Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Alok Kumar Verma, JJ., decided on a petition which was filed seeking a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ declaring the Rule 6 of the Uttarakhand Subordinate offices clerical cadre employees (direct recruitment) Rule, 2004 as well as the amendment made thereto by virtue of notification dated 13.8.2013 so far it provides the 10% quota for Intermediate pass class IV employees and 15% Quota for high school pass class IV employee, as null and void.
Petitioners were Group-D employees serving in School Education Department of Uttarakhand Government. As per applicable service Rules, Group-D employees are eligible for promotion against Group-C posts in ministerial cadre. They were aggrieved by the part of proviso to Rule 6, which carved out a separate quota for promotion to High School pass employees within the 25% quota available to persons serving on Group-D posts. Compartmentalization of vacancies based on academic qualification had been challenged by the petitioners as arbitrary and unjust.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this amounted to artificial classification amongst Group-D employees, who constituted a homogeneous class of employees.
The court was of the opinion that challenge thrown by petitioners to proviso to Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules was without any substance.
In Government service, conditions of service are determined by statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and in exercise of its rule making power, State Government can amend or repeal the service rules, thereby altering the conditions of service. A Government servant does not have a vested right of promotion and the only right he has, is right to be considered for promotion in terms of the service rules.
The question that whether Group-D employees serving in Education Department can be further classified based on their academic qualification according to the courts had been decided in V. Markendeya v. State of A.P.,(1989) 3 SCC 191 where it was held that differentiation amongst graduate and non-graduate supervisors for the purpose of pay scale is not violative of Article 14 and 16 and also in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Dilip Kumar, (1993) 2 SCC 210 where Supreme Court had upheld classification on the basis of higher educational qualification in the matter of promotion.
The Court finally directed the respondents to determine the number of vacancies available for promotion to High School pass candidates and to hold promotion exercise for supplying such vacancies from eligible candidates. If eligible candidates were not available for supplying such vacancies, then petitioners may be considered for promotion against such vacancies.[Devendra Singh Bora v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Utt 1256, decided on 08-10-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For the petitioners: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Alok Dalalkoti
For the State: Mr. Pradeep Joshi