Deep Chandra Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a direction to respondent Nos. 1 & 2, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand and the Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, State of Uttarakhand to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar from the selection year when the petitioner became eligible for being promoted to the said post, which, according to the petitioner, fell vacant in the year 2017. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to initiate an inquiry and take action against the delinquent officer, who failed to convene the DPC for promotion to the said post of Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration within a reasonable time.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Registration Clerk on 4th June, 1993. He was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand on 09.11.2000. On 29.09.2016, he was granted substantive promotion to the post of Chief Registration Clerk. Further case of the petitioner is that under the Recruitment Rules in question, namely Uttarakhand Sub-Registrar Service Rules, 2004, which were amended in 2015 vide Uttarakhand Sub Registrar (Amendment) Rules, 2015, the source of recruitment for the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-II, under Rule 5, was prescribed, inter alia, as under:-

“35 percent posts by promotion-25 percent from amongst the permanent clerical cadre employees, Chief Registration Clerks and Registration Clerks, who have completed 15 years of minimum service as such:

Provided that 10 percent additional promotions from amongst such Chief Registration Clerks and Registration Clerks of the department, who hold law graduation in additional to the above mentioned qualifying service:-

Provided further that promotion shall be made in such a way that as far as possible the number of person promoted in any cadre should not exceed 35 percent of the total cadre strength;”.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner had the qualification in law, he was entitled to be promoted against the 10 percent promotion quota from amongst the Chief Registration Clerks, who hold the Law Graduation Degree. Further case of the petitioner is that the previous incumbent Shri M.L. Singhal, Registration Clerk, who had been promoted to the post of Sub-Registration, superannuated on 31.10.2017 and, therefore, that post fell vacant, against which the petitioner could have been promoted. However, the petitioner was not promoted, though he was asked to officiate in the position of Sub-Registrar in the year 2016 itself vide Office Order No. 407 dated 29th September, 2016. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2021 while officiating as Sub-Registrar. He has been granted one year’s extension, which would expire on 30.09.2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not hold the DPC for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar and, therefore, he has been denied the right to be substantively retired as a Sub-Registrar.

Respondent No. 1, on the one hand, and respondent Nos. 2 & 3, on the other, have filed their counter-affidavits. The reason for not holding the DPC over the years is stated to be the pendency of a Special Appeal before this Court with the title “Pratap Singh Rawat vs. State of Uttarakhand”, which relates to the promotional exercise for the post of Sub-Registrar.

The submission of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondents have not provided the particulars of the said Special Appeal stated to be pending in this Court, and it is not claimed by the respondents that there was any challenge pending in respect of the 10 percent quota reserved for Chief Registration Clerks, who hold a Law Degree. Therefore, this could not be cited as a good reason for not holding the DPC for nearly five years for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. It is well settled that there is no vested right of an employee to claim that merely because there is a vacancy existing in a promotion post, the employer should hold the promotional process to fill-up the said vacancy while he is in service. Therefore, in our view, a mandamus, as sought by the petitioner, cannot be issued by the Court. The respondents have given their reason for not holding the DPC. In our view that is a reason good enough even if one were required to be cited. The petitioner, having superannuated while officiating in the position of Sub-Registrar, has not suffered any monetary loss, since his pension would be fixed on the basis of the last drawn pay.

We, therefore, dismiss the present writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.