Pyar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Nirmal Yadav, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Petitioners were working on substantive posts of Patwari''s peon in different districts of Uttarakhand State. Initially the posts of Patwaris were filled by direct recruitment only and there was no channel for promotion for the post of Patwari. The Government of U.P. vide letter dated 18th August 1986 (Annexure-1) provided that 10% post of Patwari would be filled by promotion from the post of Patwari''s peon. The eligibility criteria for promotion as per the said letter, was provided as under:

(i) The employee must have passed Board of High School Examination or equivalent examination; and

(ii) He had worked as Patwari''s Peon for six years.

After the creation of State of Uttarakhand, the State Government issued similar order dated 3rd March 2006 but increasing the quota for promotion from 10% to 15%. Subsequently vide order dated 26th May 2008 the said quota was increased to 25%. Out of which 15% promotion was to be made from the Patwari''s peons, who were having academic qualification up to high school and 10% quota for the peons who were intermediate passed. Letter dated 26th May 2008 (Annexure-2) provides the following conditions:

d & jktLo foHkkx ds iVokjh vuqlsod ds in ij N% o"kZ rd dk;Z fd;k gks rFkk vius in ij vLFkkbZ gks A

[k & ftldh vk;q izf''k{k.k esa Hksts tkus ds o"kZ dh igyh tuojh dks 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks A

x & izf''k{k.k dky es,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ogh osru fn;k tk,xk] tks os izf''k{k.k esa tkus ls iwoZ vuqlsod ds in ij ik jgs Fks A

?k & izf''k{k.k izkIr djus ds mijkUr iVokjh in ij fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj iVokjh ds fjDr inksa dh miyC/krk,oa ikjLifjd T;s"Brk ds vk/kkj ij dh vk;sxh A

� & vkjf{kr fjDr;ksa ds fy, pquko vuqi;qDr dks vLohdkj djrs gq;s T;s"Brk ds vk/kkj ij,d lk/kkj.k ijh{kk ysdj fd;k tk;sxk A

p & vkjf{kr fjfDr;ksa esa vkj{k.k ''kklukns''kkuqlkj ns; gksxk A

The Petitioners have completed Patwari''s training and now Respondent No. 3 is contemplating to conduct written examination before promoting them to the post of Patwari. In certain districts simple written examination was conducted for selecting Patwari''s peon for sending them on Patwari''s training. Even after appearing in simple examination, the Petitioners are being compelled by the Respondents to again compete in written examination before promoting them to the post of Patwaris.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that there are no rules prescribing any criteria for promotion to the post of Patwari except government orders dated 18th August 1986 issued by the Government of U.P. and thereafter Government orders dated 3rd March 2006 and 26th May 2008 issued by the State of Uttarakhand. He further contends that since there are no specific rules for promotion to the post of Patwari, Rule-4 of Uttaranchal Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2004, which are statutory in nature shall override the government orders. According to the Rule-4, the promotion can be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of being unfit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that Chief Revenue Commissioner Uttarakhand in his letter No. 471 dated 3rd November 2009 (Annexure-7) has clarified that there is no requirement of conducting written examination in case of "on job trainees" for the State of Uttarakhand. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners therefore, contended that since there is no statutory rule requiring the Patwari''s peon to compete in written examination for promotion to the post of Patwari after completion of Patwari''s training.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that even for the post of Revenue Inspector, Rule 24 of the m- iz- jktLo dk;Zikyd � dqek;wa vkSj xoky e.My dh ioZrh; ifV~V;ksa ds lqijokbtj dkuwuxks � lsok fu;ekoyh] 1983 provided for conducting written examination after completion of training of the candidates, who were to be promoted to the post of Revenue Karyapalak/Revenue Inspector/Supervisor Kanoongo. However, the department of Revenue has taken a decision not to conduct the written examination for the post of Revenue Inspector vide letter dated 3rd November 2009 stating that there is no full fledge written examination for "on job trainees".

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners inter alia submitted that some of the Petitioners have got the experience of working on the post of Partwari as they officiated as such on ad hoc basis.

The Respondents in their counter affidavits stated that Patwari''s peons have been selected for training by the District Magistrates of concerned districts in view of the guidelines issued in Government Order dated 26th May 2008. The candidates, selected for Patwari, were given admission in the month of February/March 2009 and the training has been completed on 18th February 2010. Learned Counsel for the Respondents further contended that As per Rule 5 and 6 of the Patwari Services Rules, 1963 only those candidates can be appointed on the post of Patwari who have passed written examination from the Special Patwari Training School, Almora. It is further submitted that written examination is to be conducted by the training school on the syllabus of the training course so as to satisfy that trainees have successfully undergone the training syllabus. The candidates, who successfully passed the examination, would be eligible to be appointed to the post of Patwari.

In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Petitioners, it is stated that Rules 5 and 6 of the 1963 Rules provides for the appointment of Patwari by direct promotion. No provision has been made in the said rule for promotion to the post of Patwari. It was provided only vide Government order dated 18.08.1986 and there after the letter dated 18.08.1986, 3rd March 2006 and 26th May 2008. The written examination is provided only for the candidates who were to be appointed to the post of Patwari by direct recruitment.

10.On careful consideration of the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, it is revealed that no provision has been made in the Service Rules, 1963 for recruitment of Patwaris by promotion. Rule 5 and 6 of the above Rules only prescribe the procedure and criteria for the post of Patwari by direct recruitment. Only in the year 1986 vide letter dated 18th August 1986 the State of U.P. provided the appointment by promotion for Patwari''s peon to the post of Patwari. The eligibility for promotion was provided as six years experience as Patwari''s peon and educational qualification of having passed high school examination. However, order dated 26th May 2008, the State Government has prescribed for conducting simple written examination for filling up the vacancy for the post of Patwari. Vide letter dated 19th November 2008 a list of candidates was issued for sending them for Patwari''s training after conducting simple examination in Tehri district. Accordingly, they were sent for training. Now vide letter dated 13th January 2010, the Director of Special Patwari''s Training School, Almora has issued the schedule for conducting the examination of the candidates who have completed the Patwaris training. Admittedly there is no statutory provision for conducting the written examination after completion of the Patwari''s training. The examination is provided only with regard to the candidates who were to be appointed by the direct recruitment. The Petitioners have the experience of six years working as Patwari''s peon. As per the averments made in the writ petition, some of the Petitioners have worked on ad hoc basis as Patwaris. There are no rules or statutory provisions for conducting the written examination, no written examination can be conducted by the authorities for promoting the Patwari''s peon to the post of Patwari. Even for Revenue Inspectors Rule-24 of m- iz- jktLo dk;Zikyd � dqek;wa vkSj xoky e.My dh ioZrh; ifV~V;ksa ds lqijokbtj dkuwuxks � lsok fu;ekoyh] 1983 prescribed for conducting qualifying written examination after completion of training. The requirement of competing for written examination has been dispensed with vide letter dated 3rd November 2009 on the ground that there is no requirement of conducting written examination for the "on job trainees".

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that conducting written examination after completion of the Patwari''s training for promotion from Patwari''s peon is not provided by any statutory provisions. Even the Uttaranchal Promotional Rules, 2004 do not require any written examination to be conducted for promotion and promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. Moreover the written examination has been dispensed with, even in the case of Revenue Inspectors by promotion. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that paragraph (M) of Government order dated 26.05.2008 is unreasonable, arbitrary and not supported by any of the statutory sanction. Thus government order dated 26.05.2008 and consequential schedule issued for holding the written examination is hereby quashed.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.