HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.96 of 2011 (S/B) Dharamveer Singh .… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents Mr M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Dated : September 6th 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court, is kept with the record. 2. On 11th January, 2010 a final seniority list of Junior Engineers was prepared where it was shown that the petitioner is at serial no.11 whereas respondents no.3 & 4 are respectively at serial no.18 & 23. It is being contended in the writ petition that in the post of Junior Engineers, petitioner was accordingly senior to the respondents no.3 & 4. It was contended in the writ petition that on 26th August, 2010 petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). It was contended in the writ petition that on 6th December, 2010 and 23rd December, 2010 the respondents no.4 & 3 were respectively promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. In the petition, petitioner is contending that since the respondents no.3 & 4 are Junior to the petitioner in the original entry level, the petitioner should also be given an opportunity to be promoted to the post of 2 Executive Engineer from December, 2010 and for that matter petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondents to hold a Review D.P.C. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 26th August, 2010 and in order to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer petitioner is required to wait for three and half years in terms of the Rules. In that view of the matter, petitioner is contending that since his promotion is for the year 2003-04 petitioner should be deemed to have been promoted in the vacancies of those years and accordingly, he should be deemed to be eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in 2010. There is no substance in such contention, inasmuch as, the Rules make it absolutely clear that experience of three and half years as Assistant Engineer will entail eligibility of a person to be promoted to the next higher post of Executive Engineer. The petitioner, having been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer only on 26th August, 2010, could not acquire three and half years experience as Assistant Engineer in December, 2010. The next contention of the petitioner is that the respondents no.3 & 4 are Junior to the petitioner in the Feeding post and accordingly, question of the said respondents, being promoted to the post of Executive Engineer before the petitioner being considered for such promotion, does not arise. The petitioner was perfectly aware of the reason why the respondents 3 & 4 obtained promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer much prior to the date, the petitioner obtained the same and accordingly, insinuated in the writ petition that the petitioner 3 opted for hill sub cadre; such option was not considered and accordingly, he filed a writ petition which was disposed of with liberty to file a fresh petition. This writ petition however, does not address the issue that the option of the petitioner for hill sub cadre was unjustly not considered or taken note of. 3. The fact remains that whereas petitioner was no part of the hill sub cadre, the respondents no.3 & 4 were part of hill sub cadre. In terms of the Rules dealing with hill sub cadre, a promotional post available in the said cadre could only be supplied by a member of the same sub cadre working in the Feeding post. Therefore, a promotional post of Assistant Engineer available in hill sub cadre could only be supplied by a person holding the post of Junior Engineer in the hill sub cadre since the post of Junior Engineer is the Feeding post for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Petitioner perfectly knew that the respondents no.3 & 4 were selected for being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer that was available in the hill sub cadre. There is no dispute that respondents no.3 & 4 were given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, when hill sub cadre was still in existence. Simultaneously, with the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the purpose of continuing hill sub cadre came to an end and accordingly, the said sub cadre was abolished. Inconsequence thereof, members of the hill sub cadre were merged with the general cadre of the State. At that time respondents no.3 & 4 were Assistant Engineers, whereas the petitioner was only a Junior Engineer. Despite 4 the petitioner being senior in the Feeding cadre of Junior Engineer, in the merged cadre the status of the respondents no.3 & 4 became higher than the petitioner since they were then Assistant Engineers, whereas the petitioner was a mere Junior Engineer. 4. One Sri Mahavir Rauthand, it is contended by the petitioner, is also Junior to the petitioner in the Feeding cadre of Junior Engineers. It is being contended that Sri Mahavir Rauthand was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 16th April, 2002. It is being contended that since Mahavir Rauthand was promoted on 16th April, 2002, petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer should be predated to 16th April, 2002. Mahavir Rauthand has not been made a party to the writ petition. The fact remains that promotion of Sri Mahavir Rauthand from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer effected on 16th April, 2002 was known to the petitioner. The petitioner in an appropriate case could ask for predating his promotion to the date his Junior was promoted, notionally, in terms of the decision of the Government. Petitioner has not asked for the same in the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that Sri Mahavir Rauthand was also selected for being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer as was available in hill sub cadre. It has been contended that the fruit of the said selection was given after the State of Uttar Pradesh was reorganized, inasmuch as, the State of Uttarakhand created by and under the Uttar Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 5 2002 was obliged to honour the status as was earned by an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh immediately, prior to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. For the reasons indicated above, we do not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case for consideration of the case of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from December, 2010 and for that matter to have a Review D.P.C. 5. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 06.09.2011 Arti