARUN AGARWALA Present: Mr.Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1 (petitioner). J.S.Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The respondent Mahesh Chandra Joshi was appointed as an Assistant Librarian in a government college on 21.03.1983. During the course of his employment, he acquired the qualification of M.A. in 1983 and thereafter acquired the bachelor’s degree in Library Science. Onward promotion from the post of Assistant Librarian is to the post of Librarian. The appellants issued an office letter dated 31.05.1995 requiring Principals of government colleges to forward confidential records of Assistant Librarians to be considered for onward promotion to the post of Librarians. The name of the petitioner was also amongst the persons whose record was forwarded for consideration. The petitioner’s name was approved for promotion to the post of Librarian by the selection committee. 2 Despite the recommendation of the name of the respondent for promotion on the post of Librarian, the respondent was not favoured with the order of promotion. It is, therefore, the respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.31259 of 1999. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the appellants to consider the representation filed by the respondent claiming promotion to the post of Librarian. In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondent filed representation dated 10.08.1999. The aforesaid representation was considered by the appellants and vide an order dated 25.09.1999, appellant No.2 rejected the claim of the respondent. The order dated 25.09.1999, whereby the claim of the respondent to the post of Librarian has been rejected, was impugned by the respondent by filing Writ Petition No.603 of 2002 (S/B). The aforesaid writ petition came to be allowed by this Court, vide an order dated 21.06.2006. Through the instant special appeal, the appellantS have impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21.06.2006. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants, in the first instance, read through the impugned order dated 21.06.2006. He thereupon assailed the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge had arrived at the conclusion that the impugned order was unjustified. The impugned order dated 25.09.1999 was assailed as being unjustified on account of the conclusion recorded therein that the post of Librarian could be filled by way of promotion. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, the solitary submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was to demonstrate that as a matter of fact there was no avenue of promotion to the post of Librarian. In order to substantiate the instant plea, 3 learned counsel for the appellants read and re-read the impugned order dated 25.09.1999. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerged that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner was based on a Government Order dated 29.02.1996. We have perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants the Government Order dated 29.02.1996. A perusal of the same reveals, that the aforesaid order was in respect of sanction of the pay scales recommended by the University Grants Commission. By the said order the pay scales for the posts of Assistant Librarian and Librarian were also determined. The order dated 29.02.1996 also expressly provided that the recommended pay scales, which were being adopted for the post of Assistant Librarian and Librarian, would not be available to those who were occupying the posts, having been promoted under the merit promotion scheme. A reading of the Government Order dated 29.02.1996 does not lead to the inference suggested by the appellants. The said order does not incorporate any express or implied determination at the hands of the State Government that the post of Librarian would only be filled up by way of direct recruitment, or alternatively, that the post would not be filled up by way of promotion. In the instant view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The issue that still needs to be considered in rendering complete justice is whether it is necessary for the appellants to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for promotion in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 21.06.2006. In the order passed by the learned Single Judge it has been noticed, that upon consideration of the claims of the Assistant Librarians based on the office letter dated 31.05.1995, the petitioner’s name was finally cleared by the selection committee, inasmuch as, the selection committee found the petitioner suitable for promotion. That being the case, we are satisfied that the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Librarian with effect from the date others had 4 been promoted i.e., those whose claims had been considered under the office letter dated 31.05.1995. In any case, even if no other individual came to be promoted on the post of Librarian in furtherance of the aforesaid selection process, the petitioner would be entitled to promotion retrospectively, from the date his suitability had been declared by the Selection Committee. The instant appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( J.S.Khehar ) Chief Justice ( Tarun Agarwala) Judge 01.12.2009 P.Singh