The 'catch-up' rule and Rule 6 of the Uttaranchal Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 were central to the court's decision in determining the petitioner's seniority based on accelerated promotion.

JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2017 contained in annexure no.6 to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 5 to refix the seniority of the petitioner vis a vis respondent no.6.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was appointed as Class IVth Employee in the Kishan Vidhayalaya Inter College, Laksar, District Haridwar on 01.01.1992. The said college is a Grant in aid institution duly governed by the provisions of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. Thereafter, as per the recommendation of Promotion Committee, the petitioner got promoted to the post of Assistant Clerk on 30.06.2011. It is contended that in the said institution one Kunwar Pal Singh i.e. respondent no.6 who was appointed as Class IVth employee on 16.08.1996 under the reserved quota of Scheduled Caste Category, was also got promoted on the post of Assistant Clerk on 05.06.2004. Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.12.2017, whereby the petitioner has been placed on the bottom of the seniority list.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no.6 was junior to the petitioner in the feeding cadre i.e. class IV employee but due to accelerated promotion of respondent no.6, he was promoted in the year 2004 whereas the petitioner got promoted in the year 2011. He would further submit that the petitioner's length of service in the institution is much longer than the respondent no.6, therefore, the impugned order fixing the seniority of the petitioner below to respondent no.6 is arbitrary and illegal. He would further submit that the petitioner has made representation before the Principal of the institution to refix the seniority of the petitioner, which was referred to the office of Chief Education Officer. The Chief Education directed the Committee of Management to fix the seniority as per the regulations but no action has been taken by the committee of Management. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred WPSS No. 3397 of 2017 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2017 disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the order impugned dated 27.12.2017 has been passed, whereby the respondent no.5 turned down the seniority of the petitioner and upheld the seniority of respondent no.6 on the basis of the promotional year on the post of Assistant Clerk and ignored the services rendered in the feeding cadre by the petitioner. He would further submit that in absence of any provision for consequential seniority "catch-up" rule will be applicable. In support of his case he referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in B.K. Pavitra Vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 4 SCC 620 in which it is held that in the absence of any provision for consequential seniority in the regulations governing the seniority, the catch up rule will be applicable and the senior general candidates if later reach the promotional level, general candidates will regain their seniority. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment is extracted below:

"28. In S.Panneer Selvam v. State of T.N., question before the Court was whether in absence of any policy decision by the State for giving consequential seniority to candidates promoted on the basis of reservation prior to a senior general category candidate, claim for consequential seniority could be accepted. Answering the question in the negative, it was held that in absence of provision for consequential seniority, "catch-up" rule will be applicable and the roster point promotees cannot claim such consequential seniority. The senior general candida