BUDHI SINGH KUMAI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to Respondents to promote him on the post of Naib Tehsildar/Assistant Land Record Officer with effect from 1996 alongwith consequential benefits and further prayed that the Respondents be directed to fix the seniority of the Petitioner as Registrar Kanungo with effect from 4.4.1989.

(2.) HEARD Sri H.M. Raturi learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) AGAIN on 21.2.1989 the selection committee recommended the name of Sri Munshi Lal Bijilwan alongwith another for promotion to the post of Registrar Kanungo. In pursuance to the recommendation of the selection committee Sri Munshi Lal Bijilwan was appointed by the District Magistrate as Registrar Kanungo vide order dated 16.3.1989 and he was confirmed on the said post on 4.4.1989. Since the Petitioner who was earlier recommended by the selection committee in the year 1986 was not given promotion, the Petitioner made representation dated 12.6.1991 and 12.8.1991 to the District Magistrate which were rejected by the District Magistrate by order dated 6.3.1992. Aggrieved with the rejection order the Petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal on 7.4.1992 which was allowed by the Commissioner on 23.6.1992. While allowing the appeal of the Petitioner the Commissioner has stated in the order that inspite of selection of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Registrar Kanungo on 6.1.1986 the Petitioner has not been given promotion despite the vacancies arose time to time. The Commissioner rejected the plea of the District Magistrate that since the selection was not in accordance with law the Petitioner was not given promotion. The Commissioner Garhwal Mandal has held that by giving promotion to one person out of the list recommended by the selection committee the District Magistrate while denying promotion to others cannot say that the selection was not proper. The Commissioner has further held that the name of the Petitioner was not deleted from the select list in accordance with Rule 9 of the U.P. Subordinate Revenue Ministerial (Registrar Kanungos and Assistant Registrar Kanungos) Service Rules, 1958 and as such the Petitioner was entitled to be promoted in accordance with the recommendations of the selection committee held in the year 1986 and directed the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi to fix the seniority of the Petitioner on the basis of the selection held in the year 1986.