2026:UHC:1369-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No.342 of 2020 26 February, 2026 Madan Mohan Singh Pundir and Ors. --Petitioners Versus State Public Service Tribunal Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sagar Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 21. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral) Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.09.2020 rendered by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.31/DB/2019 Madan Mohan Singh Pundir and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, whereby, their claim petition challenging Final Seniority List of Assistant Engineers issued on 08.05.2018, was dismissed. 2. Learned Tribunal held that Rule 8 of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Seniority Rules 2002’) would be applicable and as the private respondents were recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in earlier selection and order of their substantive appointment/promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was also issued earlier, therefore, they cannot be treated as junior to the petitioners. 3. The facts on which there is no dispute is that petitioners possess Diploma in Engineering and they were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) by separate orders issued in the year 1985, while private respondents 2026:UHC:1369-DB 2 were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Technical) in later years. 4. State Government has framed separate Rules for regulating mode of appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), while appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), is governed by Uttaranchal Public Works Department Assistant Engineer (Civil) Service Rules 2003, as amended from time to time. 5. Under the Rules applicable for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), Junior Engineer (Civil), who possess B.E./B.Tech or equivalent qualification are given, separate quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to the extent of 8.33%, similarly, Junior Engineer (Technical) possessing bachelors degree in Engineering are also entitled to separate quota for promotion to the extent of 1.67%. 6. Since, private respondents possess B.Tech. or equivalent qualification, therefore, they were considered for promotion against degree holders quota posts and they were given accelerated promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in 2010. 7. It is not in dispute that private respondents were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer against the posts earmarked for higher qualification holders and they were promoted as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 30.11.2010, while petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineer under a separate quota only on 13.08.2013. In other words, private respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineer during Recruitment Year 2010-11 while petitioners were so promoted during Recruitment Year 2013-14. 8. Learned Tribunal held that petitioners were 2026:UHC:1369-DB 3 promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in subsequent selection; the post of Assistant Engineer is a separate service governed by different set of Rules, therefore, petitioners who were considered and promoted in subsequent Recruitment Year cannot be treated as senior to the private respondents, who were promoted in 2010. 9. As per Rule 5 of Uttaranchal Public Works Department Assistant Engineer (Civil) Service Rules, 2003, as amended from time to time, there are following sources of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer: a) 40% by direct recruitment through the commission. b) 45% by promotion based on seniority of Junior Engineer (Civil) who have completed 7 years of satisfactory service as such. c) 8.33% by promotion of Junior Engineers (Civil) who have completed 5 years of satisfactory service and who possess educational qualification as mentioned in Rule 8. d) 5% by promotion based on seniority of Junior Engineers (Technical/Computer) who have completed 7 years of satisfactory service. e) 1.67% by promotion amongst Junior Engineers (Technical/Computer) who have competed 5 years of satisfactory service and who possess educational qualification as mentioned in Rule 8. 10. Thus, it is apparent that there are five different sources of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Petitioners were promoted under 45% quota available to diploma holder Junior Engineers; while private respondents were promoted under the quota meant for Junior Engineers, who possess B.Tech or equivalent qualification. 11. Petitioners were promoted under Rule 5(b) while private respondents were promoted under Rule 5(c) and 5(e) of the Rules. Rule 5(a) provides for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers, therefore, 2026:UHC:1369-DB 4 learned Tribunal rightly held that Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules 2002 will not have any application to the facts of the present case, as the said Provision would apply to cases where promotion is the only mode of appointment. Admittedly, 40% post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) are required to be filled by direct recruitment through Public Service Commission, therefore, learned Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 8 of the Seniority Rules 2002 would be attracted. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners then submitted that Rule 8(2)(b) of the Seniority Rules 2002 incorporates the principal of catching up by referring to Rule 6 and 7, thus, anyone who is senior in the feeding cadre will regain his seniority upon promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Thus, he submits that petitioners will regain seniority upon promotion as Assistant Engineer and this aspect was overlooked by learned Tribunal. 