BIRENDRA SINGH HEET BIST Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the petitioner was Deputy Director in the Education Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and, after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, he became Deputy Director in the Education Department of the State of Uttarakhand. While he was Deputy Director, Education Department, State of Uttarakhand; he was asked by the State of Uttarakhand on 6th June, 2002 to discharge the duties of Joint Director, in officiating capacity. According to Uttar Pradesh Educational (General Education Cadre) Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Rules"), applicable to this State also, the criterion for promotion from the post of Deputy Director to the post of Joint Director is 'seniority subject to the rejection of unfit' to be determined through a selection committee comprising of those mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the said Rules. On 13th February, 2004, when the petitioner was already discharging the duties attached to the post of Joint Director in the Department of Education of the State of Uttarakhand, in officiating capacity, an exercise was undertaken for giving regular promotion to deserving Deputy Directors, Education, to the post of Joint Director, Education. The case of the petitioner was also considered by the selection committee constituted by and under the said Rules. They recorded that the petitioner is unfit. The reason for declaring the petitioner unfit was not indicated. At the same time, juniors to the petitioner were found fit and, accordingly, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, juniors to the petitioner were given regular promotion to the post of Joint Director. This action compelled the petitioner to file a writ petition, which was presented on 4th December, 2004.

(2.) Admittedly, since prior to 13th February, 2004, petitioner was discharging duties of Joint Director and continued to do so until his retirement during the pendency of the writ petition, we mould the relief while allowing the writ petition and declare that the petitioner stands selected for being promoted on 13th February, 2004 itself, when the selection committee, for no just reason, found the petitioner unfit for promotion, and direct the State to reach, to the petitioner, the benefits of the said promotion. Petitioner shall not only be entitled to all the monetary benefits of that promotion from the date the others obtained such benefits on the basis of the selection made on 13th February, 2004, but such benefits shall also be reflected in the retiral and other dues of the petitioner. We have, with great effort, restrained ourselves from imposing exemplary costs in the matter against the State.