Supreme Court Grants Uttarakhand Deputy Collectors Seniority Benefit From Initial Ad Hoc Promotion

The Supreme Court has held that Deputy Collectors in Uttarakhand who were promoted on an ad hoc basis in 2007 are entitled to count their continuous officiating service towards seniority, ruling that the State Government cannot deny them the benefit because of its own failure to consult the Public Service Commission as required under the rules.

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the promotee officers while dismissing the appeals preferred by the State Government and direct recruits. The Court directed the State Government to grant the promotees regular appointment to the post of Deputy Collector with effect from October 1, 2007 and issue a revised seniority list within three months.

The dispute arose after a batch of Tehsildars was promoted as Deputy Collectors on an ad hoc basis on October 1, 2007 due to an acute shortage of Civil Service officers in the State. They continued in the post until their regular promotion in May 2012. Direct recruits appointed in 2009 challenged the claim of the promotees to count their ad hoc service for seniority, contending that the initial appointments were merely stop-gap arrangements made dehors the statutory rules.

The Uttarakhand High Court had earlier held that if vacancies existed in the promotee quota during 2007-08, the officers would be entitled to regular appointment from October 1, 2007. It had directed the State Government to determine the availability of vacancies and revise the seniority list accordingly. Both the State and the direct recruits challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, while the promotees sought complete relief.

The Supreme Court framed two issues: whether consultation with the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission under Regulation 5(a) of the 2003 Regulations was mandatory, and whether the promotees were entitled to the benefit of Rule 24(4) of the Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005.

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirement of consultation with the Commission is directory and not mandatory. It relied on earlier precedents, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava and Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, to hold that failure to consult the Commission does not invalidate an appointment when the omission is attributable to the Government rather than the employee.

"The failure to consult the Commission was result of inaction of the State Government," the Court observed, adding that it would be unfair to allow the State to take advantage of its own default by treating the promotees' appointments as legally defective. It therefore held that non-consultation did not disentitle the officers from claiming the benefit of Rule 24(4).

On the second issue, the Court examined the record and found that 19 vacancies existed in the promotee quota during the 2007-08 recruitment year. It noted that official communications from the State Government and the Public Service Commission demonstrated that only 19 promotee Deputy Collectors were working against 40 sanctioned posts and that 15 vacancies were available to be filled through promotion.

Rejecting the contention that the promotees had been appointed in excess of their quota, the Court held that they had continuously served within the promotee quota from October 1, 2007 until their regular promotion in 2012. Consequently, they were entitled to have their entire officiating service counted for seniority under the proviso to Rule 24(4).

The Bench also distinguished its earlier decision in Vinod Giri Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand, relied upon by the direct recruits, observing that the earlier case turned on the absence of a finding that the promotees had worked continuously within the promotee quota. Since such a finding existed in the present case, the precedent did not assist the direct recruits.

Accordingly, the Court modified the High Court's judgment by holding that the promotees were entitled to regular appointment as Deputy Collectors with effect from October 1, 2007 itself, instead of directing the State to re-examine the existence of vacancies. It clarified that the judgment would not affect the claims of officers promoted in subsequent years.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VERSUS JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL & ORS., JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL & ORS. V. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.,

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A N S Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.s. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sajal Singhai, Adv. Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR  Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, D.A.G. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. A N S Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.s. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, D.A.G. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sajal Singhai, Adv. Mr. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, AOR Mr. Aakash Sirohi, AOR Mr. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bipu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Archita Nigam, Adv. Mr. Nachiket Kaul, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR  Mr. K.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Yunus Malik, Adv. Mr. Akash Sirohi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Saket, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Swarup, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR  Mr. Rishesh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Adv.