Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 502 (UTT)

Dinesh Chandra Tamta v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-07-22

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. 1. Since both these petitions entail common questions of fact and law hence they are being taken up together and decided by this common judgment. Facts of WPSS No. 46 of 2016 are taken up for consideration. 2. Petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Caste was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in State Irrigation Department in the year 1979. Before Reorganization of State of U.P., he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes vide order dated 10.03.1998. Upon State Reorganization, petitioner was allocated to successor State of Uttarakhand and he was thereafter, promoted as Executive Engineer on 10.11.2005 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2015 issued by Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. By the said order, promotion given to petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer on 10.03.1998 was cancelled and he was directed to be reverted. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.12.2015 passed by respondent no. 4 (contained as Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents that the order dated 30.12.2015 will not come in the way of the petitioner for considering his case for promotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer (which has already been under consideration).” 3. Perusal of the order dated 30.12.2015 impugned by the petitioner reveals that Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2012 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2011 Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & others connected with Civil Appeal No. 2679 of 2011 reported in (2012) 7 SCC 1 declared that Section 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for SC, ST & OBC) Act, 1994 and Rule 8-A of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 are ultra vires as they run counter to the dictum of M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 . Section 3(7) enabled the State Government to provide reservation in promotion, if it was in force under Government Orders, Rule 8-A provided that persons belonging to SC or ST shall be entitled to consequential seniority, upon their accelerated promotion. Section 3(7) enabled the State Government to provide reservation in promotion, if it was in force under Government Orders, Rule 8-A provided that persons belonging to SC or ST shall be entitled to consequential seniority, upon their accelerated promotion. 4. Admittedly, petitioner was promoted against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste by invoking Section 3(7) of the Reservation Act, 1994. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2679 of 2011 declared Section 3(7) of Reservation Act, 1994 ultra vires the constitution. The order passed by State of Uttar Pradesh is consequential to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Thus, the impugned order passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be faulted. There is no scope for interference in these writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.