13. The submission made by learned counsel for petitioners is unsustainable for the following reasons:- 1) Rule 8(1) of the Seniority Rules 2002 contemplates a situation where appointments to a post are to be made both by promotion as well as by direct recruitment and provides that seniority of persons appointed on different dates shall be determined with reference to the date of order of their substantive appointment; however if two or more persons are appointed by a common order, then the order in which their names are arranged in the appointment order shall determine their inter se seniority. In the present case, appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) are required to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, therefore, Rule 8(1) would be attracted as it provides that inter se 2026:UHC:1369-DB 5 seniority of petitioners and private respondents will be determined based on the date of order of their substantive appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. Admittedly, petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineer on 13.08.2013 while private respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineer on 30.11.2010, therefore, private respondents will be treated as senior on the promoted post of Assistant Engineer as order of their substantive appointment was issued nearly three years earlier. 2) Situation contemplated in first and second proviso to Rule 8(1) is not present in the present case, therefore, the provisos are not attracted to the facts of the present case. 3) Rule 8(2) of the Seniority Rules 2002 is attracted when two or more persons are appointed to a post on the result of the same selection. In the present case, petitioners were promoted as Assistant Engineer pursuant to a selection held in 2013 while private respondents were so promoted on recommendation of a selection committee which met in 2010. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be argued that petitioners and private respondents were appointed as Assistant Engineer on the result of the same selection. Thus, Rule 8(2) does not have any application to the facts of the case. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance upon Rule 8(2)(b) of the Seniority Rules 2002, which is not applicable for reason indicated above. Contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioners, if taken on face value, also do not support the case of the petitioners. Although, Rule 8(2)(b) provides that if two or more persons are appointed by promotion to a post on the result of ‘any one selection’, then their inter se seniority shall be determined as 2026:UHC:1369-DB 6 per the principles laid down in Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Seniority Rules 2002. Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules 2002 applies only when appointment are made only by promotion from a single feeding cadre, which is not the case here. Rule 7 deals with a situation where appointment to a post has to be made only by promotion, but from more than one feeding cadres, and provides that inter se seniority of persons appointed to that post ‘on the result on any one selection’ shall be determined according to the dates of order of their substantive appointment in their respective feeding cadres. Although, Rule 7 incorporates catching up rule and provides that one who is senior in the feeding cadre, may regain seniority on the promoted post, however, condition precedent for application of catching up rule is that two or more persons are promoted to a post on the result of the same selection. Thus, Rule 8(2)(b) does not apply to the facts of the present case and Rule 7, even if assumed to be applicable, do not support the contention of the petitioners. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that there is no provision in the Seniority Rules 2002 which supports the contention raised by the petitioners for claiming seniority over the private respondents. Rule 8(2)(b) would have been attracted if petitioners and private respondents were promoted as Assistant Engineer in the same selection, which is not the case. Rule 7 of the Service Rules is not applicable because appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer is made by direct recruitment also. Moreover, Rule 7 also contemplates appointment/promotion of two or more persons on the result of same selection. Thus, the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal, whereby claim petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, cannot be faulted. 16. Learned counsel for private respondents submits that earlier on 17.09.2013, a seniority list was published in which petitioners were treated as junior to the private respondents, however, petitioners woke up 2026:UHC:1369-DB 7 for challenging the seniority list only in 2019. He thus submits that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after long lapse of time and thus the claim petition was liable to the dismissed at the threshold stage itself and the writ petition also deserves to be dismissed on the issue of delay in challenging the seniority list. 17. Since learned Tribunal has not gone into the question of delay/latches while deciding the claim petition, therefore, we are not inclined to go into that question at this belated stage. Since we have held that seniority list was prepared as per the principles laid down by the Seniority Rules 2002, therefore, any interference with the impugned judgment would be unwarranted. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is dismissed. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 26.02.2026 PN/-