JAGDISH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010039142016

2026:UHC:9839-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
th
29 October, 2026
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2016
Jagdish ----Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ---Respondents

Counsel for the appellant

: Sri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents

: Sri B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 6 to 10.



JUDGMENT : (PER : SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.)
1. This intra-Court Appeal is directed against judgment
dated 05.10.2016 rendered by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.
1495 of 2015 titled ‘ Jagdish Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ’.
In the said writ petition, amendment to Rule 5(d) of Uttarakhand
Treasury, Pension and Haqdari Subordinate Cadre Rules made in
2015 was challenged by appellant. By the impugned judgment,
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the
separate quota was available for promotion to the Accountants
serving in Directorate of Treasury even earlier. Operative portion
of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-
“12. The main challenge of the petitioner is to the
Uttarakhand Treasury, Pension and Haqdari Sub
Ordinate Cadre Rules, (Amended) Rules 2015. The
petitioner has not been able to explain as to how the
validity of these Rules can be challenged. The main
argument of the petitioner rests on violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, wherein the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that by giving
4% quota to all the employees working in the
Directorate Treasury, what is being done is that under
this quota such employees who are much junior to the
1

UKHC010039142016

2026:UHC:9839-DB
petitioner in service will be considered for promotion to
the post of ATO and will take a march over the
petitioner, even though they are very junior to the
petitioner. This contention of the petitioner, however,
cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this was
always the condition even earlier, and the recruitment
from the 4% quota is from a different source. The
petitioner had no right for consideration under 4%
quota. There may be a possibility where an employee
under 4% quota may be considered and selected even
though he would be junior to the petitioner but under
these circumstances it is not in violation of any law and
in any case it will not be a violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.”

2. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Impugned Rules, amended in 2015, provide that the post of
Assistant Treasury Officer shall be filled by promotion from two
separate feeding cadres, namely (1) Accountants serving in
Directorate of Treasury and, (2) Accountants serving in District
Treasury. Since there were two different sources of promotion,
therefore the rule-making authority decided to prescribe a quota
and, accordingly, 4% vacancies were reserved for Accountants
serving in Directorate of Treasury and remaining 96% vacancies
were available for promotion to Accountants serving in District
Treasury.
3. Appellant has questioned 4% quota made available for
Accountants serving in Directorate of Treasury on the ground that
because of that quota, Accountants, who are serving in Directorate
of Treasury, would steal march over Accountants serving in District
Treasury and senior person working in District Treasury would,
thus, become junior.
2

UKHC010039142016

2026:UHC:9839-DB
4. Learned Single Judge has dealt with the said contentions
of learned counsel for appellant in Paragraph-12 of the impugned
judgment.

5. Even otherwise also, we are not impressed by the said
contention made by learned counsel for appellant. Service
conditions of government servants are determined by statutory
rules and the rule-making authority has plenary power of making
changes in the service conditions by exercising its rule-making
power provided under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India. Even otherwise also, where promotions are made from
more than one feeding cadres, then it is desirable to provide
separate quota for persons who come from different sources, so
that no heartburning is caused to members of such different
feeding cadres.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni reported in
(1981) 4 SCC 130 has held as follows:-

“16. Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of
service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances
of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the
conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion
is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not.”


7. Similarly, in the case of Air Commodore Naveen Jain
vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 10 SCC 34, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
“13)
In State of Mysore & Anr. v. G.B. Purohit & Ors., (1967)
SLR 753 , this Court held that a right to be considered for
promotion, is a condition of service but mere chances of
3

UKHC010039142016

2026:UHC:9839-DB
promotion are not. The rule which merely affects the chances of
promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service.
The said judgment was quoted with approval in later judgment
reported as Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 317, wherein this Court held
as under:

“15…..All that happened as a result of making promotions
to the posts of Deputy Collectors division wise and limiting
such promotions to 50 per cent of the total number of
vacancies in the posts of Deputy Collector was to reduce
the chances of promotion available to the petitioners. It is
now well settled by the decision of this Court in State of
Mysore v. G.B. Purohit [CA No. 2281 of 1965, decided on
January 25, 1967] that though a right to be considered for
promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of
promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of
promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of
service. In Purohit’s case the district wise seniority of
sanitary inspectors was changed to State wise seniority, and
as a result of this change the respondents went down in
seniority and became very junior. This, it was urged,
affected their chances of promotion which were protected
under the proviso to Section 115, sub-section (7). This
contention was negatived and Wanchoo, J. (as he then
was), speaking on behalf of this Court observed:


“It is said on behalf of the respondents that as
their chances of promotion have been affected
their conditions of service have been changed to
their disadvantage. We see no force in this
argument because chances of promotion are not
conditions of service…..”

14) In Dwarka Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 6
SCC 535 , the argument examined was that the promotion
opportunities have to be provided in ratio with the strength of the
feeder cadre. It was held as under:

“16. Fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for
promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder
cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the
Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly
pertaining to the policy-making field. The relevant
considerations in fixing a particular quota for a particular
post are various such as the cadre strength in the feeder
quota, suitability more or less of the holders in the feeder
post, their nature of duties, experience and the channels of
promotion available to the holders of posts in the feeder
cadres. Most important of them all is the requirement of the
4

UKHC010039142016

2026:UHC:9839-DB
promoting authority for manning the post on promotion
with suitable candidates. Thus, fixation of quota for various
categories of posts in the feeder cadres requires
consideration of various relevant factors, a few amongst
them have been mentioned for illustration. Mere cadre
strength of a particular post in the feeder cadre cannot be a
sole criterion or basis to claim parity in the chances of
promotion by various holders of posts in feeder
categories.”


8. Thus, challenge thrown by petitioner to Rule 5(d) of the
applicable service rules is without any substance.


9. Appellant has also sought a mandamus directing
respondents not to hold DPC, which was scheduled to be held on
27.07.2015.
10. We are informed that the said DPC was held as per
schedule and persons, recommended for promotion by that DPC,
were promoted as Assistant Treasury Officer and, thereafter, they
were given further promotion to next higher positions. Therefore,
the second relief, as claimed in the writ petition, also does not
survive.

11. Appellant has also sought a direction to the Authorities
to revert respondent No. 5 and other similarly situate persons to
their original departments/cadres.

12. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has
given liberty to appellant to challenge the appointment of
respondent No. 5, or any other like person.

5

UKHC010039142016

2026:UHC:9839-DB
13. Thus, we do not find any reason for making interference
in the matter. The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
15. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.

________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.


____________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

th
Dt: 29 October, 2026
Rathour
PRAVINDRA
SINGH
RATHOUR
Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb
1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179
B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8,
cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR
Date: 2026.11.02 14:39:25 +05'30'
6