Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 594 (UTT)

Zaheer Alam Qureshi v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-20

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners approached this Court seeking following reliefs:- “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 in the matter, as arbitrary and illegal. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith consider and confirm the services of the Petitioners on the post of Foreman, from due date. C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to forthwith consider and promote the Petitioners on the post of Principal, Government I.T.I., from due date. D. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:- Petitioners were appointed on the post of Instructor on 04.12.1984 and 16.07.1986 on substantive basis. They were subsequently promoted to the post of Foreman, on regular basis, on 18.01.2011 and 30.04.2002 respectively. Next promotional post, available in the cadre, is Principal, for which, only a confirmed Foreman, having five years of service as Foreman, is eligible for promotion. 32 posts of Principal were lying vacant in the promotional quota. Post of Principal falls within the purview of State Public Service Commission. Earlier a proposal was sent by respondent no. 1 and 2 for promotion without formal order of confirmation regarding the candidates, who were within the zone of consideration. The Commission pointed out the Statutory Rules as per which only confirmed Forman are eligible for promotion. 3. Respondent No. 2 has issued the formal order of confirmation on 27.08.2016 whereby as many as 38 persons have been confirmed. It is complained by the petitioners that no order has been issued till date regarding confirmation of the petitioners while as many as 20 junior persons have been confirmed as Forman vide order dated 27.08.2016. There is no rejection of the representation dated 30.08.2016, which has been given by the petitioners in which it is complained that respondents are going to convene a DPC for promotion within next few days and juniors are being considered for promotion. 4. We heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the Commission/respondent No. 3. 5. 4. We heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the Commission/respondent No. 3. 5. There is no decision on the representation given by the petitioners (Annexure No.7) addressed to respondent 2 - Director, who is competent to take decision regarding the confirmation of the petitioners on the post of Foreman. 6. In the above circumstances, a decision may be ordered to be taken, as 20 juniors to the petitioners have been ordered to be confirmed while no decision on the representation regarding confirmation of the petitioners has yet been taken. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as follows:- There will be a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and take decision on Annexure No. 7, as per law within a period of two weeks from the date of production of copy of the judgment before him. A decision should be taken within the time limit as mentioned above. Till such time, proceedings in D.P.C. for the post of Principal will be kept in abeyance.