- (1.) Present petition is filed assailing Memo dated 19.9.1997 and Memo dated 2.4.1998, Annexure No. 1, whereby the petitioner was superceded by respondent nos. 4 to 20, who are much junior to the petitioner and were given promotions to the post of Head Warden ignoring the candidature and seniority of the petitioner with a further direction that petitioner be given promotion from the date his juniors i.e., respondent nos. 4 to 20 were given promotion w.e.f. 2.4.1998. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Umakant Joshi, 2012 3 JCR 224 in paragraphs-11 and 12 has held as under:-- 11. We have considered the respective submissions. It is not in dispute that at the time of promotion of Class-II officers including Shri R.K. Khare to Class-I posts with effect from 16.11.1989 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the case of respondent no. 1 was not considered because of the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report and the punishment imposed vide order dated 23.1.1999. Once the order of punishment was set aside, respondent no. 1 became entitled to be considered for promotion to Class-I post with effect from 16.11.1989. That exercise could have been undertaken only by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and not by the State of Uttaranchal (now the State of Uttarakhand), which was formed on 9.11.2000. Therefore, the High Court of Uttarakhand, which too came into existence with effect from 9.11.2000 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 for issue of a mandamus to the State Government to promote him to Class-I post with effect from 16.11.1989, more so because the issues raised in the writ petition involved examination of the legality of the decision taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to promote Shri R.K. Khare with effect from 16.11.1989 and other officers, who were promoted to Class-I post vide order dated 22.1.2001 with retrospective effect. It appears to us that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand and the Director of Industries did not draw the attention of the High Court that it was not competent to issue direction for promotion of respondent no. 1 with effect from a date prior to formation of the new State, and that too, without hearing the State of Uttar Pradesh and this is the reason why the High Court did not examine the issue of its jurisdiction to entertain the prayer made by respondent no. 1. 12. In view of the above, we hold that the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 in 2008 in the Uttarakhand High Court claiming retrospective promotion to Class-I post with effect from 16.11.1989 was misconceived and the High Court committed jurisdictional error by issuing direction for his direction for his promotion to the post of General Manager with effect from 16.11.1989 and for consideration of his case for promotion to the higher posts with effect from the date of promotion of his co called juniors.
(2.) In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to hereinabove, this Court which came into existence w.e.f. 15th November, 2000 has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the authorities to grant the promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 2.4.1998 i.e., the date prior to the creation of the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and is consequently dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.;