Dr. Praveen Bhardwaj vs State of Uttarakhand

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—The subject matter of grievance in the present writ petition is identical to those highlighted in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 298 of 2010. We have dealt with Writ Petition (S/B) No. 298 of 2010 by a judgment rendered today. For the reasons recorded therein, we also decide the issue of discrimination as highlighted in the present writ petition in the light of our observations made in the said judgment. In addition to that in the present writ petition the Petitioner is contending that he was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for being appointed against a reserved vacancy. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the said recommendation was binding on the State and the State, in not acting on the said recommendation, has affected civil right of the Petitioner. It has further been contended that a similar recommendation was also made in respect of another person and the State has accepted the same and granted a promotion to that person. It was contended that there were no rules for determination of reservation and, accordingly, the matter could not be dealt with in the manner the same was dealt with.

When the Departmental Promotion Committee made the recommendation, it was aware that there is a post available for a reserved category candidate. Against that post, Petitioner, who does not belong to reserved category, was recommended. The D.P.C., in law, had no authority to do so. Such an illegal recommendation by the D.P.C. was not binding on the State and the State could not act on the basis of such recommendation. In the event, D.P.C. made similar recommendation in favour of another person; the State could also not act on the basis of such recommendation. Since the State could not act on the basis of such recommendation, the action on the part of the State in acting on the basis of such recommendation cannot be treated to be the basis for the purpose of determination of discrimination. The person, who purportedly obtained benefit of such an inappropriate recommendation, is not a party to the writ petition and, accordingly, the Court cannot make any inquiry as to whether such recommendation was or was not an inappropriate recommendation. Be that as it may, an illegal or unacceptable action cannot be treated to be the basis of determination of discrimination.

The facts of this case, as narrated above, suggest that there were atleast more than one posts available for promotion. In such a case, the reservation policy of the State applies and, accordingly, reservation in terms of the hundred point roster laid down by the State is required to be applied. In the writ petition, it is not the contention of the Petitioner that the post for which he was recommended was not a reserved post in accordance with such roster and, accordingly, he could be recommended for being appointed to the said post. That being the situation, there is nothing further to be done in the writ petition. The same is disposed of.