IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. WRIT PETITION NO.810 (S/S)/ 2001. Bahadur Singh. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. Conservator of Forest, Western circle, Nainital. 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Purvi Van Prabhag, Haldwani. 3. Secretary to the Forest Department, Uttaranchal State. … Respondents Sri S.A.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri J.P.Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing counsel for respondents. HON’BLE P.C.PANT J. 1. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner has sought mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of tractor driver in accordance with Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as tractor cleaner on 27.04.1973 by the respondent No.2 in the Forest Department. The services of the petitioner were confirmed in the year 1974 considering his satisfactory work. Besides doing the work of tractor cleaner the forest department is taking from the petitioner the work of tractor driver since 1989. The petitioner holds as valid driving license (copy Annexure I to writ petition) for driving heavy vehicles issued by the licensing authority. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was incharge of tractor registration No. USR 9591 which he is driving since 06.05.2000 after the retirement of one Sri Madan Singh, tractor operator/driver. It is the petitioner who is filling the log book (copy Annexure II to writ petition) of said vehicle which is with the forest department. In the year 1990, on 22.08.1990 the respondent No.1 issued an order directing the appointing authority, i.e. respondent no.2 and all other Divisional Forest Officers to promote tractor cleaners to the post of the tractor drivers considering their merit, technical experience, ability and valid driving license. The relevant rules in this regard are contained in Uttar Pradesh Van Vibhag Diriver Sewa Niyamawali, 1981 (copy Annexure III to writ petition). In compliance of aforesaid order dated 22.08.1990, respondent no.2 on 24.08.1990 prepared list of tractor cleaners and thereafter promoted several cleaners as tractor drivers in the year 1992 but left the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was not even called for interview or the test. Consequently the petitioner made several representations in 1993,1995 and 2000, and last one was made on 23.02.2001 but the respondent No.1 and 2 turned a deaf ear to the representations of the petitioner. In para 11 of the writ petition it is categorically stated that apart from promoting Sarvsri Bahadur Singh Dobhal, Nari Ram and Madan Singh in the year 1992, the respondents promoted Sarvsri Bishan Singh, Anand Singh, Kalu Singh and Mohan Lal in the year 1995 and lastly one Sri Ganga Singh in the year 1998 ignoring the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the discrimination this writ petition has been filed. 3. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed as tractor cleaner and it is also admitted that he possesses driving license for heavy vehicles. It is also not disputed in the counter affidavit that after retirement of Sri Mandan Singh the tractor looked after by him was handed over to the petitioner but it is denied if the work of driver is being taken from his since 1989. The respondents have not denied that in compliance of order dated 22.08.1990 list of tractor cleaners was prepared for promotion as tractor drivers but regarding petitioner it is alleged that he did not submit his willingness for being posted as tractor driver. As to the names disclosed to the writ petition of the persons appointed as tractor drivers, the respondents have alleged in the counter affidavit that it was done according to the Rules. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that under Uttar Pradesh Van Vibhag Driver Sewa Niyamawali,1981 there is no provision of promotion to the post of driver from the post of cleaner. 4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits filed by the parties, alongwith the Annexures annexed thereto. 5. The short question for consideration before this court is whether the petitioner was wrongly denied appointment/promotion on the post of tractor driver by the respondent. 6. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as tractor cleaner in the year 1973 by the respondent No.2 in the forest department. It is also admitted between the parties that the petitioner holds valid driving license for driving heavy vehicles. The only disputed question is whether the petitioner was wrongly denied appointment/promotion on the post of tractor driver or not. Learned Additional Chief Additional Standing Counsel referred to Rule 5 and Rule 15 of Uttar Pradesh Van Vibhag Driver Sewa Niyamawali, 1981 and attempted to convince this court that the post of driver is not a promotional post and the petitioner can not seek promotion from the post of cleaner to the post of driver. It is further argued that both the cadres are different. The contention of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is lame excuse to deny the appointment/promotion to the petitioner on the post of tractor driver for the reason that the petitioner has categorically stated in the writ petition naming eight persons Sarvrsi Bahadur Singh Dobhal, Nari Ram, Mandan Singh, Bishan Singh, Anand Singh, Kalu Singh, Mohan Lal and Ganga Singh who have been promoted from the post of tractor cleaner to the post of tractor driver after considering their suitability and valid driving license held by them. This fact has not been. Denied in the counter affidavit. Rather, in para 8 of the counter affidavit it is clearly stated that the respondent No.2 invited options of the tractor cleaners for promotion to the post of tractor drivers. Not only this in para 10 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that various tractor cleaners were promoted to the post of tractor drivers in accordance with law and on the basis of seniority cum merit. In view of the above averments in the counter affidavit it is highly discriminatory to deny his due to the petitioner. The act on the part of the respondents is clearly in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India particularly when the juniors to the petitioners have been appointed/promoted as tractor driver while petitioner even after having valid driving license for heavy vehicles and working for last more than 30 years is deprived of appointment/ promotion to the post of tractor driver. Though in the counter affidavit the respondents have denied that work of driver was not taken from the petitioner but the petitioner has filed copy of the log book of the tractor, copy of the certificate of the court and other documents with rejoinder affidavit showing clearly that the petitioner’s services were being used as tractor driver also. This king of discrimination and exploitation that too of a member of scheduled caste is highly violative of the provisions of the Constitution. 7. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are four posts already lying vacant of the post of the tractor drivers including that of the scheduled caste candidate. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel did not deny this fact. 8. In view of above discussion the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint/promote the petitioner on the post of tractor driver within a period of one month from today. No order as to costs. Dated: September 17, 2004. (P.C. Pant J) S.S. Negi.