Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

“I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (English) fom the date he become eligible for promotion i.e. 12.8.2021. or alternately direct the respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of lecturer English by granting relaxation as per the Uttarakhand Government Servant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion rules 2010 as amended time to time w.e.f. 10-10-2019.

¶11

II. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to sent proposal/resolution for promotion of petitioner on the post of lecturer English under 50% quota as per the regulation 6 of the Uttarakhand School Education Board Regulation, 2009.

¶12

III. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶13

IV. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

¶14

2

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (English) in Govind Ballabh Pant Inter College, Chakarpur, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the College”). In the College, there is one vacancy of Lecturer in English, which is to be filled up by way of promotion. The only candidate meeting the eligibility zone is the petitioner. Five years service is required on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (English) so as to be considered for appointment as Lecturer. On the date of advertisement, the petitioner was short of some months of experience.

¶17

It is the claim of the petitioner that the respondents would have given relaxation in the qualifying service in view of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2010 (“the 2010 Rules”). Rule 4 of which, provides as follows:-

¶18

“ Relaxation in Qualifying service : 4. In case a post is filled by promotion and for such promotion a certain minimum length of service is prescribed on the lower post or posts, as the case may be, and the required number of eligible persons are not available in the field of eligibility, such prescribed minimum length

¶19

3

¶20

of service may be suitably relaxed up to fifty percent by the Administrative Department in consultation with the Personnel Department of the Government, excluding the period of probation as laid down for the said lower post or posts, as the case may be;

¶21

Provided that relaxation in prescribed qualifying service for promotion will be allowed once in entire service tenure of any employee;

¶22

Provided further that the employees, who have availed the benefit of relaxation of prescribed qualifying service for promotion earlier, shall not be entitled for such benefit again.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was short of about five months’ qualifying service, but he deserves benefit of the 2010 Rules and his candidature should have been considered on the post of Lecturer, which was not done. Though, he would submit that as on today, the petitioner has completed more than five years qualifying service and there is no other candidate eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer. He would submit that the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 may take action in the relevant.

¶24

Having considered the factual controversy that is involved in the instant case, there is no reason to keep this petition pending. The petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent no.3 to take a decision on

¶25

4

¶26

the claim of the petitioner for relaxation in qualifying service for promotion for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (English) within a period of three months from today.

¶27

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.03.2025

¶28

Sanjay

Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B T C Industries Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Maksood Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Munendra Singh Rana and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madan Lal and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vichitra Mandal Vs State of Uttarakhand