PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appointment letter, authorizing the petitioner to join the post of Assistant Engineer, was issued on 23rd June 1997. Petitioner joined his post on 28th October 1997. In 1992, the Uttar Pradesh Hill Sub-Cadre Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules') came into effect. In terms of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, the existing members of the service became entitled to exercise option for allocation to Hill Sub-Cadre. On 2nd July 1997, an amendment was effected to the said Rules and by virtue thereof, Rule 6 of the said Rules stood altered and thereby Sub-rule (2) was inserted to Rule 6 of the said Rules. In terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, on and from the date of coming into force of the said amendment, i.e., on and from 2nd July 1997, the appointing authority became competent to require the members of the general cadre to exercise their options for allocation to Hill Sub-Cadre, in case where the procedure for asking for options to Hill Sub-Cadre has not been completed or partially completed. Subsequently, the Government, by an order dated 6th September 1997, extended the time for exercising such power by three months from the date of the said order. The petitioner exercised option to go to the Hill Sub-Cadre. This option did not mature into taking the petitioner to the Hill Sub-Cadre. On coming into existence the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner exercised his option for being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. This too was not accorded. Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition. When the writ petition was considered, the contentions of the petitioner pertaining to the option exercised by him under the Uttar Pradesh Hill Sub-Cadre Rules, 1992 had been taken note of, but the contention of the petitioner pertaining to his allocation to the State of Uttarakhand had not been taken note of. That appears to be the principal grievance, as submitted at the Bar, in the present review application.

(2.) In addition to that, it was submitted that this Court, while passing the order under review, did not take note of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Hill Sub-Cadre Rules, 1992 independently. We think that, while rendering the judgment and order under review, in fact, the Court had taken note of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 as a part of Rule 6 and not as an independent rule and, according to us, there is no scope of treating Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 as an independent rule. It appears to us that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 cannot stand, unless Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 is in existence. Be that as it may, even if the decision rendered is an incorrect decision, that is no ground for seeking review.

(3.) However, we are of the view that, in as much as the contentions of the petitioner pertaining to exercise of option to opt for the State of Uttarakhand has not been decided by the judgment and order under review, the petitioner shall be permitted to raise the same in some other proceedings as he may advise.