Basant Singh Bisht & Others vs High Court Of Uttarakhand & Another

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs, among

others:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioners on available 3 vacancies of Class III

(Group C) as per their merit in Judgeship of District Judge, Nainital from Class IV (Group D).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the quality point marks of the petitioner no. 1 as per

the ACR entry made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital for the year 2015-16.

2) Brief facts, leading to filing of present writ petition, are that petitioners are Class IV employees of the judgeship of District Judge, Nainital. On

09.05.2017, an order was issued by the District Judge, Nainital to fill up the vacancies of Class III on the basis of promotion from Class IV employees

working in the judgeship of District Judge, Nainital in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 Grade Pay 2000. The condition stipulated for promotion is that

the candidate must have completed 5 years of service on 01.07.2017 and must be below 45 years of age and the candidate may possess High School,

Intermediate and equivalent qualification. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners fulfills all the conditions stipulated in the said order dated

09.05.2017. Petitioners, having possessed the requisite qualification, applied within stipulated period and submitted their requisite documents. It is also

averred that a Committee was constituted in the judgeship and a report was submitted before the Chairman of said Committee with regard to the

vacancies available in the Judgeship. It is stated in the writ petition that as on 17.05.2017, after the commencement of the promotional exercise, total

number of 45 posts were available in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 Grade Pay 2000. Out of said 45 posts, 15 persons are working, who were

directly recruited candidates on Class III posts, and 29 posts were vacant as on 09.05.2017.

3) It is further averred in the writ petition that in view of Government Order dated 13.08.2013 and the service rules which governs the field, 25%

quota was fixed for Class IV employees working in the judgeship for promotion to Class III posts. Out of 25% quota fixed for promotion, 15% quota

of Class III posts have to be filled from eligible Class IV employees, who have completed 5 years of satisfactory service and have High School

qualification and remaining 10% of Class III posts are to be filled from Class III employees, who have completed 5 years of satisfactory service and

have Intermediate qualification. Rules were framed by the State Government known as Uttarakhand Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct

Recruitment) Rules, 2004 as amended on 13.08.2013 by “Uttarakhand Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) (Amendment)

Rules, 2013†and as per Rule 6 which provides the source of recruitment on Class III posts and as per the amendment in the Rules on 13.08.2013,

which also provides that the 25% quota on Class III posts will be fixed for the Class IV employees working with the department and out of 25%

quota, 15% quota will be earmarked for the candidates who are High School examination pass and 10% quota will be earmarked for those who are

Intermediate examination pass. But, the Proviso to the Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules also provides that if in any situation on the earmarked post of

15% of High School candidates will not be filled up then the said posts which will be earmarked for High School candidates will be carry forward to

the Intermediate candidates available for promotion.

4) It is stated in the writ petition that out of total 44 posts of Class III employees in the judgeship of Nainital, 11 posts are earmarked for promotion on

the post of Class III from Class IV and out of 11 posts, 7 posts were earmarked for High School candidates and 4 posts were earmarked for

Intermediate candidates as per 15% and 10% of their respective quota. On 11.10.2018, result for promotion of 11 employees from Class IV to Class

III cadre in Nainital judgeship was declared, wherein 4 candidates as per their merit list from High School are promoted from Class IV to Class III

and first 4 candidates from Intermediate employees were promoted from Class IV to Class III cadre, meaning thereby, out of total 11 posts which

were notified for promotion only 8 candidates were promoted by the order dated 11.10.2018. Being dissatisfied with non-inclusion of their names in the

result declared for promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts, present writ petition has been filed.

5) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, stating therein that in the notice / order dated 09.05.2017 it has been clearly

mentioned that the applications are being sought from the employees who have cleared High School examination, Intermediate examination and / or

equivalent examination. As such, applications were sought from two distinct and separate classes of persons, based on their educational qualification.

