STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. BIRENDRA DUTT BADOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitions and Special Appeals relating to the years 2014, and the years prior thereto, are being listed before us for expeditious hearing every Wednesday and Thursday afternoons. These four Special Appeals, (i.e. Special Appeal Nos. 22, 24, 232 and 257 of 2013, all of which relate to the year 2013), were listed for hearing on 16.10.2019 and 17.10.2019. However, neither were Sri Shashank Pandey and Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the respondents in Special Appeal No. 22 of 2013, and the learned counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal Nos. 232 and 257 of 2013, present on 16.10.2019 when these appeals were heard in part, or on 17.10.2019, nor was there any representation on their behalf. Likewise, Sri G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, in Special Appeal No. 24 of 2013, was also not present in Court either on 16.10.2019 or on 17.10.2019, and there was no representation on his behalf either. Sri Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 13 in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 23 of 2017 was also not present in Court both on 16th and 17th October, 2019 when all these matters were heard. There was no representation, on his behalf either, on both these days.

(2.) Since all these Special Appeals relate to the year 2013, and are inter-connected, with each other and with Writ Petition (S/B) No.23 of 2017, we see no reason to defer hearing awaiting the presence of the learned counsel Sri Shashank Pandey, Sri Vikas Bahuguna, Sri G.D. Joshi, and Sir Niranjan Bhatt. We heard Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State Government in Special Appeal Nos. 22 and 24 of 2013 and the respondent-State Government in Special Appeal Nos. 233 and 257 of 2013, as also Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel, and Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, who appear for the respondents in Special Appeal Nos. 232 and 257 of 2013 respectively.

(3.) Special Appeal No. 22 of 2013 is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 184 of 2006 dated 01.08.2012. In the said writ petition, a writ of certiorari was sought to quash the order dated 06.06.2005; for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioners as Assistant Development Officers (Forest) / Deputy Rangers; and to further treat the petitioners as eligible for promotion to the post of Forest Rangers against the 50 per cent direct recruitment quota in accordance with their seniority, and to pay them all consequential benefits. By his order dated 06.06.2005, (which is impugned in this writ petition), the Principal Conservator of Forests informed that employees, who have completed five years' service in the post of Assistant Development Officer (Forest) on 31.05.2005, should be reverted back to their original Circle; and for filling up the posts of Assistant Development Officers (Forest) in future, only employees of the rank of Deputy Forest Rangers should be sent.