Promotion decisions must comply with existing service rules, and prior court judgments impacting eligibility cannot be disregarded.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have challenged judgment dated

23.12.2019 passed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.55/DB/2019, “Bharat Chandra Bhatt & Others Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand and Others”. By the said judgment, challenge by petitioners to promotion of respondent nos.4 and 5 as Deputy Commissioner, was repelled and it was held that they were promoted pursuant to judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.152 of 2012.

2. It is not in dispute that, on the recommendation of U.P. Public Service Commission, petitioners were appointed as Block Development Officer between the year 1993 to 1995. Subsequently, they were promoted as District Development Officer in the year 2013 and thereafter as Project Director and some of the petitioners were then promoted as Deputy Commissioner in 2020 and others were so promoted in the year 2023.

3. Promotion to the post of Deputy Development Commissioner was governed by U.P. Rural Development Gazetted Officers Service Rules , 1991. Rule 5(3) thereof provided that post of Deputy Development Commissioner shall be filled by promotion of District Development Officer and Principal (Group “A”) serving in Extension Training Centres in the ratio of 75:25 respectively. After State reorganization, Government of Uttarakhand notified new Rules known as Uttarakhand Provincial Development Service Rules , 2011 and Rule 5(4) of the said Rules provides that all the posts of Chief Development Officer/ Deputy Commissioner/ Joint Secretary shall be filled by promotion of Project Director and promotion quota available to Principal (Group “A”) of Extension Training Centres was taken away. The members serving as Principal (Group “A”) filed Writ Petition (S/B) No.152 of 2012 challenging the 2011 Rules, which deprived them of the right to be considered for promotion and in that writ petition, they also sought direction to promote them as Deputy Commissioner.

4. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that in view of proviso to Section 74 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, service conditions of Principal cannot be changed to their disadvantage. The Co-ordinate Bench further directed the authorities to consider the claim of persons serving as Principal (Group “A”) for promotion as Deputy Development Commissioner, as per the old Rules.

5. In terms of judgment rendered by Co- ordinate Bench, a DPC was convened which held its meeting on 25.10.2013 and respondent nos.4 and 5 were recommended for promotion. The Competent Authority promoted them as Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 11.08.2015. The promotion given to respondent nos.4 and 5 in 2015 was challenged by petitioners by filing a claim petition before the Tribunal in 2019 only on the ground that there were only two posts of Deputy Development Commissioner existing in Uttarakhand Rural Development Department before enforcement of 2011 Rules, therefore, two Principals serving in Training Cadre could not have been promoted as Deputy Development Commissioner, for whom only 25% quota was available. Learned Tribunal took note of Government Order dated 03.05.2010, whereby the cadre of Rural Development Department was restructured, which indicates that there were as many as 08 sanctioned posts of Deputy Commissioner or equivalent before enforcement of Rules in 2011, and held that there was nothing wrong if 02 members of Training Cadre were promoted as Deputy Commissioner.

6. Government Order dated 03.05.2010 is enclosed as Annexure No.CA1 to the counter affidavit dated 16.11.2019 filed by Mr. Sandeep Kumar Verma, Principal Extension T