The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to notional promotion based on seniority and the application of roaster for promotion, while ensuring compliance with prescribed reservation limits.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.:-

Heard.

2. By means of this writ petition moved under article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.12.2007, relating to the promo­tion of respondent no. 5 Lalit Mohan to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II. A mandamus has also been sought direct­ing the respondents make notional promo­tion of the petitioner to the post of Su­perintending Engineer w.e.f. 13.06.2001 instead of 28.07.2005 (date on which he was actually promoted) alongwith all con­sequential benefit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the par­ties, and perused the affidavit, counter af­fidavit, rejoinder affidavit and suppliers teary affidavit on record.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant En­gineer on 07.10.1972, with U.P, Local Self Government Engineers Department (for short UPLSGED) on adhoc basis. Subsequently, he was appointed on regu­lar basis through U.P. Public Service Com­mission on 24.09.1973, as Assistant En­gineer with U.P. Public Works Department (for short P.W.D.). On 18.11.1995, the petitioner was promoted as Executive En­gineer. At the time of creation of the of Uttarakhand options were invited from the employees for the purposes of allocation to the new State. The petitioner opted for State of Uttarakhand, and his name was included in Tentative Final Al­location List (for short TFAL) by the Government of India to allocate him the in the state of Uttarakhand in the year 2005 Subsequently, he was relieved by State of Urtar Pradesh, and joined his duties in the State of Uttarakhand on 26.02.2005. One Shri M.G. Pushkarana, who was ap­pointed as Assistant Engineer on 09.11.1973, and promoted as Executing Engineer on 29.08.1993, was promoted as Superintending Engineer by the State of Uttarakhand on 31.05.2001. The petition­er's case is that he was senior to said M.G. Pushkarana, and merely because he was relieved by the State of U.P., in 2005, he cannot denied his notional promotion from the date, M.G. Pushkarana was pro­moted to the post of Superintending En­gineer. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that after a post of Chief Engineer, Level- II, fell vacant in the year 2005, one Kripal Singh. Superintending Engineer, who was Member of Scheduled caste, was given promotion on said post. On the basis/of Government Order dated 31.08.2001, which provides roaster for promotion, it is pleaded by the petitioner that as per the roaster if the first post was given to the Scheduled Caste Candidate, the next i.e. 2nd. 3rd, 4th and 5th posts should have been filled from the General Category Candidates, and only thereafter another Scheduled Caste Candidate could have been considered as per the roaster for the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II. The petitioner has no grievance to the promotion of Kripal Singh who was jun­ior to him but entitled to promotion as per the TO ister provided in Government Order dated 31.08.2001. It is stated in the writ petition that there were only two posts of Chief Engineer. Level-II, and the second post when fell vacant, on promotion of R.C. Mittal, the second post of Chief En­gineer, Level- 11, was filled by one P.N. Tikkoo, Superintending Engineer just sen­ior to the present petitioner. The petitioner is not aggrieved by said promotion also. The grievance of the petitioner is that on retirement of Kripal Singh as per the roaster, the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II. in the year 2007. but the re­spondent nos. 3 and 4 promoted. Re­spondent no. 5 Lalit Mohan, another Member of Scheduled Caste who was much junior to the present petitioner. Chal­lenging the Government action in promot­ing Lalit Mohan, respondent no.5 w.e.f., 12.12.2007, by breaking roaster, this writ petition is filed for the relief as already mentioned above.

5. Respondent no.5 did not contest the petition. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 in which contents of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document