YASHWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1980 the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer (Grade-II) by direct recruitment in accordance with the Rules called as U.P. District Officers (Collectorates) Ministerial Service Rules, 1980. As per the source of recruitment contained under Rule-5 Sub Category (f) (i) and (ii) the post of Stenographer Grade-II is the feeding cadre for promotion of the Stenographer (Grade-I). The appointing authority for the post of the division other than Office Superintendent is by the District Officer. Promotion on the post of Stenographer (Grade-I) is made on the basis of the seniority subject to rejection of unfit through a Selection Committee. In the year 1988-89 Haridwar district was created and by virtue of Govt. Order dated 27.10.1988 a new post of Stenographer (Grade-I) was created and was transferred to District Haridwar vide Govt. Order dated 13.09.1989. The post on which the petitioner was promoted on 18.12.1989 was Ashulipik (Shreni-I) post. On satisfactory service rendered by the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 granted Personal Assistant promotional pay scale to the petitioner in pursuance of the Govt. Order dated 02.12.2000, but on 01.10.2006 the respondent no.2 issued an order in public interest as well as on administrative exigency transferring the petitioner from the post of Personal Assistant/Ashulipik from the office of respondent no.2 which is a Grade-I post, on the post of Personal Assistant/Ashulipik in the office of Additional District Magistrate, a Shreni-II post. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2006, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondent no.2 filed a short counter affidavit in which it is submitted that order dated 01.10.2006 was merely a transfer order of Personal Assistant/ Stenographer and was made in the interest of administrative exigency and, therefore, the petitioner had an alternative remedy to approach for redressal of his grievances before the Commissioner, Garhwal region. It is further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee. He was directed to perform his duty as Stenographer of the Collector, Haridwar after creation of new district Haridwar on its bifurcation from district Saharanpur in the year 1989. The work allotted to the petitioner was simply a stop-gap-arrangement made by the Collector at the time of creation of new district Haridwar. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that the order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the Collector, Haridwar cannot be treated as promotion order of the petitioner as no Selection Committee was ever held in granting such promotion to the petitioner. It is further mentioned that the petitioner is getting the same pay scale, which he was getting earlier when he was appointed as Personal Assistant to the Collector, Haridwar and order dated 01.10.2006 is simply a transfer order made under the administrative exigency, therefore the writ petition deserves to the dismissed.