JASPAL SINGH BHANDARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010053722019

2026:UHC:9616
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPSS/866/2019

Jaspal Singh Bhandari
--Petitioner

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Reituparna Joshi, learned
counsel holding the brief of Mr.
Shivanand Bhatt, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner who suffers from the
physical disability to the extent of 60%
was inducted in service as a Peon
(Group-D) in the Education Department
on 15.11.1984.
4. By virtue of advertisement dated
29.03.2010, the respondents initiated
the promotional exercise from Group ‘D’
to Group ‘C’ post. Despite the statutory
mandate, under the prevailing Rules, the
petitioner was not considered under 3%
quota reservation for physically
handicapped candidates and aggrieved
by such action, the petitioner
approached this Court by means of Writ
Petition No. 2212 (S/S) of 2017 which
was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench
on 05.09.2017 in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Division
Bench dated 29.11.2016 in WPSB No.
126 of 2015. In compliance to the order
of the Writ Court, the Additional Director
of Education examined the matter and
passed the formal order on 29.03.2018

UKHC010053722019

2026:UHC:9616
wherein the Addl. Director clearly
observed that there is a mistake on the
part of the Department in implementing
the Government Order dated 10.11.2010
which mandates the grant of reservation
benefit to the disabled employees in
promotional exercise.
5. Subsequent to the order passed by
the Addl. Director of Education, the
petitioner was finally promoted to Group
‘C’ post by order dated 02.06.2019,
however, this promotion was granted
prospectively.
6. Now, the petitioner has preferred
this petition for claiming promotion with
a retrospective date when the juniors to
him were promoted.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that since the
department itself admits that due to the
mistake on the part of the department
the petitioner could not be promoted,
therefore, he should not suffer due to the
fault and mistake on the part of the
State Administration, and, as such, he
at least is entitled to get all the notional
benefits including seniority from the date
when the junior incumbents were
promoted.
8. On the other side learned State
Counsel vehemently opposed the
submissions, as made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner on two primary
grounds:-
(i) Firstly the petitioner failed to
declare his disability status in the
application form.
(ii) Secondly, the Addl. Director is the
actual Appointing Authority who issued
the order of promotion but the Addl.
Director has not been arrayed as party/
respondent, and, as such, the writ
petition suffers from non-joinder of
necessary party.
9. Heard learned counsel for the

UKHC010053722019

2026:UHC:9616
parties. This Court carefully considered
the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and examined the record.
The first contention of the State that the
petitioner did not disclose disability in
his application form cannot sustain,
since, the petitioner was internal
candidate, working in the same
department since 1984 and his service
record which remains in the custody of
the respondent clearly reflects his status
particularly with regard to the disability.
More importantly the Addl. Director
(Appointing Authority) already passed
the formal order on 29.03.2018
observing that the department
committed error in ignoring the GO
dated 10.11.2010 by not granting benefit
of reservation to the petitioner, and, as
such, mistake on the part of the
department was acknowledged by the
officials and the respondents cannot
take contrary stand to defeat the
beneficial piece of social legislation
meant for persons with disability.
Regarding second technical objection,
i.e., non-joinder of the Addl. Director as
party-respondent, this Court does not
find any substance particularly when the
Director is party-respondent herein and,
furthermore, Addl. Director is the
subordinate to the Director, and,
therefore, the writ petition cannot be
dismissed on such a hyper technical
ground.
10. Apart from this, this Court take
note of this fact that for persons with
disability there is social welfare
legislation. The right has to be
considered for promotion under the
reserved category. The statutory right
was wrongly denied to the petitioner in
the year 2010 since his juniors were
promoted and the petitioner could not be
promoted at the relevant point of time,

UKHC010053722019

2026:UHC:9616
therefore, for the fault of the department
the petitioner should not be made to
suffer, and, as such, entitled to get the
notional benefit attached to the post of
Group ‘C’ in which the petitioner was
promoted by the order dated 02.06.2019.
11. In view of the observation as above,
the writ petition is allowed. A writ of
mandamus is issued to the respondents
to treat the petitioner’s promotion to
Group ‘C’ post retrospectively w.e.f. the
date his immediate junior incumbents
were promoted pursuant to the
advertisement dated 29.03.2010. The
respondents are further directed to re-fix
the petitioner’s seniority in the cadre of
Group ‘C’ accordingly with notional
benefits and pay fixation retrospectively
within a period of two months from the
date the certified copy of this order is
produced before the Authority
concerned. No order as to costs.




(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
26-10-2026


Parul