VIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought quashing of order dated 12 -2 -2004 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal in O.A. No. 12/2004 Sri. V.K. Verma versus State of Uttaranchal and others (Annexure -I) and the order dated 20 -11 -2003 (Annexure -2) passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby, by way of correction. the date of petitioner's promotion to the rank of Range Forest Officer, from the post of Deputy Ranger, was mentioned as 30 -11 -1989, instead of the date mentioned as 25 -5 -1979, when the petitioner was given ad hoc promotion and the said date was so mentioned in the tentative seniority list dated 12 -6 -2002 (Annexure -3). The petitioner therefore also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat his seniority as has been fixed per order dated 12 -6 -2002 (Annexure -3) and to give all the consequential benefits of service such as promotion etc. by treating the said seniority as correct.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner along with 11 other Deputy Rangers was given ad hoc promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer vide order dated 11/12 -4 -1979 and the petitioner assumed the charge of the promotion post on 25 -5 -1979, the date of the appointment of the Ranger Forest Officer shown In the tentative seniority list dated 12 -6 -2002 (Annexure3). It is not the case of the respondents that the ad hoc promotion was given de hors the service rules. The petitioner was however regularized on the post of Range Forest Officer by the order dated 22 -10 -2001 passed by respondent no. 2 and the regularization by the said order was purported to be given from the year 1989, which date has now been shown in the impugned order dated 20 -11 -2003 (Annexure -2) although in the tentative seniority list as stated above the date of promotion has been shown as 25 -5 -1979.

(3.) THE short question which falls for consideration in this petition is - "Whether the subsequent regularization would relate back to the date of ad hoc appointment and the ad hoc service should be reckoned for the purpose of seniority -