It is also stated that in the selection / promotional exercise, 31 Class IV employees participated and out of 31 candidates, 21 candidates were having

qualification of Intermediate and 10 candidates were having High School pass and hence there were required number of candidates for whom posts

were indentified to be filled up, in terms of proviso to Rule 6(2) of Rules of 2004. It is further stated that out of these 10 candidates who were High

School passed, only 4 candidates stood qualified while 6 were disqualified as they failed to get minimum of 6 marks out of 10 marks. In regard to Rule

6(2) of the Amended Rules, 2013 it has been stated that the same is directory in nature and is not mandatory.

6) In the rejoinder affidavit, in reply to para no. 8 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, it has been stated that the facts narrated therein

are wrong and hence denied. It is further stated that in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 it has been mentioned that 31 Class IV

employees participated in the selection / promotional exercise and out of whom 21 were Intermediate pass and 10 were High School pass, whereas as

per the information received under Right to Information Act, 2005, in response to the notice dated 09.09.2017, only 9 candidates who were High

School pass submitted their application forms and 26 Class IV employees who were Intermediate pass submitted their application form. The Selection

Committee rejected the application form of two candidates, who furnished their application forms under the High School pass category, as such, only 7

candidates who are High School pass were qualified to appear in the examination. It is also stated that as per the attendance sheet dated 31.08.2017,

duly signed by the members of the Selection Committee, one Narayan Singh, who submitted his application form under High School pass category, did

not appear in the examination. As such, the statement made by the respondent no. 2 in para 8 of the counter affidavit that 10 High School pass

candidates appeared in the examination is completely wrong. Further averment has been made that in respect of Intermediate pass candidates, it has

been stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that 21 candidates in said category appeared in the selection process, whereas as per information

received under RTI Act, 26 Class IV employees submitted their application forms under said category and out of 26 one application form was rejected

by the Selection Committee. Thus, 25 candidates under said category appeared in the selection process which fact is also evident from the attendance

sheet dated 31.08.2017. It is further stated that in the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that the 10 candidates who were High School pass, only

4 stood qualified while 6 were disqualified as they failed to get minimum of 6 marks out of 10 marks, whereas the true fact is that only 6 candidates

who were High School pass participated in the selection process and out of these 6, only 4 stood qualified as per the result.

7) Sur rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, as liberty was granted to said respondent to file reply to the rejoinder affidavit in

the light of certain new facts pleaded by the petitioners on the basis of information obtained under Right to Information Act. It has been stated that out

of 11 posts which are to be filled up by promotion, applying quota of 10% for Intermediate pass candidates and their 4 posts, 26 candidates applied, out

of which one application was rejected and 25 candidates appeared in the promotional exercise. Among 25 candidates, 4 were disqualified and final

merit list of 21 Intermediate pass candidates was prepared and on the basis of marks obtained, top 4 Intermediate pass candidates were promoted

against the available 4 posts under the Intermediate quota. It is further stated that admittedly all the petitioners had applied under the Intermediate

quota only and their candidature for promotion was to be considered against the Intermediate pass candidate quota only. It is also stated that the

contention of the petitioners that “as per law if High School candidate is not available then the seats would be filled up by Intermediate candidates

as per their merit†is not admitted inasmuch as only High School pass candidates were available, who participated in the selection process for

promotion, however, requisite number of such candidates could not qualify and as such under the High School quota, out of 7 seats, 4 were filled up

and rest 3 could not be filled up.

8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record.

9) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the G.O. dated 13.08.2013, as also the service rules which govern the field, 25%

quota was fixed for Class IV employees working in the judgeship for promotion to Class III vacancies. Out of 44 vacancies, 11 posts are reserved for

promotion, and as per law, out of 25% quota fixed for promotion, 15% would be for the Class IV employees who had passed the High School

examination only and 10% quota is fixed for Class IV employees, who are Intermediate examination passed. Rules in this regard were framed by the

State Government, namely, Uttarakhand Sub-ordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2004 as amended on 13.08.2013 by

