Gaurav Pathak & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer are sought to be made by the Government of Uttarakhand under the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sanshadhan Vikas evam Nirman Nigam Abhiyanta Sewa Viniyamawali, 2011. Regulation 5(2) of the 2011 Regulations extends the benefit of accelerated promotion only to such of those candidates who completed their graduation in Engineering from the Institute of Engineering after they joined service, and not before. The validity of these Regulations was subjected to challenge earlier before this Court and, according to Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioners, these Regulations were struck down by this Court, questioning which the State of Uttarakhand approached the Supreme Court; and, pursuant to an order of stay granted by the Supreme Court, the State Government now proposes to effect promotions to the post of Assistant Engineers under these Regulations which provide for accelerated promotion.

While contending that promotions cannot be effected under the 2011 Regulations, which have been struck down, Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioners, would further submit that, even if the said Regulations are held to be still in force, only such of those candidates who have completed their graduation in Engineering after they joined service, and have prosecuted the graduation course after obtaining permission from the department, are alone eligible to participate in the selection process, and not those who had completed their graduation prior to the date on which they entered service. Learned counsel would draw our attention to a list of 18 employees, who he claims are now being considered for promotion, to submit that, except for Mr. Waseem Javed Ali, all the other 17 graduate engineers had completed their graduation before they entered service.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners, and those who are now sought to be promoted, are all State Government employees covered by the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The grievance, which the petitioners have put forth in the present writ petition, can also be agitated before the Public Services Tribunal constituted under the U.P Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976.

As the petitioners have an effective alternative statutory remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of the Public Services Tribunal, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. Leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Public Services Tribunal in this regard, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.