PUSHPA BUDIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was inducted into the service of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission as a Lower Division Assistant in 1999. At the time of induction of the petitioner into the service of the Commission, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission was catering to the needs of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) Just before the reorganisation of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, with effect from 9.11.2000 into the successor States of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, guidelines were issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, through a communication dated 13.9.2000 pertaining to the principles and the modalities to be followed by the two successor State Governments, inter alia, for allocation of employees belonging to all services other than the All India Service. A copy of the aforesaid guidelines was appended to the communication dated 13.9.2000. The guidelines are a part of the record of the instant Writ Petition as Annexure-1. Insofar as allocation of employees of the erstwhile members of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission is concerned, the guidelines expressly notice that the posts within the purview of the Commission, as also, similar posts in the Secretariat and the State Legislature would be bifurcated on the basis of provisional allocation on the basis of the ratio of the districts between the two successor States. In fact, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the rival parties were agreed, that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 were inapplicable to the allocation of employees of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.

(3.) The issue of allocation of employees of the erstwhile Public Service Commission, as per the record of the pleadings in the instant case, was initiated by seeking options of the concerned employees. In this behalf, a letter dated 27.9.2000 (Annexure-2) has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Through the aforesaid communication, options were sought from the employees of the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission on the issue of allocation to the two successor States of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. The aforesaid options were, actually, received and processed, as is apparent from another letter dated 28.5.2001 addressed by the Secretary, Public Service Commission to the Secretary of the Uttaranchal Government. The aforesaid letter encloses a list of thirteen members of the ministerial staff holding different posts, who had opted for allocation to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. The next step forward is sought to have been demonstrated, when the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission demanded the release of the thirteen ministerial employees, who had opted for employment in the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, by producing before this Court a communication dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure-5). A perusal of the aforesaid communication reveals, that the State Advisory Committee had no objection to the allocation of the said thirteen ministerial employees to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said communication also records the approval of the State Government, inasmuch as, the Reorganisation Commissioner, Uttarakhand Government, as per the aforesaid communication, had also approved the aforesaid determination. The instant latter aspect of the matter is, however, subject matter of serious dispute at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents, inasmuch as, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel representing respondent no. 5 and the interveners, that the Reorganisation Commissioner of Uttarakhand Government was only one of the members of the State Advisory Committee, and as such, his consent could not be treated as the consent of the State Government. The instant objection raised at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents has, however, been sought to be overcome by the learned counsel for the petitioner by asserting that the very fact that the two have been mentioned separately. Firstly, the no objection at the hands of the State Advisory Committee and thereafter, the consent of the Reorganisation Commissioner of the Uttarakhand Government depicts that the same were in respect of the two separate and distinct authorities; firstly, the State Advisory Committee and secondly, the Government of Uttarakhand.