IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 168 of 2006 Yashwant Kumar Bagle. .……… Appellant Versus Uttaranchal Pay Jal Nigam & others. .………. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Lakshmi Prasad Raturi (respondent No. 4) was appointed as a qualified Draftsman on 24.11.1977 in the U.P. Jal Nigam in the pay-scale of Rs. 280-460. (The aforesaid pay-scale now stands revised to Rs. 4000-6000). The appellant (Yashwant Kumar Bagle) was appointed as an unqualified Draftsman on 02.02.1973 in the U.P. Jal Nigam in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-320. He, thereafter, acquired the status of a qualified Draftsman w.e.f. 02.02.1983. 2. The aforesaid facts, except the date of acquisition of the status of qualified Draftsman, have been accepted by the appellant. Insofar as the date of acquiring the stipulated qualifications for the post of Draftsman is concerned, the assertion at the hands of the appellant in paragraph 6 of the Grounds of Appeal may be taken into consideration. Paragraph 6 (aforementioned) is being extracted hereunder: “6. Because the learned single judge failed to consider this aspect that the petitioner has passed the certificate of Draughtsman in the year 1979 and thus he is entitled to get his seniority from the date of his initial appointment. The learned single Judge failed to consider also that due to the mistake on the part of department the date of passing of certificate is wrongly mentioned as 1983 in the department’s record for which the appellant cannot be blamed.” 2 3. Although there is no material before us on the basis of which the factual position depicted in paragraph 6 of the Grounds of Appeal can be accepted, yet for the sake of argument, even if it is acknowledged that the appellant acquired the prescribed qualifications for the post of Draftsman in the year 1979, he could have been appointed as a qualified Draftsman only in the year 1979, whereas respondent No. 4 (Lakshmi Prasad Raturi) had admittedly been appointed against the post of qualified Draftsman in the pay-scale of Rs. 280-460 on 24.11.1977, and during the entire period, the appellant continued to draw wages in the pay-scale of Rs. 200- 320. Thus viewed, we have no hesitation in concluding that respondent No. 4 (Lakshmi Prasad Raturi) was liable to be treated as senior to the appellant (Yashwant Kumar Bagle) in the cadre of Draftsman. 4. Promotion from the cadre of qualified Draftsman is to the post of Computer. The dispute adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge primarily relates to the preferential claim of the rival parties for promotion to the post of Computer. Since respondent No. 4 (Lakshmi Prasad Raturi) was senior to the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in setting aside the order of promotion of the appellant, specially when the claim of his senior Lakshmi Prasad Raturi (respondent No. 4) was not taken into consideration, when he was accorded promotion to the post of Computer. 5. It would be pertinent to mention, that during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant (Yashwant Kumar Bagle) invited our attention to the Office Order dated 15.04.2004, whereby the appellant had been placed in the seniority list of the cadre of Draftsman on the basis of his date of appointment as 02.02.1983. It is submitted that this determination at the hands of the U.P. Jal Nigam was itself set aside by the U.P. Jal Nigam vide order dated 21.06.2004 by asserting that the same was not in consonance with the Rules. 6. Even if the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted as true and correct, the only inference that can be drawn therefrom is that the position of seniority of the appellant before this Court remained in afflux and never came to be finalised at any stage. Since the instant controversy relates to the preferential right of promotion from the post of Draftsman to the post of Computer, 3 wherein the inter se seniority between the appellant (Yashwant Kumar Bagle) and respondent No. 4 (Lakshmi Prasad Raturi) only has been under consideration, we hereby reiterate that amongst the two, Lakshmi Prasad Raturi is liable to be treated as senior to Yashwant Kumar Bagle. 7. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 14.12.2009 14.12.2009 G