Judgment reserved on: 16.12.2025 Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3 62 (S/S) of 2013 Jagdish Chand Kohli -------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ------Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. S.K.Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Chandra Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition with the following prayers:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Director (Basic Education) Kumaun Mandal, Nainital, contained as Annexure No. 26, to the writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the basis of seniority with all consequential service benefit and pay the full and regular salary along with arrear, of the post of clerk , in which he is discharging the duty.”

2. Petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 412 (S/S) of 2009 and the said writ petition was decided vide order dated 10.10.2012. The operative portion of the order dated 10.10.2012 reads as under:

“9. Considering all facets of the matter, and in the preceding facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion under 2004 Rules expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ”

3. Petitioner submitted a representation in pursuance to the said order and the said representation was rejected vide order dated 21.03.2013 and the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order passed by the Additional Director (Basic Education), Kumaun Mandal, Nainital. The petitioner who was appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules on a group ‘D’ post on 16.10.1985, appeared in the examination conducted for the post of Clerk, but, could not qualify the said examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was asked to work on the post of Junior Clerk vide order dated 15.05.1993 and thereafter he was allowed to work as Senior Clerk and he retired as a Senior Clerk.

4. The petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition with the prayer that his case is liable to be considered under the promotion rules framed by the State Government of Uttarakhand known as the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules 2004. The petitioner, as such, contends that there was no requirement of the examination to be conducted for the post of Clerk and promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ was to be made under the said rules of 2004.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the rules which were notified on 15.06.2004, known as “the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules 2004”, were the subject matter of Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Uttarakhand (Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2019) and the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the issue as to whether the promotion from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ is to be made as per the rules of 2004 or as per the departmental rules and the Government order issued for conducting the said examination. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 10 to 12 of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2014 passed in the above referred Civil Appeal held as hereunder:-

“10. In its determination, the High Court was of the view, that Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules postulates only one criterion for promotion, namely, seniority. And that, seniority was the only relevant factor for determining onward promotion from group ‘D’ service to the lowest ministerial posts of Group ‘C’ service. Keeping in view the facts an