Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 155 (UTT)

RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-03-18

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2015
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Since common issue is involved in these appeals, we are disposing of these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The appeals are filed by the writ petitioners in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed seeking the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record and quashing the advertisement dated 10.02.2014 & 11.02.2014 published in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a fresh advertisement as per the letter dated 02.01.2014 & 25.01.2014 issued by the Secretary Uttarakhand and Commissioner Pauri Garhwal respectively. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give preference / weightage to the petitioner working under Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna and to take necessary decision on the grievance of the petitioner. iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the petitioner on the post he is working and pay the prescribed salary.” 3. Briefly put, the case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was as follows: i. Appellants were appointed on contractual basis on the post of Village Rojgar Sewak / Administrative Assistant in the year 2007. They were having the requisite qualifications. According to them, on 18.10.2013, the Cabinet of the State of Uttarakhand took a decision to give preference and weightage and also age relaxation to the employees working under the scheme in appointments under the Rural Development Department. The said decision, according to the appellants, was communicated vide letter dated 02.01.2014 in respect of giving preference / weightage to those employees, who were working under the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna (MNREGA) and it was also directed that proposal be placed before the State Government vide Annexure No. 2. ii. There is complaint that no action has been taken on the basis of the Cabinet decision. Representations were made. It was, thereafter, that the impugned Advertisements were issued on 10.02.2014 and 11.02.2014. In the Advertisements, in short, the Cabinet decision giving them the purported benefits is not reflected. 4. Accordingly, the appellants approached the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Representations were made. It was, thereafter, that the impugned Advertisements were issued on 10.02.2014 and 11.02.2014. In the Advertisements, in short, the Cabinet decision giving them the purported benefits is not reflected. 4. Accordingly, the appellants approached the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge noted that, as far as giving the weightage for the service rendered by the appellants in MNREGA scheme is concerned, there is no such provision under the Rules and, unless provision of weightage is provided in the Rules, it cannot be given to the appellants. It is also found that there is no Cabinet decision as such on record. At any rate, such decision must be reflected in the Rules before such benefits can be claimed. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed. However, the learned Single Judge ordered that, as far as relaxation of age is concerned, appellants may move representations, which were to be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, appellants are before us. 5. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Technical Education Board; and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 6. It may be true that the appellants were appointed on contractual basis and they were working as Administrative Assistants for which they had requisite qualifications. We are concerned with the prayers sought to quash the Advertisements and to incorporate, in substance, the decision of the Cabinet granting preference / weightage. There is no dispute that the matter is governed by the Rules. Unless and until the Rules are amended, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the Advertisements, which have been issued in strict compliance of the Rules, as they stand. The matter has not passed beyond the stage of the alleged Cabinet decision. There is no decision, as such, taken pursuant to the said Cabinet decision implementing the Cabinet decision. At any rate, as found by the learned Single Judge, the Rules have not yet been amended. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants would bring to our attention a Government Order, which provides for giving weightage to employees in all Departments. The matter is brought to our notice through a proposed supplementary affidavit, which, it is submitted, will be filed today itself. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants would bring to our attention a Government Order, which provides for giving weightage to employees in all Departments. The matter is brought to our notice through a proposed supplementary affidavit, which, it is submitted, will be filed today itself. If the appellants file the supplementary affidavit today itself, the same will be taken on record. But, we are not adjourning the case for enabling the supplementary affidavit to be taken on record as such because, at the Bar, the learned Standing Counsel for the State would point out that no reliance can be placed by the appellants on the said Government Order for the simple reason that the said order is intended only for the benefit of ad-hoc employees and the appellants are not ad-hoc employees, but they are contractual employees. The learned counsel for the appellants does not have a case that they are ad-hoc employees. They, instead, only claim to be contractual employees. If that be so, we would think that the appellants cannot draw any support from the said Government Order. 8. In the light of the above discussion, the inevitable outcome is that we share the views taken by the learned Single Judge and the appeals are found to be meritless. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.