Uttarakhand HC Upholds 4% Assistant Treasury Officer Promotion Quota for Directorate Accountants, Rejects District Accountant’s Seniority Challenge

The appellant challenged the 2015 amendment to Rule 5(d) of the Uttarakhand Treasury, Pension and Haqdari Subordinate Cadre Rules, which provided separate promotion quotas for Accountants in the Directorate of Treasury and District Treasuries: 4% and 96%, respectively.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Directorate employees constituted a separate source of promotion and that the quota did not violate Article 14.

In the appeal, the appellant also sought to prevent a scheduled DPC and to have certain promotees reverted. The DPC had since taken place, and the Single Judge had granted liberty to challenge the relevant appointments separately.

Rule 5(d) of the applicable service rules, as amended in 2015, provided for promotion to Assistant Treasury Officer from two distinct feeding cadres.

Under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the rule-making authority may alter government service conditions through statutory rules.

A right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, but a mere chance of promotion is not (*State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni*, (1981) 4 SCC 130; *Air Commodore Naveen Jain v. Union of India*, (2019) 10 SCC 34).

Fixing quotas or promotion avenues for different feeder cadres is principally within the employer’s policy-making authority; cadre strength alone is not the sole basis for setting a quota (*Dwarka Prasad v. Union of India*, (2003) 6 SCC 535).

The Court held that the two groups of Accountants were separate sources of promotion, making a distinct quota permissible; the possibility that a junior employee in one cadre might be promoted before a senior employee in another affected only promotion chances, not a protected condition of service.

Applying the cited authorities, it found no basis to invalidate the quota under Article 14.

The challenge to the DPC no longer warranted relief because it had already been held and the recommended candidates had been promoted. Any challenge to the appointments could be brought under the liberty granted by the Single Judge.

The special appeal was dismissed; no costs were ordered, and any pending application was also dismissed.