2026:UHC:2455 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/434/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners are serving as Lab Attendant in Higher Education Department. They made representation to the concerned Secretary for creating 05 posts promotion structure for lab attendants. The said representation was rejected by Secretary, Higher Education, vide order dated 20.01.2025 by pointing out certain difficulties, which would arise if the demand made by petitioners is accepted. Thus, feeling aggrieved by rejection of their representation petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the absence of any avenue of promotion available to Lab Attendants, one who is appointed as lab attendant retires from the same position after rendering 30-35 years of service. 4. Such situation he submits is undesirable and has been deprecated by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also relies upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. 2026:UHC:2455 Parashotam Das Bnsal and Others, reported as 2008 (5) SCC 100. Para 10 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “10. This Court in O.Z. Hussain (Dr.) v. Union of India [1990 Supp SCC 688 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 649 : (1991) 16 ATC 521] opined: (SCC pp. 691-92, para 7) “7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical ‘A’ Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the ‘A’ category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate.” 5. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it revealed that Hon’ble Supreme Court has also desired that there should be promotional avenues for officers in different departments of the State, as it increases efficiency in public service. However, the number of promotions an employee may get can only be decided by the employer. 6. Thus, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that reasonable promotional avenues 2026:UHC:2455 should be made available in every wing of public service, however the claim for five post promotion structure made by petitioners is unfounded. 7. Since this aspect has been overlooked by the Secretary, Higher Education while rejecting representation submitted by petitioners, therefore, impugned order dated 20.01.2025 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Secretary, Higher Education to reconsider the matter as per law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.04.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43 D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.08 19:43:15 +05'30'