KRISHAN CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-30
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 26,2013

Krishan Chandra Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was appointed on Group -D post of Follower (4th Class under the dying -in -harness Rules vide order dated 27.07.1995 on account of sudden death of his father Ram Kishan, who was working in Police Department at Nainital. On the appointed day, petitioner was working on Class -IV post (Follower) in Nainital only. Petitioner is a permanent resident of district Pauri Garhwal. Initially, petitioner wanted to go to U.P., therefore, he opted for the State of U.P., however, thereafter, he changed his mind and opted for state of Uttarakhand. Undisputedly, till day, petitioner's name does not find place either in the list of employees allocated to the Uttarakhand or in the list of employees allocated to the State of U.P. Moreover, petitioner is still working with the Uttarakhand Police and has never been relieved by the State of Uttarakhand for State of U.P. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 10th January, 2013, petitioner applied for the departmental examination for Group -C post. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 29.07.2013, petitioner was permitted to appear in the departmental examination, however, his result has not been declared so far.
(2.) MR . Subhash Upadhayaya, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that since petitioner has not been allocated to the State of Uttrakhand, therefore, petitioner cannot be said to be eligible to appear in the departmental examination for the promotion of Class -III post. He, however, contends that list containing the name of the employees allocated to the State of Uttarakhand clearly stipulates that other employees who have not been allocated to the Uttarakhand shall be deemed to have been allocated to the State of U.P. He further contends that list of allocation was issued by the Central Government way back in 2004.
(3.) ON being asked, Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the State fairly contends that allocation list for the State of U.P. also contains the stipulation that employees whose name does not find place in the list of U.P. shall be deemed to have been allocated to the Uttarakhand. Undisputedly, petitioner's name is not either in the list of U.P. nor in the Uttarakhand. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is neither employee of the State of U.P. nor employee of the Uttarakhand. Moreover, undisputedly petitioner is still working in Nainital district of Uttarakhand and has never been relieved. Therefore, rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he has not been finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand seems to be totally unjustified. Therefore, I hold that petitioner is eligible to appear with the Group -C examination pursuant to the advertisement in question and his result is liable to be declared. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith in any case within two weeks from today and needful be done in accordance with the result of the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.