2025:UHC:10100 HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI W r it Pet it ion Ser vice Sin gle No. 3 4 8 of 2 0 2 5 1 4 Nov em ber , 2 0 2 5 Kuldeep Singh Chauhan --Petitioner Ver su s State of Uttarakhand & others. --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: - Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Neeti Rana, Advocate, i/ b Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 5. -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is an employee of Nagar Palika, who was promoted as Chief Assistant in Palika Centralised Service, vide order dated 01.07.2023. Before his promotion, vide order dated 25.10.2022, he was posted as In-charge Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Nogaon, Uttarkashi. Thereafter, he was transferred as In-charge Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Laksar (Haridwar), vide order dated 28.02.2024, passed by Additional Secretary, Urban Development Department . 1 2025:UHC:10100 2. Respondent no. 5, who was appointed as Village Panchayat Development Officer in Panchayati Raj Vibhag, was appointed by deputation as In-charge Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Harbartpur, Dehradun for two years, vide order dated 20.7.2021. Upon expiry of two years, his term of deputation was extended for another year, vide order dated 20.7.2023 and he then was posted as In-charge Executive Officer Nagar Panchayat, Piran Kaliyar (Haridwar), vide order dated 28.2.2024. 3. On 1.6.2024, Director, Urban Development sent a proposal for extending term of deputation of respondent no. 5. The said proposal, however, was turned down by the State Government and Director, Urban Development was instructed vide letter dated 28.10.2024 to immediately repatriate respondent no. 5 for his parent department. 4. The vacancy, occurring due to repatriation of respondent no. 5, was supplied by bringing petitioner as In-charge Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Piran Kaliyar (Haridwar), vide order 2 2025:UHC:10100 dated 28.10.2024, passed by the State Government and he immediately joined duties at Piran Kaliyar. 5. Petitioner is aggrieved by two orders dated 4.3.2025, issued by Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department. By the first order, respondent no. 5 was re-appointed as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Piran Kaliyar (Haridwar) on deputation; while, by the subsequent order, petitioner was reverted back to the post of Chief Assistant. These orders have been put to challenge by the petitioner. 6. Petitioner contends that respondent no. 5 is an employee of Panchayati Raj Vibhag and his substantive post is Village Panchyat Development Officer, which carries lesser pay scale; while, petitioner is m ember of Palika Centralised Service serving on a post carrying higher grade pay; the proposal for extending period of deputation of respondent no. 5 was rejected by the State Government and he was directed to be immediately repatriated to his parent department, and thereafter, without following due process, 3 2025:UHC:10100 respondent no. 5 could not have been brought back on deputation as Executive Officer at Piran Kaliyar, in place of the petitioner. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 4.3.2025 were passed due to political interference, as respondent no. 5 is close to political masters. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 defends the orders impugned in this writ petition by contending that her client was appointed by deputation in Urban Development Department, vide order dated 20.7.2021; and he was posted as In-charge Executive Officer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Harbartpur, Dehradun for two years and thereafter he was posted as In-charge Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Piran Kaliyar. She further contends that initially respondent no. 5 was appointed by deputation for two years, which was extended for another year, and thereafter, vide order dated 25.3.2025, his period of deputation was extended for further period of two years. It is further contended that there are about 100 4 2025:UHC:10100 employees senior to the petitioner in Palika Centralised Service, therefore, he does not have any right to hold charge of the post of Executive Officer; as m inisterial employee, petitioner can be promoted only up to the position of Senior Administrative Officer and he can never be promoted as Executive Officer. 8. Although, State Government is competent to take decision as to who is to be taken on deputation, however, the manner in which respondent no. 5 was brought back as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Piran Kaliyar by re- appointing him on deputation, indicates that there is something m ore to it that meets the eye. Record reveals that State Government turned down the proposal for extension of deputation of respondent no. 5, vide order dated 28.10.2024 and by another order of the same date, petitioner was posted as In-charge Executive Officer at Piran Kaliyar. Thus, there was a conscious decision at the highest level to repatriate respondent no. 5 and to appoint petitioner as In-charge Executive Officer, in his 5 2025:UHC:10100 place. There has been no perceptible change in circumstances, which may warrant reversal of the arrangement, earlier made by the State Government. By the impugned orders, respondent no. 5 has not only been appointed on deputation, but, he has been brought back as Executive Officer, Piran Kaliyar. The allegation made by petitioner that neither applications were invited nor any process was adopted while re-appointing respondent no. 5 as Executive Officer on deputation remains un- rebutted; why respondent no. 5 alone was hand- picked for appointment by deputation is not explained by the official respondents. The counter affidavit is silent as to whether consent of Panchayati Raj Vibhag, parent department of respondent no. 5 was taken while re-appointing respondent no. 5 on deputation. 9. This Court, thus finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that orders dated 4.3.2025 were passed for extraneous reasons in disregard of public interest or administrative exigency. 6 2025:UHC:10100 10. Our State is governed by rule of law, which postulates equality before law and equal protection of law. In the present case special treatment was given to respondent no. 5, due to which, he managed not only to be re-appointed on deputation, but he also managed to get posting as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Piran Kaliyar. The grievance raised by the petitioner thus cannot be casually brushed aside. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the impugned orders (contained in Annexure Nos. 8, 9 & 10 of the writ petition) are quashed. This order, however, will not preclude the competent authority from appointing respondent no. 5 on deputation after following due process or from posting a regular Executive Officer in Nagar Panchayat, Piran Kaliyar or from transferring the petitioner to a post commensurate with his status in some other Urban Local Body. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) Dt: 14.11.2025 Navin 7 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131b b4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D65 3D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.11.18 09:35:14 +05'30'