SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 409

2012 (4) Supreme 106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(G.S. Singhvi & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.)
State of Uttarakhand and Another — Appellants(s)
versus
Umakant Joshi — Respondent(s)
Sudhir Chandra Nautiyal — Appellant(s)
versus
Umakant Joshi and Others — Respondents
Surendra Singh Rawat — Appellant(s)
versus
Umakant Joshi and Others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 3982 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 3982 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 3983 of 2012
Decided on 28-05-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of High Court.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Jurisdiction – Punishment imposed on respondent no. 1 set aside entitling him to promotion wef 16.11.1999 – This could be granted by the erstwhile unified state of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent approaching High Court of Uttarakhand – Said High Court had no jurisdiction to issue mandamus to the Uttarakhand government to promote respondent no. 1 wef a date prior to its formation and formation of the State. (Para 11)

        (b) Service Law – Promotion – Issue of legality of promotion of another officer intricately related to promotion of respondent no.1 – Further State o U.P. was a necessary party but not impleaded – Issue of mandamus without examining a vital issue and without impleading the necessary party – Not sustainable. (Para 11)

       Facts of the case:

        Whether the Uttarakhand High Court could ordain promotion of respondent No.1 – Umakant Joshi to the post of General Manager with effect from 16.11.1989, i.e., prior to formation of the State of Uttaranchal (now known as the State of Uttarakhand) with the direction that he shall be considered for promotion to the higher posts with effect from the dates persons junior to him were promoted is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals.

       Finding of the Court:

        The High Court of Uttarakhand had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

       

JUDGMENT

G. S. Singhvi, J.-Whether the Uttarakhand High Court could ordain promotion of respondent No.1 – Umakant Joshi to the post of General Manager with effect from 16.11.1989, i.e., prior to formation of the State of Uttaranchal (now known as the State of Uttarakhand) with the direction that he shall be considered for promotion to the higher posts with effect from the dates persons junior to him were promoted is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals, one of which has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand and the Director of Industries, Dehradun and the other two have been filed by Sudhir Chandra Nautiyal (hereinafter described as, ‘Appellant No.1’) and Surendra Singh Rawat (hereinafter described as, ‘Appellant No.2’) respectively against order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Division Bench of that High Court in Writ Petition No.324 of 2008.

2. The service profile of Appellant No.1:

2.1 On being selected by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’), appellant No.1 was appointed to Class-I post in the Industries Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 7.2.1994.

2.2 After formation of the State of Uttaranchal, in terms of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Central Government issued order dated 20.12.2000 under Section 73 thereof and tentatively allotted appellant No.1 along with large number of other officers/employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh including respondent No.1 to the new State of Uttaranchal. They were finally allotted to the new State vide order dated 17.5.2006.

2.3 Appellant No.1 was promoted as Joint Director of Industries on ad-hoc basis in the State of Uttarakhand with effect from 17.1.2004. He was regularly promoted on that post on 23.7.2007. After two years, he was promoted as Additional Director, Industries.

3. The service profile of Appellant No.2:

3.1 Appellant No.2 was appointed in the U.P. Industries (Subordinate) Service in 1979. He opted for Hill Sub-Cadre formed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1992. His name was included in the separate seniority list of the officers of that cadre and on formation of the State of Uttaranchal, he was treated as an employee of the new State.

3.2 Appellant No.2 was promoted to U. P. Industries Class-I Service in 1996. He was further promoted to the post of Deputy Director/General Manager (Grade-I) with effect from 19.1.2004.

4. The service profile of Respondent No.1:

4.1 In response to an advertisement issued by the Commission in 1981 for recruitment to Class-II posts in the pay scales of Rs.550-1200 and Rs.450-900, respondent No.1 applied for the post of Manager (Marketing) in the pay scale of Rs.550 - 1200. He was selected by the Commission for that post but was offered appointment on the lower post of Manager, Handloom in the pay scale of Rs.450-900.

4.2 After joining the service, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.9728 of 1986 in the Allahabad High Court and prayed for issue of a mandamus for his appointment on the post for which he had applied. In compliance of an interim order passed by the High Court on 2.3.1987, respondent No.1 was appointed as Manager (Marketing) with effect from the date of initial appointment, i.e. 23.4.1984. The writ petition was finally allowed by the High Court vide order dated 1.12.1995 and a direction was issued to the State Government to give consequential benefits to respondent No.1. Thereafter, seniority of respondent No.1 was fixed among Class-II officers at serial No.48A.

4.3 While he was working as Manager (Marketing) in the Directorate of Industries, Uttar Pradesh, respondent No.1 earned adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1991-92. Four departmental inquiries were also initiated against respondent No.1 between July 1996 and March 1997. These inquiries culminated in the issuance of order dated 23.1.1999 whereby punishment of reduction to t





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top