2 September vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 12 September, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

2 September vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 12 September, 2025

1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 616 of 2025 alone are being considered.

2. Petitioner in WPSS No. 616 of 2025 was appointed as Patwari (now Revenue Sub-Inspector) by District Magistrate, Almora, vide order dated 15.05.2007. According to him, he pursued Patwari/Lekhpal Training Course during Academic Session 2006-07 and in the list of candidates, who successfully completed the training course, petitioner is placed above the private respondents, yet the private respondents have been selected for Supervisor Kanungo/Revenue Inspector Training, by ignoring his 1 2025:UHC:8166 claim.

3. In sum and substance, contention of petitioner is that merit of a candidate, as reflected in the result of Patwari training course, should determine seniority of Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector.

4. It is further the case of petitioner that the date of his substantive appointment is 01.05.2007, when Chief Revenue Commissioner Uttarakhand directed District Magistrates to appoint persons, who underwent Patwari/Lekhpal Training, during the year 2005-06.

5. District Magistrate, Almora has filed counter affidavit in which reference is made to Rule 15 of U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963 (from hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1963"), which provides that seniority in service shall be reckoned from the date of order of substantive appointment, however, if two or more persons are appointed on the same date, in that case, the one who passed Patwari Training Course earlier shall be treated as senior, and if, Patwari Training Course is also passed in the same year, in that case, the marks scored in Patwari Training Course shall be the determinative factor for seniority and if marks are also the same, then the one who is older in age shall be treated as senior.

6. The aforesaid Rules are enclosed as annexure 5 to the writ petition. A careful reading of Rule 6(1) of the Rules reveals that Collector of each District shall maintain a list in the prescribed performa, of such 2 2025:UHC:8166 candidates who have passed Special Patwari School Examination and Rule 5 of the said Rules provides that appointment on the post of Patwari shall be made from the candidates whose names have been included in the list, prepared under Rule 6. Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1963 further provides that names in the list, contemplated in Rule 6(1), shall be arranged year-wise and amongst candidates, who have passed Patwari Training Course in the same year, names shall be arranged as per their marks scored in the training course.

7. Learned State Counsel submits that completion of Patwari Training Course merely makes a person eligible for appointment as Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector, as any other academic qualification. He further submits that admission in Patwari School or successful completion of Patwari Training do not automatically result in appointment as Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector and appointment is made from the list prepared under Rule 6(1). He further submits that successful completion of Patwari Training Course results in inclusion of name of a person in the list, prepared under Rule 6(1) and District Magistrate/Collector has to take names out of that list for making appointment, as and when vacancies are available.

8. This Court finds force in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Petitioner is relying upon marks scored by him in Patwari Training Course Examination for contending that anyone, who scored less marks in the said examination than him, is junior to him. Since successful completion of Patwari Training 3 2025:UHC:8166 Course do not automatically result in appointment as Patwari and a trained person may have to wait for several years for appointment, therefore, marks scored in Patwari Training Examination become relevant only after appointment, that too, when two or more Patwari are appointed on the same date and their year of passing Patwari Training Course Examination is also the same.

9. As per Rule 15 of The U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963, seniority of Patwari has to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment. Petitioner contends that he was appointed on 01.05.2007 when Chief Revenue Commissioner Uttarakhand issued a letter. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to annexure no. 4 to the writ petition and submits that petitioner was appointed on 15.05.2007, when District Magistrate, Almora offered appointment to 32 persons, including the petitioner.

10. It is not in dispute that District Magistrate, and not the Chief Revenue Commissioner, is the Appointing Authority for the post of Patwari. Letter dated 01.05.2007, relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, is a communication by Chief Revenue Commissioner, whereby all District Magistrates were requested to issue appointment letter to persons, who had successfully completed Patwari Training Course, during 2005-06. Thus, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on 01.05.2007 cannot be accepted and learned State Counsel is right in submitting that date of order of substantive appointment of the petitioner is 4 2025:UHC:8166 15.05.2007.

11. Petitioner is aggrieved by a list issued by Board of Revenue Uttarakhand on 28.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that some of the Patwaries included in the said list, have scored less marks than petitioner in the Patwari Training Examination, therefore, petitioner has preferential right by virtue of seniority.

12. From the Scheme of the U.P. Patwari Service Rules, 1963, it is revealed that Collector of every District is required to maintain a list of Patwari trained candidates for making appointment as Patwari. Patwari Training is imparted only in Patwari Training Institute, Almora. Persons, who underwent training and passed Patwari Training Course with the petitioner, are appointed in different Districts, as per provisions contained in Rules 5 & 6 of relevant Service Rules. Thus, persons, who scored less marks than petitioner in the Patwari Training Examination, may have been appointed before the date when petitioner was appointed, because of more vacancies available in the District, where they were appointed. Thus, marks scored in training would lose relevance and date of appointment would become relevant for seniority.

