Pramod Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—It is not necessary to narrate the details in respect of the process of selection of the petitioner. The only relevant fact, essential for determination of the present controversy is, that the petitioner was inducted into the service of the Public Works Department, in the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, on 28.10.1997 as an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner claims allocation to the Hill Sub-Cadre, based on an option exercised by him after his induction into the service of the Public Works Department.

For the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, he has relied on the Uttar Pradesh Hill Sub-Cadre (Second Amendment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "1997 Rules"). Rule 1(2) of the 1997 Rules mandates, that the said Rules would come into effect at once. Since the aforesaid 1997 Rules were published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra-ordinary, Part 4, Section (Ka) on 02.07.1997, the Second Amendment (afore-mentioned) would be deemed to have come into effect on the date of the aforesaid publication, i.e. on 02.07.1997.

The pointed contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner had the right to exercise his option to seek allocation to the Hill Sub-Cadre, under Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules. Rule 6 of the Second Amendment is being extracted hereunder:

Allocation of members of service to Hill Sub-Cadre.

(1) The existing members of Service shall be required by the appointing authority to exercise their option for allocation to Hill Sub-Cadre within three months.

(2) On the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Hill Sub-Cadre (Second Amendment) Rules, 1997 the appointing authority, in case where the procedure for asking for options to Hill Sub-Cadre has not been completed or partially completed may require the members of the General Cadre to exercise their options for allocation to Hill Sub-Cadre within three months from such commencement.

Provided that fresh options shall not be invited in respect of the Departments and posts for which options have already been asked for.

(3) Options exercised under Sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be final and irrevocable.

(4) In case no option is exercised within the time specified in Sub-rules (1) and (2) it will be deemed that the member of the Service wants to remain in the General Cadre and does not want his allocation to the Hill Sub-Cadre.

We have perused the aforesaid Rule, specially Sub-rule (1), upon which, emphatic reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We are, however, satisfied that Rule 6(1), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would apply only to the "existing members of service". In other words, Rule 6(1) of the 1997 Rules would apply to those "members of the service" who were on the rolls of the State Government on 02.07.1997, i.e. the day when the 1997 Rules came into effect. Since the petitioner was admittedly appointed in the service of the State Government in the Public Works Department on 28.10.1997, it is apparent, that he was not an existing member of the service, when the Rules came into force on 02.07.1997. Thus viewed, we are satisfied, that the petitioner had no right to exercise his option under Rule 6(1) of the 1997 Rules.

To be fair to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is imperative for us to take into consideration another submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to the effect, that the composite State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a Government Order dated 06.09.1997, seeking options within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the aforesaid Government Order. It is, therefore, contended that the relevant date(s) on which the option could be exercised under the 1997 Rules must be deemed to commence from 06.09.1997 and end on 05.12.1997. Since the petitioner was appointed in the Public Works Department on 28.10.1997, he must be deemed to have the right to exercise his option for inclusion in the Hill Sub-Cadre.

We have considered the contention noticed in the foregoing paragraph. The instant Government Order dated 06.09.1997, even if the same can be treated as extending the period of time to submit options, cannot be read to mean, that options could be submitted by employees, who had no right to submit options, in terms of Rule 6(1) of the 1997 Rules. We have already concluded herein above, that under Rule 6(1) of the 1997 Rules, only such employees who were in the service of the State Government on 02.07.1997, could exercise their option for allocation to the Hill Sub-Cadre, and not employees who came into service thereafter. Accordingly, we find no merit in the instant contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.