Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 331 (UTT)

ASHUTOSH JOSHI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-17

Sudhanshu Dhulia

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners before this Court are lecturers in various Government Intermediate Colleges in the State. The common factor in case of all the petitioners is that they were applicants in the recruitment process which was initiated by the Government vide advertisement dated 5.10.2003 which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the State Public Service Commission had advertised various vacancies for the different posts in different intermediate colleges in the State. Total vacancies for men were 1120 and for women were 99. The present petitioners applied for said posts in which they appeared in written examination which was held on 26.9.2004. Thereafter the viva voce of women candidate was conducted between 7.7.2005 to 15.7.2005 and viva voce of men candidate was conducted between 22.8.2005 to 10.3.2006. Thereafter the result of women candidates was published between 27.7.2005 and 23.8.2005. Regarding men candidates result was published, subject-wise, between 24.9.2005 to 15.9.2006. Subsequent to the publication of the result, the petitioners were given appointment letter and now they are teaching in different colleges of the State. All of them are presently aggrieved by the Government Order dated 25.10.2005 according to which pensionary benefits are only liable to be given to such government employees who were inducted in service on or before 30.9.2005. Meaning thereby, those who were inducted in service after 30.9.2005, will not be given pensionable benefits. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 30.1.2009 which is Annexure CA 1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, whereby the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2009 have been published which have a retrospective application from 1.10.2005 and which clearly stipulate that pensionable benefit will not be given to those employees who have been inducted in service from 1.10.2005 onwards. 3. The contention of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that in the advertisement dated 5.10.2003, it has been clearly stated that all the posts for which the selection is to take place are pensionable posts. This fact has been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel. Moreover, it has been further argued that once the selection process had started and it was clearly stipulated in the advertisement that the posts which were advertised by the Commissioner were pensionable post, this condition could not have been changed to the detriment of the selected candidates. This fact has been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel. Moreover, it has been further argued that once the selection process had started and it was clearly stipulated in the advertisement that the posts which were advertised by the Commissioner were pensionable post, this condition could not have been changed to the detriment of the selected candidates. 4. Another anomaly which has been pointed out before this Court by the petitioners is that though the selection process started as far back as on 5.10.2003 and a batch of 99 women candidates were selected and given appointment prior to 1.10.2005 in the same selection process, for reasons best known to the Commission and the State Government, the selection of men candidates was delayed and they were effectively given appointment letters only after 1.10.2005. The anomaly as pointed out now would be that whereas the women candidates who have been selected and appointed in same selection process will now be entitled for pensionary benefits whereas the present petitioners will not be liable for pensionary benefits. This is a wholly unreasonable classification, the petitioners allege. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that petitioners have no ground for getting pensionable benefits, as the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2009 clearly stipulates that it will be enforced with retrospective effect from 1.10.2005 – the Rules which have not been challenged, and therefore no benefit can be given to the petitioners. 6. After hearing the rival submission of the petitioners and the State, this Court is of clear view that denial of pensionable benefits to the petitioners is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is so first and foremost for grounds that it has created a wholly unreasonable classification between women and men candidates. Whereas in the same selection process women candidates who were given appointment prior to 1.10.2005 have been given pensionary benefits, the men candidate i.e. the petitioners have not given pensionary benefits. This clearly cannot be accepted. Moreover, as far as application of Rules is concerned, since the selection process of the petitioners had already begun, the Rules will not be effective in this selection process as any enforcement would give rise to anomalous situation which is clearly in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This clearly cannot be accepted. Moreover, as far as application of Rules is concerned, since the selection process of the petitioners had already begun, the Rules will not be effective in this selection process as any enforcement would give rise to anomalous situation which is clearly in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, in the advertisement the Government had clearly stated that all the posts are pensionable posts. The Government therefore cannot go back on its promise. There would be an estoppel against it. Finally the admitted classification between men and women candidates, in the same selection process, is not a reasonable classification. It has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. Hence it is Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Writ petition therefore succeeds. The order dated 25.10.2005 is hereby quashed so far as it relates to present petitioners. However, it is also made clear that the application of said Government Order and the Rules has been made inapplicable only in the case of present petitioners only, for the reasons stated above. 8. Writ petition is allowed. 9. No order as to costs.