13. As discussed earlier, marks scored in Patwari Training Examination become relevant only when the date of substantive appointment, year of passing training course etc. are the same for two or more persons appointed in one District. It is not clear that the persons, who allegedly scored less marks than 5 2025:UHC:8166 petitioner in the Patwari Training Examination, were also appointed in District Almora, where petitioner is serving.

14. The next promotional post available to Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector is Supervisor Kanungo/Revenue Inspector. The mode of recruitment and conditions of service of Supervisor Kanungo are governed by separate Rules notified on 19.03.1983, which are known as "U.P. Subordinate Revenue Executive (Supervisor Kanungo of Hill Patties of Kumaon and Garhwal) Service Rules, 1983 (in short "Rules of 1983").

15. The said Rules contemplate that permanent Patwaries, who have undergone requisite training in land survey and maintenance of revenue records from a Government Institute, shall be eligible for promotion. Rule 19 of the said Rules provides that permanent Patwari shall be selected for promotion by applying the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and then shall be sent for Supervisor Kanungo Training. Rule 19(2)(ga) of the Rules of 1983 provides that Commissioner shall consider the name of Patwaries received from different districts and he shall arrange the names with reference to their date of substantive appointment.

16. Learned State Counsel points out that Patwaries have a district level cadre, as they are appointed by District Level Authority; Revenue Division consists of four or more districts, therefore, District Level seniority of Patwari becomes irrelevant for 6 2025:UHC:8166 determining seniority at the Divisional Level. Learned State Counsel submits that no district can be given precedence while fixing seniority at the Divisional Level nor Patwari serving in any District can be placed en bloc below patwari serving in other districts, therefore, as per Rules of 1983, seniority of Patwari has to be re- determined based on the date of their substantive appointment in a particular district. He submits that even though some person, who scored less marks in training than the petitioner, may have been included in the list prepared by Divisional Commissioner and petitioner's name may not have been included in the said list, however, that itself does not give any cause of action to petitioner and none of his legal right is violated. He further submits that merit of a candidate, as reflected in the mark-sheet of Patwari Training Examination becomes relevant only in certain contingencies which has not arisen here.

17. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Seniority of Patwari is made at the district level, however, selection of Patwaries for Supervisor Kanungo Training has to be made at the Divisional Level. Since Division consists of several districts, therefore, as per Rules, names of Patwaries forwarded by District Magistrate have to be re-arranged at the Divisional Level with reference to date of order of substantive appointment of all the Patwaries. The year of passing Patwari Training Course and the marks scored in Patwari Training Examination, loses its relevance while determining seniority of Patwaries at the Divisional Level.

2025:UHC:8166

18. It is not the contention of petitioner that seniority for nomination for training at the Divisional Level was not prepared as per Rule 19 of the Rules of 1983. If the exercise undertaken is as per Rules, then petitioner cannot have valid grievance against the list.

19. Learned State Counsel points out that a candidate, who scored more marks in Patwari Training Examination, might get delayed appointment because of non-availability of vacancy in the District from where he was selected and persons, with lesser marks than him, may be appointed earlier in other districts because of availability of more vacancies in those districts.

20. Since criteria for determining seniority in the Rules of 1963 as well as the Rules of 1983 is the date of order of substantive appointment, therefore, marks scored by petitioner in the Patwari Training Examination by itself do not support his claim for seniority.

21. The list issued by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand on 28.03.2025 reveals that Patwari appointed upto 05.05.2007 and Lekhpal appointed upto 07.05.2007 were nominated for Supervisor Kanungo Training. Petitioner was appointed only on 15.05.2007, thus he is junior to the persons who are nominated for Supervisor Kanungo Training.

22. As per Rules, criteria for selection is seniority subject to rejection of unfit, therefore, petitioner cannot have any grievance against selection of persons, who are senior, with reference to date of substantive appointment to him.

2025:UHC:8166

23. Since the list impugned by the petitioner has been prepared as per relevant provisions of Rules of 1983 and learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality or infirmity in the said list, therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that tentative seniority list of Patwari/Revenue Sub-Inspector was prepared by District Magistrate, Almora and objections were invited but seniority list was not finalized thereafter.

25. Rule 9 of Uttarakhand Government Servant Seniority Rules, 2002 ordains that Appointing Authority shall issue a final seniority list after disposing of the objections received against tentative seniority list.

26. In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Almora to finalize the seniority list of Revenue Sub- Inspector, serving in the District, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

12.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, ASWAL serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A5853172 6FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.23 06:32:15 -07'00' 9

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court