2025:UHC:6672-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 59 of 2020 30 July, 2025 Bharat Chandra Bhatt and Others --Petitioners Versus Chief Secretary Government of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Susheel Vashisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 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 1 2025:UHC:6672-DB 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 2 2025:UHC:6672-DB 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 Training Centre, Shankarpur, 3 2025:UHC:6672-DB Dehradun on behalf of State Government. The said Government Order refers to restructuring done earlier vide Government Order dated 24.06.2005 as well as Government Order dated 10.12.2008. 7. Careful perusal of the Government Order dated 03.05.2010 indicates that it is the third time that cadre of Rural Development Department was being restructured. It further indicates that three different posts carrying same Pay Scale, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Chief Development Officer and Joint Secretary, jointly comprise the cadre of Deputy Commissioner. 8. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. Before enforcement of 2011 Rules, there were as many as 08 sanctioned posts of Deputy Commissioner or equivalent. Out of those 08 posts, Principal serving in Extension Training Centre were entitled to 25% quota for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner in terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No.152 of 2012. Thus there is no illegality in promotion of respondent nos.4 and 5. 9. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel then submits that Government Order dated 03.05.2010 reorganized only the cadre of Block Development Officer, therefore, members of Training Cadre i.e. those serving as Principal (Group “A”) Extension Training Centre were not eligible to be promoted against 08 posts of Deputy Commissioner created in the cadre of Block Development Officer or Provincial Development Service (PDS). However, when a pointed query was 4 2025:UHC:6672-DB posed to learned counsel for petitioners as to whether in the Rules there is anything to indicate that promotion of Members of Training Cadre in PDS Cadre is prohibited, he could not show any provision in the Rules from which it may be inferred that Principal (Group “A”) Extension Training Centres, are not eligible to be promoted as Deputy Commissioner in PDS Cadre. Since the Rules do not differentiate between members of PDS Cadre and Training Cadre, therefore, there was no illegality in the promotion given to respondent nos.4 and 5 as Deputy Commissioner. Learned Tribunal was thus justified in not interfering with their promotion. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners then submits that petitioners had also challenged Office Memo dated 03.10.2013 issued by Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby 10 posts of Chief Development Officer were earmarked to be filled by members of Provincial Civil Service or Indian Administrative Service. Annexure-A to 2011 Rules provides that 05 posts of Chief Development Officer are available to be filled by departmental officers. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that how much posts are to be set apart for departmental officers and how many for others is a policy decision of State Government, therefore, learned Tribunal chose not to adjudicate the said aspect. 12. Be that as it may, since petitioners challenged the promotion given to respondent nos.4 and 5 as Deputy Commissioner and learned Tribunal, for valid reasons, has turned down their challenge, 5 2025:UHC:6672-DB therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. Although petitioners incidentally challenged Government Order dated 03.10.2013 also whereby certain positions of Chief Development Officer in the State were earmarked for members of Provincial Civil Service/ Indian Administrative Services, however this Court is not inclined to go into that aspect at this stage. 13. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with liberty reserved to petitioners to challenge Government Order dated 03.10.2013 in independent proceedings before appropriate forum. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 30.07.2025 SS 6 SUKHBANT SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8 a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D 72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2025.08.02 17:46:13 +05'30'