IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 36 of 2010 Dhanpal Singh Negi & another. .……… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. .………. Respondents Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The appellants, who were inducted into the service of the respondents as Supply Clerks in 1979, were granted ad hoc promotion as Supply Inspectors by an order dated 05.06.2008. Since then, the appellants have been working against the posts of Supply Inspector on ad hoc basis. So as to claim regularisation against the posts of Supply Inspector, the appellants approached this Court, by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1132 of 2009. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order dated 20.11.2009, requiring respondent No. 3 to consider the representation made by the appellants for regularisation on 04.07.2009. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1132 of 2009, respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 05.02.2010, asserting therein that he was not competent to pass an order of regularisation. It was also pointed out in the aforesaid communication, that the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, was the competent authority, and as such, the appellants were at liberty to approach the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, to seek a determination on the representation dated 04.07.2009. 2. Having passed the order dated 05.02.2010, respondent No. 3 passed another order dated 06.02.2010, transferring the appellants. The appellants then approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 99 of 2010, assailing the order of transfer dated 06.02.2010. The challenge raised by the appellants was declined by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 23.02.2010. In sum and substance, the impugned order of transfer dated 06.02.2010 was found to be in consonance with law. 2 3. Through the present Special Appeal, the appellants have impugned the order dated 23.02.2010, vide which, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 99 of 2010 was disposed of. 4. Before this Court, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants was, that the District Magistrate, Chamoli, had taken up the claim of regularisation of persons, similarly situated as the appellants, and passed an order on merits thereon, whereas, by an order dated 05.02.2010, the District Magistrate, Tehri, had asserted that he is not competent to pass an order on the claim of the appellants for regularisation. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, demonstrates the mala fides of respondent No. 3. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants had enclosed, with Writ Petition (S/S) No. 99 of 2010, an order dated 05.06.2008, vide which, the appellants were promoted on ad hoc basis as Supply Inspectors. The aforesaid order had been passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies. Obviously, prima facie, when the order of ad hoc promotion had been passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, it was not open to the District Magistrate, Tehri, to take a decision on regularisation of the appellants against the posts of Supply Inspector. In any case, the allegation of mala fides cannot be sufficiently demonstrated, merely on the basis of the order dated 05.06.2008. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that there was any bias or prejudice at the hands of respondent No. 3, in exercise whereof, the impugned order of transfer dated 06.02.2010 was passed by him. In view of the above, we find no merit in the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. It took us some time to understand the second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. In order to substantiate his second submission, reliance was again placed on the order dated 05.06.2008, vide which, the appellants had been promoted on ad hoc basis as Supply Inspectors. Having read through the order dated 05.06.2008, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the aforesaid order of promotion was for a duration of one year, and that the same expired on the conclusion of a period of one year, i.e. on 05.06.2009. Referring to the impugned order of transfer dated 06.02.2010, it is pointed out, that the same had been passed by respondent No. 3 after the tenure (depicted in the order dated 05.06.2008, i.e. of a period of one year) had expired. 3 It is submitted, that the order dated 05.06.2008 could not had been made the basis of the transfer of the appellants. 7. We have perused the impugned order of transfer dated 06.02.2010, which is available on the record of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 99 of 2010 as Annexure No. 7. In the recital thereof, reference has first been made to the order dated 05.06.2008 (referred by the learned counsel for the appellants), and thereafter, to an order dated 07.10.2009. The impugned order of transfer dated 06.02.2010 was based on the aforesaid two orders dated 05.06.2008 and 07.10.2009. The appellants did not append the order dated 07.10.2009 with Writ Petition (S/S) No. 99 of 2010. He has also not appended the aforesaid order with the instant Special Appeal. It is, therefore, imperative that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellants. Since the order dated 06.02.2010 was based on the order dated 07.10.2009, which has not been produced for our consideration, we are satisfied, that the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, to the effect that the impugned order was based on the order dated 05.06.2008, deserves to be rejected. The same is accordingly rejected. 8. We have found no merit in both the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The instant Special Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 19.04.2010 19.04.2010 G