IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 183 of 2006 B.S. Negi and others …..…… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ....……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. A.S. Rawat, Advocate with Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Decision: 08.07.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner No.1 was inducted into the service of the respondents as a Junior Engineer in furtherance of his selection through the Public Service Commission on 23.09.1980. In the same manner, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were inducted against the same post by following the same procedure on 05.03.1979 and 23.05.1980 respectively. 2. Onward promotion from the post of Junior Engineer is to the post of Assistant Engineer. The case of the petitioners before this Court is, that neither any D.P.C. was convened by the authorities, nor any other selection process was held for promotion of Junior Engineers to the rank of Assistant Engineers ever since the induction of the petitioners into the employment of the Rural Engineering Service till 1998. It is pointed out, that in the year 1998 a requisition was made by the Administrative Department to the Public Service Commission for conducting a process of selection keeping in mind the number of vacancies, which had arisen from year to year. In furtherance of the requisition made by the Rural Engineering Service, the Public Service Commission, having conducting the process of selection, made a recommendation for promotion of Junior Engineers to the rank of Assistant Engineers on a year-wise basis. The petitioners, having been found suitable for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineers, were 2 granted promotion as such by an order dated 15.10.1998. The instant order of promotion was to be operative with immediate effect even though the petitioners had been recommended against vacancies, which had occurred earlier (i.e. during the years 1993-94). 3. Although during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, in the first instance, vehemently contended, that the petitioners were liable to be promoted with effect from the date, when the vacancies against which they were found suitable for promotion had arisen, but subsequently, in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Association (Direct Recruit) and others versus State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 4250 of 2006, decided on 25.09.2006) chose not to press the same. 4. During the course of hearing of the present writ petition, the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was, that the petitioners were promoted in the following order of merit alongwith others from amongst the quota of diploma holders, vide order dated 15.10.1998 :- 1. Shiv Mohan Singh Rawat 2. Dinesh Chandra Pant - (Petitioner No.2) 3. Shiv Dayal Singh Bhandari 4. Bachi Singh Negi - (Petitioner No.1) 5. Arshad Hussain 6. Devendra Kumar Bisht - (Petitioner No.3) 7. ………(In sealed envelope) 8. Darshan Lal (Scheduled Caste) 9. Darshan Singh Rawat 10. Jagat Singh Juyal 11. Ved Prakash (Scheduled Caste) appointed on 06.08.1996 12. Indralal Arya (Scheduled Caste) 5. It is submitted, that having been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers, the next benefit, which could be granted to the petitioners, was the release of selection grade. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that an Assistant Engineer becomes eligible for release of selection grade on completion of five years’ service on a substantive basis. In releasing selection grade, while the petitioners were denied of the aforesaid benefit, it was granted to one Shri Indralal Arya, whose name figures at serial No.12, in the year 2001. 3 The petitioners were released selection grade only in the year 2003. It is therefore submitted, that the petitioners should also be granted selection grade from the date it was granted to the petitioners’ juniors as also to Indralal Arya, who was placed below the names of the petitioners in the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission. 6. The aforesaid contention was strenuously contested at the hands of the respondents by asserting, that there is no prayer in the instant writ petition at the hands of the petitioners for claiming selection grade. It is also asserted at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the necessary/proper parties before such a relief could be claimed had not been impleaded as party respondents. In this behalf, it is submitted, that Shri Indralal Arya, to whom selection grade was allegedly released in the year 2001, should have been impleaded as a party respondent. 7. Keeping in mind the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied, that the solitary prayer now made at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners can not be granted to the petitioners on account of the fact, that no such prayer was made by the petitioners in the writ petition filed in this Court. Furthermore, if selection grade is to be limited to a particular strength of the cadre, it was also imperative to implead the persons likely to be affected by the release of the selection grade to the petitioners. Such affected persons have also not been impleaded as party respondents. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to consider the instant claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners. 8. The instant writ petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 08.07.2010 P. Singh