Reduction in the number of promotional posts does not necessarily constitute a change in the conditions of service for government employees.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of WPSS No. 257 of 2020 alone are being considered.

3. Petitioners are serving as Assistant Operator in Police Tele-communication Department of Uttarakhand State, who were appointed as such in the year 2017. They are aggrieved by reduction of post of Head Operator by Government of Uttarakhand, as according to them, this will adversely affect their chances of promotion.

4. Earlier, there were 449 posts of Head Operator in the department, however, by Government Order dated 30.05.2019, their number was reduced to 200. Since Head Operator is promotional post for Assistant Operator, therefore, petitioners apprehend that their promotion would now be delayed.

5. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make promotions on about 100 vacant posts of Head Operator from the post of Assistant Operator strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1982 as these posts are lying vacant prior to 30-5-2019, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quash the letter/ communication dated 30-5-2019 issued by the Joint Secretary who neither competent to issue such letter nor it has been notified in the official Gazette of the State Government.”

6. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the order dated 30.05.2019, whereby posts of Head Operator were reduced, is not issued by Secretary, but, by a Joint Secretary in Government of Uttarakhand. He further contends that it is not issued on behalf of His Excellency the Governor of Uttarakhand, therefore, at best it can be be treated as a communication between Joint Secretary and Director General of Police, as such the said communication has no legal sanctity. He further submits that the impugned communication was not notified in the official gazette, thus it cannot have the effect of reducing number of posts of Head Operator.

7. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. A.P. Anshuman, Inspector General of Police on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3. It is stated that as per recruitment Rules applicable for the post of Head Operator, only a permanent Assistant Operator is eligible for promotion. It is stated that petitioners are yet to complete requisite training as per recruitment Rules, and only upon successful completion of such training, petitioners can be confirmed on the post of Assistant Operator and upon confirmation, their claim for promotion can be considered.

8. In paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that after creation of State of Uttarakhand, 449 posts of Head Operator were created, which are required to be filled by promotion alone, whereas only 215 posts of Assistant Operator were created, due to which the cadre had become inverted pyramid shaped, and this anomaly was removed by restructuring the cadre, on the recommendation of Head of Department.

9. In the rejoinder affidavit, petitioners have admitted that they have not completed the requisite training, which is condition precedent for grant of permanent status to them. Thus, no direction can be issued to consider their claim for promotion till the time, they become eligible for promotion.

10. Regarding prayer no. 2, learned counsel for petitioners contends that Annexure No.-4 to the writ petition is simply a communication issued by Joint Secretary in the State Government to the Director General; the said communication is not issued in the name of His Excellency the Governor and the communication is not notified in the official gazette, therefore, the impugned communication dated 30.05.2019 has no sanctity in the eyes of law.

11. The challenge to Annexure No.-4 by petitioners’ is mis