PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.