JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 616 of 2025 alone are being considered.

2. Petitioner in WPSS No. 616 of 2025 was appointed as Patwari (now Revenue Sub-Inspector) by District Magistrate, Almora, vide order dated 15.05.2007. According to him, he pursued Patwari/Lekhpal Training Course during Academic Session 2006-07 and in the list of candidates, who successfully completed the training course, petitioner is placed above the private respondents, yet the private respondents have been selected for Supervisor Kanungo/Revenue Inspector Training, by ignoring hisclaim.

3. In sum and substance, contention of petitioner is that merit of a candidate, as reflected in the result of Patwari training course, should determine seniority of Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector.

4. It is further the case of petitioner that the date of his substantive appointment is 01.05.2007, when Chief Revenue Commissioner Uttarakhand directed District Magistrates to appoint persons, who underwent Patwari/Lekhpal Training, during the year2005-06.

5. District Magistrate, Almora has filed counter affidavit in which reference is made to Rule 15 of U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963 (from hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1963”), which provides that seniority in service shall be reckoned from the date of order of substantive appointment, however, if two or more persons are appointed on the same date, in that case, the one who passed Patwari Training Course earlier shall be treated as senior, and if, Patwari Training Course is also passed in the same year, in that case, the marks scored in Patwari Training Course shall be the determinative factor for seniority and if marks are also the same, then the one who is older in age shall be treated as senior.

6. The aforesaid Rules are enclosed as annexure 5 to the writ petition. A careful reading of Rule 6(1) of the Rules reveals that Collector of each District shall maintain a list in the prescribed performa, of such candidates who have passed Special Patwari School Examination and Rule 5 of the said Rules provides that appointment on the post of Patwari shall be made from the candidates whose names have been included in the list, prepared under Rule 6. Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1963 further provides that names in the list, contemplated in Rule 6(1), shall be arranged year-wise and amongst candidates, who have passed Patwari Training Course in the same year, names shall be arranged as per their marks scored in the training course.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that completion of Patwari Training Course merely makes a person eligible for appointment as Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector, as any other academic qualification. He further submits that admission in Patwari School or successful completion of Patwari Training do not automatically result in appointment as Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector and appointment is made from the list prepared under Rule 6(1). He further submits that successful completion of Patwari Training Course results in inclusion of name of a person in the list, prepared under Rule 6(1) and District Magistrate/Collector has to take names out of that list for making appointment, as and when vacancies are available.

8. This Court finds force in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Petitioner is relying upon marks scored by him in Patwari Training Course Examination for contending that anyone, who scored less marks in the said examination than him, is junior to him. Since successful completion of Patwari Training Course do not automatically result in appointment as Patwari and a trained person may have to wait for several years for appointment, therefore, marks scored in Patwari Training Examination become relevant only after appointment, that too, when two or more Patwari are appointed o