Naveen Chandra Tiwari and others vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—On 20th August, 1988 petitioner No. 4 joined the services of the Uttar Pradesh State Government as a Demonstrator, in an Ayurvedic College. On 12th September, 1989 petitioner No. 2 also joined the State of Uttar Pradesh as a Demonstrator, in an Ayurvedic College. Petitioners No. 1 and 3 joined similarly on 15th of September, 1989. At the time, when the petitioners joined their services, there were two posts available, namely the post of Demonstrator and the post of Lecturer. In order to join the post of Demonstrator, the person concerned, was required to have certain prescribed qualifications. In order to join the post of Lecturer, the person was required to have in addition to those qualifications, two year''s experience as Demonstrator. While, the post of Demonstrator was a direct recruitment post, the post of Lecturer was also a direct recruitment post. There was no scope of a Demonstrator being promoted to the post of Lecturer.

C.C.I.M. on 2nd May, 1991 asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to convert the posts of Demonstrators to the posts of Lecturers, and to accommodate the Demonstrators as Lecturers. This recommendation was accepted after creation of the State of Uttarakhand by the said State in 2008. With effect from 2008, petitioners are all Lecturers. The object and purpose of the present writ petition is to direct the Government to engage the petitioners as Lecturers on and from 2nd May 1991, so that their seniority in the cadre of Lecturers is taken note of from 2nd May 1991. While doing so, the petitioners have not impleaded those Lecturers who were appointed after 2nd May 1991, until before 2008, and whose seniority is sought to be interfered with. Furthermore, until 2008 the petitioners were Demonstrators, they became Lecturers only in 2008, and accordingly, question of treating the petitioners as Lecturers from 2nd May, 1991 in view of the said direction of C.C.I.M. to convert Demonstrators into Lecturers, does not at all arise. In the event for failing to act on the recommendation of C.C.I.M., the State of Uttar Pradesh or the State of Uttarakhand has exposed itself to any consequences, the same is enforceable by C.C.I.M. alone. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.