Uttarakhand Sub-ordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2013. He would further submit that as per Rule 6,

which provides the source of recruitment on Class III posts and as per the amendment in the rules on 13.08.2013, which also provides that 25% quota

on Class III posts will be fixed for the Class IV employees working with the department and out of 25% quota 15% quota will be earmarked for the

High School examination pass candidates and 10% quota will be earmarked for the Intermediate examination pass candidates. However, proviso to

Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules also provides that if, in any situation, on the earmarked post of 15% of High School candidates will not be filled up then

the said posts which will be earmarked for High School pass candidates will be carry forward to the Intermediate examination pass candidates

available for promotion. He would also submit that it is an admitted case of the respondents that out of total 44 posts of Class III employees with

respondent no. 2, 11 posts are earmarked for promotion on the post of Class III from Class IV employees and out of 11 posts 7 posts were earmarked

for High School pass candidates and 4 posts are earmarked for Intermediate examination pass candidates as per 15% and 10% of their respective

quota. It is contended that on 11.10.2018, result for promotion of 11 employees from Class IV to Class III cadre in Nainital Judgeship were declared

and as per result 4 candidates each from High School pass candidates and Intermediate pass candidates, as per their merit list, were promoted from

Class IV to Class III cadre, as such, out of total 11 posts which were notified for promotion only 8 candidates were promoted by the order dated

11.10.2018. It is further contended that out of 11 posts 7 posts were available for High School pass candidates and out of 7 posts only 4 posts were

filled up by the respondents by order dated 11.10.2018 and 3 posts which ought to have been available for Intermediate pass candidates were not filled

up from the available Intermediate pass candidates which is violative of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules.

10) Attention of this Court is drawn towards paragraph 49 of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of High Court of

Uttarakhand Vs Man Mohan Tripathi and another 2018 (1) UD 686. Said paragraph is reproduced here-in-below for reference:

“49. We also notice that, in the year 2013, a proviso was added by the amendment in March 2013, by which it was provided that, when persons,

who have passed High School, are not available, the vacancies could be filled-up by persons, who are having higher qualification. This also clearly

goes to show that, till 2013, vacancies, which were meant to be filled-up by appointing persons with High School qualification, could not be filled-up by

persons, who were having Intermediate qualification. The proviso, which was inserted, enabled the Government to make such appointments against

the vacancies. In our view, this circumstance lends assurance to the view, which we have taken that, as far as the vacancies (15 per cent till 2013)

are concerned, the same could be filled-up only by persons having High School.â€​

11) On the strength of said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the respondent no. 2 did not comply the Rule 6(2) of the

aforesaid Rules which governs the field in its entirety which should have been complied strictly and the remaining 3 vacancies should be filled-up from

the available Intermediate candidates as per their merit.

12) Reliance is also placed upon a judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in Mohd. Irshad & another Vs District Judge,

Champawat & another, decided on 30.07.2013 Writ Petition no. 417 (S/S) of 2008, and it is contended that the petitioners of the aforesaid

case were Class IV employees of the judgeship of District Champawat to be promoted to Class III posts, to be filled within the prescribed quota from

the eligible candidates of Class IV employees in the judgeship. Their case was not considered for promotion on Class III posts solely on the ground

that they are having higher qualification, whereof the condition precedent for promotion is that only such candidates were to be considered for

promotion who are having High School qualification.

13) The contention of learned counsel for the respondents of said writ petition was that the petitioners could only be considered under 5% quota,

which was reserved for Intermediate pass candidates. The Court in that case held that said argument of learned counsel for the respondents is totally

misconceived inasmuch as they are having qualification of High School as well as Intermediate and merely because they have Intermediate

qualification, it does not mean that they are liable to be considered under 5% quota only. It was further observed that such demarcation, if any, is only

for the candidates who have only High School qualification. Since the petitioners are having both the qualifications, i.e. High School and Intermediate,

they are liable to be considered under the High School quota as well as under the Intermediate quota, as they have both the qualifications. The

contention of the respondents that the petitioners cannot be considered under the High School quota is a wrong interpretation of these provisions.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the documents brought on record the co-ordinate Bench held that the petitioners are

having Intermediate and High School qualifications and this higher qualification is because of the fact that they did High School, as this higher

qualification can only be attained after doing High School. In other words, the petitioners are also having High School qualification. Since they are

having both qualifications (i.e. High School and Intermediate) they are eligible for promotion under the High School quota as well. The non-

consideration for promotion of the petitioners under the High School quota by the respondents is not justified.

14) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed in Mohd. Irshad’s case (supra) has attained

finality and the rights of the petitioners therein (appellants in Special Appeal no. 420 of 2014) have become final.

15) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submit that the report dated 11.07.2017 submitted before the Appointing Authority reveals that

the Rules governing the field for promotion from Group D to Group C employees of subordinate civil courts are Uttarakhand Subordinate Civil Courts

Ministerial Establishment Rules, 2007 and as per Rule 3(a), the posts in the pay scale of 3050-4590 (or revised pay scale) i.e. the initial posts in Group

C can be filled up by direct recruitment or by selection from amongst the regular Group D employees fulfilling the condition as per the Rules /

Government Orders, applicable not beyond the quota fixed in such Government Order. He would further submit that since the Rules of 2007 were

silent as to the mode and manner of selection of Group D employees to Group C in the minimum pay scale, the promotion exercise was undertaken in

view of G.O. no. 966/XXX(2)/2011 dated 29.06.2011, which provides that for promotion of Group D employees under the requisite quota, the selection

procedure provided under Subordinate Office Clerical Grade Employees Cadre (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 2004 (As amended) may be followed. He

would also submit that the earlier procedure of selection was amended vide G.O. dated 13.08.2013, wherein under the caption ‘Note’ it is

mentioned that for recruitment on clerical grade posts in a office, persons working in Group D and Driver, who have completed 5 years of regular

service will come within the eligibility zone. The G.O. further provides that the selection for promotion shall be undertaken on the basis of merit and a

common examination will be taken having one question paper and in which objective questions relating to General Hindi, General Knowledge and

General Studies will be asked. This written examination shall be of maximum 40 marks and 10 marks will be granted on the basis of ACR and 2 marks

shall be granted for each year of service and experience, which shall be of maximum 50 marks. It is contended that the ‘Note’ which provides

for the procedure for selection for promotion of Group D employees to Group C posts in the lowest pay scale, mentioned in the G.O. dated 13.08.2013

was made the basis for the said promotional exercise. Lastly, it is contended that reliance placed by the petitioners on Rule 6 of the Amendment Rules

2013 was misplaced as the same were misinterpreted and misconstrued by them.

16) Admittedly the petitioners before this Court are Class IV employees of judgeship of District Nainital. They are the candidates for promotion to

Class III posts, which are to be filled-up within the prescribed quota from the eligible candidates of Class IV employees of the Nainital judgeship.

These promotions are to be made on the basis of the Rules known as “Uttarakhand Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment)

(Amendment) Rules, 2013â€. Rule 6 of aforesaid Rules provides the source of recruitment on Class III posts and as per the amendment in the Rules

on 13.08.2013 which stipulates that 25% quota on Class III posts will be fixed for the Class IV employees working with the department and out of

25% quota, 15% quota will be earmarked for the High School examination pass candidates and 10% quota will be earmarked for the Intermediate

examination passed candidates. But the Proviso to Rule 6 also provides that if High School examination pass candidates are not available on the posts

earmarked for them, then in that case, such posts can be filled-up by promotion from amongst the candidates having higher qualification.

17) It is settled proposition of law that while making the interpretation of any statute one should read the statute as a whole and not in part. The

respondents started the selection process on the basis of G.O. dated 13.08.2013. It is quite astonishing that the respondents are denying the fact that

amendment in Rule 6 which provides the source of recruitment cannot be applied in the Group C post in the subordinate courts. Surprisingly,

respondents on the one hand are taking into consideration the Rule 6 as amended in the year 2013, but on the other hand they are saying that the

proviso to the Rule 6 (2) is directory and not mandatory in nature and would not be applicable in the subordinate courts.

