IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 230 OF 2005 Devki Nandan Joshi ………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ….Respondents. Present: Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Naib Tehsildar in the department on regular basis, without any break, w.e.f. 7.9.2000 i.e. the date, when the petitioner has completed his seven years services on the post of Forest Panchayat Inspector in the department. (ii) pass any other and further orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 2 3. The petitioner was appointed as a “Patwari” in the year 1975 and subsequently in the year 1993, he was promoted to the post of Forest Panchayat Inspector. The post of Forest Panchayat Inspector, according to the petitioner, is equivalent to Supervisor Kanoongo. The Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner are known as Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive (Peshkar) Service Rules, 1983, which were subsequently amended in the year 1994. These rules are also applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. According to the petitioner, by way of 1994 amendment in the Rules, Supervisor Kanoongo and Forest Panchayat Inspector are the feeding cadre for the post of “Naib Tehsildar” by way of promotion and the eligibility for promotion is seven years of service on the post of Supervisor Kanoongo and Forest Panchayat Inspector. The petitioner further claims that he became eligible for promotion on 7.9.1993. All the same, no regular promotions on the post of “Naib Tehsildar” have been made, though many posts are lying vacant in the State of Uttarakhand. He further states that as a way of stop gap arrangement by order of the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, he was appointed for a time bound period, from time to time, to carry on the function and duties of “Naib Tehsildar”. On the basis of his carrying on duties as “Naib Tehsildar”, he now claims regularization on the post of “Naib Tehsildar”. 4. In the counter affidavit, the State has contested the claim of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner was only appointed as a Stop Gap Arrangement to carry on the function and duties of 3 “Naib Tehsildar” for 89 days or so, and merely because the petitioner was carrying on the function and duties of “Naib Tehsildar” from time to time, no indefeasible right is given to the petitioner to have claimed regularization on the post of “Naib Tehsildar”. 5. This Court is totally in agreement with the views taken by the Standing Counsel. Merely because the petitioner has officiated as a “Naib Tehsildar”, he does not have a right for being regularized on the post of “Naib Tehsildar”. The petitioner, therefore, has no claim for regularization on the post of “Naib Tehsildar”. No such prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition can be granted, as it is not a fundamental or even a statutory right of the petitioner to claim regularization on a higher post. All the petitioner can claim is that he is liable to be considered for promotion to the higher post. 6. In view of what has already been stated above, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Prashant Khanna has made an oral prayer that since the posts of “Naib Tehsildar” are lying vacant in the State of Uttarakhand and a considerable period has already passed since the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Panchayat Inspector and he is eligible for promotion for the post for last more than ten years, his promotion may be considered for the post of “Naib Tehsildar”. 4 8. This Court hopes and trust that as and when the promotions are made to the posts of “Naib Tehsildar”, the petitioner will be considered, in accordance with the rules applicable for such promotions. No interference, however, can be made in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.2.2011 Rathour