High Court of Uttarakhand At Nainital vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Manoj K. Tiwari. J.

This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2015 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S)

No. 586 of 2014, holding that Group D employees serving in Subordinate Courts are entitled to be promoted against 45% vacancies.

The keys facts, necessary for adjudication, are that respondent Nos. 3 to 14 were serving as Group D employee in Judgeship, Haridwar. They filed

writ petition contending that they are entitled to be promoted against to 45% vacancies on Group C posts, in view of the provisions contained in

Government Notification dated 13.08.2013. By the said notification, promotion quota available to Group D employees of Subordinate Government

Offices, was increased from 25% to 45% by amending Rule 6 of Uttarakhand Subordinate Offices Ministerial Employees (Direct Recruitment) Rules,

2004. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 11.12.2015. Relevant extract of the said judgment is extracted

below:-

“In my considered opinion, if un-amended Government Rules 2004 are made applicable or in other words adopted in view of sub-rule 10 of Rule 20

of Civil Courts Rules, 2007, then, amended Government Rules, 2004 as amended by Government Amendment Rules, 2013 shall also be applicable. In

the net result, for the selection year, 2012-13 to 2015-16, promotional quota shall be 45% instead of 25%. In my further opinion, since letter dated

26.06.2013 was issued prior to amended Rules, 2013, which were notified on 13.08.2013, therefore, letter dated 26.06.2013 shall be read in the light of

subsequent amended notified on 13.08.2013. In other words, letter dated 26.06.2013 shall not adversely affect the amended Rules, 2013.

Undisputedly, in the present case, result was declared only for 25% promotional quota and not for 45% as provided by amended Government Rules,

2013.

Therefore, present petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 2 to declare the result for 45% promotional post

within two weeks. Result already declared of 25% shall be adjusted against the total post of 45%. Mandamus is also issued to the respondents to

promote those, who are found successful.â€​

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Rules framed in respect of other Government Departments in the year 2004 were neither adopted,

nor made applicable to the employees of Subordinate Courts, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Thus, it is the submission of the

appellant that Group D employees of Subordinate Civil Courts are entitled to promotion quota of only 25% against Group C vacancies.

We are not impressed by the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Rule 3(1)(a) of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial

Establishment Rules, 2007 provides that the post of Copyist / Junior Clerk etc. shall be filled by direct recruitment or “by selection from amongst

the regular Group-D employees fulfilling the conditions as per the Rules/Government Orders applicable not beyond the quota fixed in such

Government Ordersâ€​.

Rule 20 of the said Rules deals with promotion and sub-rule 10 of Rule 20 reads as under:

“The appointment by way of promotion from eligible candidates of group ‘D’ with the prescribed quota shall be made by the appointment

authority in accordance with the candidates and procedure prescribed by rules and Government order issued from time to time in the lowest pay scale

of Group ‘C’.â€​

The careful perusal of Rule 3(1)(a) and Rule 20(10) of the aforesaid Rules indicates that although promotion is one of the source of recruitment to

Group C post of Copyist / Junior Clerk in Subordinate Courts and Group D employees have been declared eligible for promotion, however, the

promotion quota available to Group D employees has not been specified. Rule 3(1)(a) while dealing with source of recruitment provides that Group D

employees will be entitled to promotion not beyond the quota prescribed in Government Orders, issued from time to time. This is an instance of

legislation by reference as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (1989) Supp (1) SCC 733.

Similar provision has been made in Rule 20(10) of the Rules framed in respect of Subordinate Courts. The framers of these Rules, instead of fixing

a quota for promotion of Group D employees, provided that the promotion quota fixed by the Government in respect of its Group D employees from

time to time, shall be applicable to Subordinate Courts. Admittedly, State Government increased the promotion quota available to Group D employees

of other Subordinate Offices from 25% to 45% vide notification dated 13.08.2013, therefore, Group D employees of Subordinate Courts are also be

entitled to promotion against 45% vacancies on Group C post.

Thus, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment, as such,

we find no reason to interfere.

Accordingly, the Special Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.