18) In Singhara Singh (WPSS 192 of 2015, Madan Mohan & others Vs U(cid:25)arakhand Board of Technical Educa(cid:34)on & others, decided on 15.12.2015), the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“8. The rule adopted in Taylor Vs Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has

conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in

any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not

have been enacted. A magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in S. 164. The

power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. If

proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of S. 164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of

accused persons would be rendered nugatory. This action, therefore, by conferring on magistrates the power to record statements or confession, by

necessary implication, prohibited a magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions given to him.â€​

19) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjaya Reddy (Special Appeal no. 37 of 2016 along with connected SPA, High Court of U(cid:25)arakhand Vs

U(cid:25)arakhand Board of Technical Educa(cid:34)on & others, decided on 24.09.2018.), took the same view that where law requires a thing to be done in a certain

manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. The Court further observed that the power must be exercised in the manner provided by the

Statute.

20) Perusal of proviso to Rule 6(2) of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment Rules 2013’) would make it abundantly clear that 25% quota of Class III is to be filled up from

Group IV employees; 15% from the High School pass candidates and 10% from those, who have passed the Intermediate examination. Qualifying

service of five years is a condition precedent for such promotions. The proviso to Rule 6 of the Amendment Rules 2013 stipulates that, in case, the

quota fixed for High School pass candidates could not be filled up, then the said posts which will be earmarked for High School pass candidates will be

carry forward to the Intermediate pass candidates available for promotion.

21) A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Man Mohan Tripathi (2018 (1) UD 686, High Court of U(cid:25)arakhand Vs Man Mohan Tripathi and

another), which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, has held that those who candidates who have Intermediate qualification does

not mean that they are liable to the considered under the earmarked post of 10 quota only. Such demarcation, if any, is only for the candidates who

have only High School qualification. Since Intermediate pass candidates are having both the qualifications i.e. High School and Intermediate, they are

liable to be considered under the High School quota as well as under the Intermediate quota, as they have both the qualifications. The view taken by

the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal no. 420 of 2014, decided on 10.05.2016,

holding that Intermediate qualification also possess the High School qualification and the same 15% quota reserved for the High School candidates

cannot be retained only for those who have High School pass qualification.

22) Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Madan Mohan (WPSS 192 of 2015, Madan Mohan & others Vs U(cid:25)arakhand Board of Technical Educa(cid:34)on &

others, decided on 15.12.2015), while deciding a controversy in regard to petitioners, who were employed as Class IV (Group D) employees in District

Judgeship, Nainital and were seeking promotion to Class III (Group C) posts, but the competent authority issued an advertisement, whereby all the

existing vacancies of Group C posts in Nainital Judgeship were advertised to be filled up by direct recruitment. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court

while allowing the writ petition aforementioned vide its judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 has observed as under:

“5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties further do not dispute that in the light of Rule 10 of Rule 20 of the Civil Courts Rules 2007,

Uttarakhand Subordinate Officers Clerical Grade Employees Rules, 2004 were / are being followed. Therefore, as per Government Rules 2004, only

25% of the sanctioned posts of Group C were to be filled up by way of promotion from the Group D employees, with the stipulation that out of total

25% promotional quota, 15% were to filled up from among such employees who were possessing matriculation certificate and 10% from among those

such employees who were having intermediate certificate, with further stipulation that if eligible candidates having matriculation certificate were not

available, then vacant post would be filled up by those who were having higher qualification.

Undisputedly, this Court was pleased to issue letter dated 26.06.2013 directing that unless and until promotion made in excess of 25% quota has

been regularized, the further promotional exercise shall not be undertaken from Group D to Group C in the sanctioned category. Further providing that

in future while giving he promotion from Group D to Group C cadre, no promotion shall be made over and above 25% of sanctioned posts.

