DEEP CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. the State of Uttarakhand and the Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, State of Uttarakhand to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar from the selection year when the petitioner became eligible for being promoted to the said post, which, according to the petitioner, fell vacant in the year 2017. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to initiate an inquiry and take action against the delinquent officer, who failed to convene the DPC for promotion to the said post of Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration within a reasonable time.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Registration Clerk on 4/6/1993. He was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand on 9/11/2000. On 29/9/2016, he was granted substantive promotion to the post of Chief Registration Clerk. Further case of the petitioner is that under the Recruitment Rules in question, namely Uttarakhand Sub-Registrar Service Rules, 2004, which were amended in 2015 vide Uttarakhand Sub Registrar (Amendment) Rules, 2015, the source of recruitment for the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-II, under Rule 5, was prescribed, inter alia, as under:-

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner had the qualification in law, he was entitled to be promoted against the 10 percent promotion quota from amongst the Chief Registration Clerks, who hold the Law Graduation Degree. Further case of the petitioner is that the previous incumbent Shri M.L. Singhal, Registration Clerk, who had been promoted to the post of Sub-Registration, superannuated on 31/10/2017 and, therefore, that post fell vacant, against which the petitioner could have been promoted. However, the petitioner was not promoted, though he was asked to officiate in the position of Sub-Registrar in the year 2016 itself vide Office Order No. 407 dtd. 29/9/2016. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30/9/2021 while officiating as Sub-Registrar. He has been granted one year's extension, which would expire on 30/9/2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not hold the DPC for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar and, therefore, he has been denied the right to be substantively retired as a Sub-Registrar.