IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 186 of 2006 (S/B) Jeet Ram Bhatt and Another ….…… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent No. 6. Ms. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Date of Judgment: 05.03.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Power filed by respondent No. 6 is kept with the records. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is kept with the records. 3. It has not be alleged in the writ petition that at any point of time, the quota available for promotion of clerks to the post of Sub Registrar was more than 25%. By the Rules dated 28th August, 2004, impugned in the present writ petition, 25% quota of the promotees has not been altered, but the same has been retained. As it appears from the pleadings of the parties, before 28th August, 2004, remaining 75% of the posts of Sub Registrars were to be filled up by direct recruitment. By the Rules dated 28th August, 2004, the direct recruitment quota of 75% has been reduced to 65%. There appears to be no dispute that in order to be directly appointed to the post of Sub Registrar, the candidate is required, in accordance with the Rules made, to be a law graduate. By the Rules dated 28th August, 2004, while the direct recruitment quota of 75% has been reduced to 65%, it has been provided that 10% quota, thus taken out from the direct recruitment quota, shall be available for promotion of those clerks who are law graduates. 2 4. In the circumstances, there has been no infraction of any of the rights of existing clerks, but additional benefit to some of the clerks upon recognition of a qualification has been accorded. Petitioners, who are ordinary clerks and not law graduates, have not thus been any way affected. The contention that a classification has been made amongst the selfsame people is not acceptable, in as much as the classification has been made on the basis of qualification and, while doing so, the existing rights of the people belonging to the feeder class has not been interfered with. 5. Lastly, it was contended that by doing so, the seniority rules have been attempted to be interfered with. It was contended that the promotion, in accordance with the Rules, is on the basis of seniority, provided the candidate has not been found unfit. The Rules of seniority have been retained intact in relation to the quota of 25% promotees. In the matter of consideration for promotion to the said 25% quota, the said Rules are to be followed and, accordingly, while following the said Rules, whether the person is or is not a law graduate, will have no consideration at all. However, as aforesaid, a special classification has been made on the basis of qualification and for that, by curtailing direct recruitment quota, a further quota of promotion has been provided and thereby the seniority rules have not been affected at all. 6. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 05.03.2011 05.03.2011 Amit