VISHNU CHANKRA THAPLIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 4 to the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand. PART - I

(2.) ONE who seeks equity, must do equity. One who approaches the equity Court, must approach the said Court with clean hands. The petitioner, in the instant case, has come to the Court being aggrieved against the decision of respondent no. 2, whereby respondent no. 4 was appointed on the post of Secretary to the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly. Documents have been offered to show that he is still Joint Secretary, on ad hoc basis. He has not been confirmed on the said post as yet. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Secretary. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he is holding the said past in substantive capacity.

(3.) A bare perusal of the Rules will reveal that an officer in the cadre of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly must hold the post of Additional Secretary, on substantive basis, for being considered for appointment on the post of Secretary to the Legislative Assembly. Holding of a substantive post of Addl. Secretary is sine qua non for being considered for appointment on the post of Secretary, Legislative Assembly. Although, the writ petitioner claims that he is holding the post of Additional Secretary on substantive basis, but this Court is skeptical to accept such plea. The reason is not far to seek. If an officer holds a lower post on ad hoc basic and is promoted in the meanwhile, can it be said that he is holding the promoted post on substantive basis? The order whereby the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Secretary, does not speak a word as to whether he is so promoted on ad hoc basis or substantive basis. An officer, who has not been confirmed on the lower post, in the perception of this Court, cannot be said to be holding a substantive post on which he is promoted. In other words, had the petitioner been holding substantive post of Joint Secretary, then only it could have been thought, as to whether he is holding a post of Additional Secretary on ad hoc basis or on substantive basis. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner is not holding a substantive post of Additional Secretary as on date.