State Can’t Take Advantage Of Its Own Continuing Default: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Deputy Collector Promotees
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the final judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court
While observing that the State cannot take advantage of its own continuing default by treating the promotees’ ad hoc appointment as bad in law, the Supreme Court has allowed the Deputy Collector Promotees to count their ad hoc service for the purposes of computing seniority.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the final judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court. The matter revolved around the question of entitlement of the promotees to count their ad hoc service for the purposes of computing seniority.
The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held, “It would not be fair to let the State take advantage of its own continuing default by treating the promotees’ ad hoc appointment, recommended by a duly constituted DPC and eventually regularised by competent authority, as bad in law. Therefore, non-consultation with the Commission does not disentitle the promotees to the benefit of proviso Rule 24(4) of the Rules.”
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 2006, when the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 were notified. The respondent promotees were originally appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildars. In the year 2007, the promotees were confirmed on the post of permanent Tehsildars by way of regular promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted, and it took note of the acute shortage of Civil Service Officers in the State. The DPC recommended 10 Tehsildars, including the promotees, for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on an ad hoc basis.
The promotees were promoted to the post of Deputy Collector as stop-gap arrangement/temporary arrangement till the posts were filled by the Commission by direct recruitment. In 2008, the Commission sought information about filling up the posts of Deputy Collectors by promotion. The appellants (direct recruits) in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Commission for direct recruitment for the posts of Deputy Collector were selected and appointed in the month of August 2009. The Commission promoted 15 permanent Tehsildars to the post of Deputy Collectors. Being aggrieved by non-inclusion of their names in the aforesaid order, the promotees filed the writ petition. The Commission issued a proceeding by which the promotees were promoted to the post of Deputy Collector.
The promotees filed a writ petition seeking regular promotion to the post of Deputy Collector with effect from October 1, 2007 and to delete the condition of putting the promotees on probation for a period of two years. The direct recruits filed an application seeking impleadment in the writ petition, which was allowed. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to take necessary steps to revise the seniority list of Deputy Collectors. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government filed an appeal, whereas another appeal was filed by the Direct Recruits before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (Limitations of functions) Regulations, 2003, the Bench explained that Regulation 5(a) implies that in case a person continues in officiating capacity for a period of more than one year, the Commission shall be consulted, and such a person shall not hold the post for a total continuous period of more than one year without the Commission being consulted. The Bench noted that in the matter at hand, there was no material on record to indicate that the Commission was consulted regarding extension of the term of appointment of the promotees by way of ad hoc promotion to the post of Deputy Collector beyond a period of one year.
The Bench was of the view that the default of consultation did not invalidate the ad hoc appointments by way of ad hoc promotions of the promotees to the post of Deputy Collector. The Bench noted that the promotees were appointed on the posts of Deputy Collector by way of ad hoc promotion within their quota. As per the Bench, the High Court erred in directing the State Government to determine the vacancies of Deputy Collector in the promotee quota for the year 2007-2008. “The promotees are held entitled to benefit of Rule 24(4) of the Rules”, it held.
The Bench thus held the promotees entitled to the benefit of regular appointment on the post of Deputy Collector with effect from October 1, 2007. “The State Government shall issue a revised seniority list of the Deputy Collectors within a period of three months from today”, it ordered.
Thus, allowing the appeal filed by the promotees, the Bench dismissed the appeals filed by the State.
Cause Title: The State of Uttarakhand v. Jagdish Chandra Kandpal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 759)