In my humble opinion, letter dated 26.06.2013 was issued strictly as per the un-amended Government Rules 2004.

Undisputedly, thereafter Government Rules, 2004, were amended vide Government Amendment Rules, 2013, Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition,

notified on 13.08.2013, adding proviso to the effect that for the selection year 2012-13 to 2015-16, promotional quota shall be 45% instead of 25% and

out of 45%, 25% shall be available for those candidates who are having matriculation certificate and 20% shall be available for those who are having

intermediate certificate.

Although, it is mentioned in Government Rules, 2004, that Government Rules shall not be applicable to the Subordinate Judiciary, however,

admittedly, Government Rules, 2004 were adopted and made applicable and are being followed in the light of Rule 19(10) of Civil Courts Rules, 2007.

In my considered opinion, if un-amended Government Rules 2004 are made applicable or in other words adopted in view of sub-rule 10 of Rule 20

of Civil Courts Rules, 2007, then, amended Government Rules, 2004 as amended by Government Amendment Rules 2013 shall also be applicable. In

the net result, for the selection year, 2012-13 to 2015-16, promotional quota shall be 45% instead of 25%. In my further opinion, since letter dated

26.06.2013 were issued prior to amended Rules 2013, which were notified on 13.08.2013, therefore, letter dated 26.06.2013 shall be read in the light of

subsequent amended notified on 13.08.2013. In other words, letter dated 26.06.2013 shall not adversely affect the amended Rules 2013.

All the existing vacancies have been advertised and selection has also been made. There is an interim order dated 04.02.2015 to the effect that the

selection, so made, pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.09.2014 shall be subject to the decision of this writ petition.

Therefore, present petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 3 to declare the result of 45% promotional

post within two weeks. Result already declared of 25% shall be adjusted against the total post of 45%. Mandamus is also issued to the respondents to

undertake promotional exercise in accordance with law. No order as to costs.â€​

23) The judgment dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge In Madan Mohan’s case (supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench of

this Court in Special Appeal no. 37 of 2016, along with analogous matter, vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2018.

24) In view of the observations made in judgments (supra) the candidates possessing the Intermediate qualification are liable to be considered under

the High School quota as well as under the Intermediate quota, as they have both the qualifications, irrespective of the provisions made in the proviso

to Rule 6(2). The contention of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is misconceived and is contrary to the dictum of judgments (supra).

25) Despite having knowledge of the judgments (supra), learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has stood firmly on his submission that the

provisions of proviso to Rule 6(2) are directory and not mandatory. Be that as it may, Rule 2(6) and its proviso has already been considered and

interpreted by the coordinate Bench as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. A lawyer should be careful while arguing in the Court and it is

expected from every lawyer to be fair in advancing arguments and placing the case before the Court irrespective of the fact that he / she is counsel

for the party. If such practice is permitted to continue in the courts of law, then it will shake the confidence of a common litigant on the courts, which

ultimately would result in their losing faith in the judicial system.

26) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record as well as the dictum of the judgment passed by the Division Bench

of this Court, wherein it has been held that if 15% quota reserved for High School pass candidates could not be fulfilled then the remaining part of the

quota should be filled from the candidates eligible and qualified from the Intermediate pass candidates. Since the petitioners, who are eligible and

qualified against the three vacant posts of High School quota, they are entitled to get promotion, but they have been denied the promotion on wrong

pretext that the unfilled quota of High School cannot be filled up from the Intermediate pass candidates. Thus, the decision taken by respondent no. 2

in non-promoting the petitioners despite the fact that they are eligible and qualified for promotion to Class III (Group C) against three vacant posts of

High School pass candidates is contrary to law.

27) The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Mandamus / direction is issued to promote the petitioners, as per their respective seniority,

against three remaining vacancies of Class III (Group C) in his Judgeship from Class IV (Group D) from the date when other Class IV employees

have been given promotion from the same promotion exercise in the said Judgeship.

28) No order as to costs.