IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 53 of 2006 R.K. Verma. .……… Appellant Versus Sri Ayaz Hussain & others. ……… Respondents Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Addl. Advocate General for respondents Nos. 6 to 8. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 9. Special Appeal No. 52 of 2006 R.K. Verma. .……… Appellant Versus Alok Kumar & others. ……… Respondents Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Addl. Advocate General for respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Special Appeal No. 178 of 2006 State of Uttarakhand & others. .……… Appellants Versus Sri Ayaz Hussain & others. ……… Respondents Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Addl. Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 6. & Special Appeal No. 179 of 2006 State of Uttarakhand & others. .……… Appellants Versus Alok Kumar. ……… Respondent Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Addl. Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Advocate for the respondent. 2 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) By this common judgment, all the four appeals are being disposed of together. 2. It was on 20th April, 2002 that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in Special Appeal No. 53 of 2006, who were holding the substantive posts of Senior Clerks / Junior Clerks in the Transport Department were entrusted with the additional responsibilities of the posts of Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical). The appointment order No. 243 / ifj0 vk;qDr/ih0,l0¼dSEi½ / 2002 dated 20th April, 2002 clearly stated that until permanent arrangements were made, these five persons, in their own pay scale and status, would be discharging the additional responsibilities of the posts of Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical). The concluding part of this order clearly stated that for discharge of these additional responsibilities, these persons will not be paid any extra salary or allowances. It was also stated that this arrangement was totally temporary. 3. An order was issued on 4th March, 2003 by the State Government, whereby the aforesaid ad-hoc, temporary arrangement with respect to these five respondents was brought to an end. Actually this was done through a communication of the State Government, emanating from the State Government in the Transport Department addressed to the Transport Commissioner. In implementation of this communication, on 19th March, 2003 vide his communication No. 1800 / vf/k"Bku & izkfof/kd & rSukrh /2003 of this date, the Transport Commissioner issued an Office Order bringing to an end, with immediate effect, the arrangement evolved in the order dated 20th April, 2002 (supra). 3 4. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 challenged the aforesaid two orders dated 4th March, 2003 and 19th March, 2003 by filing Writ Petition No. 251 of 2003 (S/B) in this Court. Respondent No. 1 in Special Appeal No. 52 of 2006 also filed Writ Petition No. 384 of 2004 (S/S) on the same grounds. Vide common judgment dated 10th July, 2006 passed in both these writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, quashed the order dated 4th March, 2003 and declared that the writ petitioners would continue to work as Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical) till the posts were filled-up by regularly appointed candidates. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us in these appeals. 5. The main ground upon which the learned Single Judge rested his judgment was that the impugned order dated 4th March, 2003 could not have legally been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. We do not agree with this view of the learned Single Judge for the following reasons: 6. First and foremost, the so called appointment order dated 20th April, 2002 actually was neither any appointment order in any sense nor did it amount to the promotion of writ petitioners nor did it confer any right upon the writ petitioners. In clear, categorical and unequivocal terms, the said order only stated that the petitioners, who were Senior and Junior Clerks were given the additional responsibilities, in their own pay scale and status, of the work of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) and that this arrangement did not entitle them to receive any additional or extra pay or allowances. It also stated that this arrangement was purely temporary in nature. This, therefore, did not confer any right upon the writ petitioners. The State Government as well as the Transport Commissioner, therefore, were well within their rights to terminate this arrangement at any time they liked because such termination of the said arrangement did not violate or breach any right of the writ petitioners. 4 7. Apart from the aforesaid, actually the writ petitioners in the year 2002, could not have been appointed as Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical), either on regular or any other basis. The Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service Rules, 1980 (‘1980 Rules’ for short) deal with the question and all issues of appointments to the posts of Regional Inspectors (Technical) / Technical Inspectors and Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of these Rules clearly states that the posts of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) have to be filled-up by direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that any appointment made in their favour was in accordance with this Rule because admittedly the writ petitioners were already in the service of the Government before and at the time the order dated 20th April, 2002 was issued. The appointment, if any and if at all, made in their favour was not by way of direct recruitment. 8. Secondly, at the relevant time they were not possessed of the requisite qualifications or the eligibility criteria. Even though the aforesaid 1980 Rules, in Rule 8, prescribe some academic qualifications as well as the experience etc., in 1989 the Central Government issued a Notification vide S.O. 443(E), in exercise of the power vested in it under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prescribing minimum qualifications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical). We have no doubt in our minds that under sub-section (4) of Section 213 (supra), the Central Government alone was competent to prescribe the minimum qualifications for appointment to these posts. The writ petitioners admittedly were not possessed of these qualifications in the year 2002. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we have no doubt in our minds that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petitions and quashing and setting aside the order dated 4th March, 2003. The 5 appeals accordingly are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2006 is set aside with all the consequences, but without any order as to costs. 10. Before parting, we do wish to observe and direct that if any post or posts of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) are available in the State of Uttarakhand, the State Government shall initiate immediate steps for filling-up these posts in accordance with the applicable rules on the subject. The writ petitioners shall be entitled to apply, if they are eligible for doing so. Depending upon their eligibility and their being possessed of the qualifications, we direct the State Government to consider them for such appointment along with all other eligible candidates. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 19.06.2008 19.06.2008 G