# Ganga Ram & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 1016
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-26
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 14072 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganga-ram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46449
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Seniority
-
Promotion/Appointment - Constitution of India
- Article 14 - The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Revenue Executive (Naib Tehsildar) Service
Rules, 2003 - Rule 16 - Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Revenue
Inspector) Service Rules, 2014 - Rule 5 - The
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive
(Naib
Tehsildar)
Service
Rules,
2003
as
amended by the Second Amendment Rules,
2014
-
Rule
5(2)(b)
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Rajasva
Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2014 - Uttar Pradesh
Assistant Revenue Clerk (Registrar Kanungo)
Service
Rules,
1958
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Revenue
Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2017.

From bare reading of the Revenue Inspector Service
Rules and Naib Tehsildar Service Rules, it emerges
that originally as per Naib Tehsildar Rules 2003, 9%
promotion to the post Naib Tehsildar through the
Commission
was
to
be
made
from
amongst
substantially appointed Registrars Kanungos who
have completed 5 years service as such on the first
day of the year of recruitment provided that if
sufficient number of eligible or suitable registrar
Kanungo are not available for promotion, the post
may be filled by promotion under sub clause (a) i.e.
from
amongst
substantially
appointed
Revenue
Inspectors. (Para 13)

Since the post of Registrar Kanungo, Assistant
Registrar Kanungo and Land Record Clerks were
merged and amalgamated in the equal pay scale on
the
post
of
Revenue
Inspector
as
per
recommendation of the pay Commission 2008 and the
decision of the State Government dated 22.11.2011
as mentioned in the GO dated 18.04.2012, as such
there arose some confusion as to the post of
Registrar
Kanungo
etc.
who
were
given
the
designation of Revenue Inspector. Therefore, to
streamline the things and to preserve the
benefit of promotion for the aforesaid cadre of
Registrar Kanungo etc., a new clause (b) in
sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Naib Tehsildar
11 All. Ganga Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
Service Rules, 2003 was substituted which is
under challenge in the present writ petition.

There is always presumption in favour of the
constitutional validity of statutory provisions.
(Para 18)

Perusal of Rule 5(2)(b) of the Naib Tehsildar service
Rules, 2003 shows that the same 9% promotion
quota has been reserved/retained by the amended
Rules for Revenue Inspectors whose originally
substantive posts were Registrar Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar Kanungo/Land Record Clerk. This provision
of 9% promotion quota shall continue till such time
the
availability
of
Registrar
Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar
Kanungo/Land
Record
Clerk
is
fully
exhausted and thereafter, the 50% quota for
promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar shall be filled
by promotion through commission from amongst
substantially appointed Revenue Inspectors who have
completed two years service as such on the first day
of the year of recruitment. (Para 14)

Conclusion can be drawn fr

## Text

1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission of the government notwithstanding
that such subsequent marriage is permissible
under the personal law for the time being
applicable to him. Once Rule 29 is clear and
applicable to the petitioner being government
servant, he has no option but to face
consequences on breach of it.

25. The findings recorded by the Tribunal
in the impugned order are findings of fact based
on consideration of relevant evidences and
materials on record. The scope of interference
with the order of the Tribunal by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
exercising
extra-ordinary,
equitable
and
discretionary jurisdiction, has its own limits. The
scope of judicial review is extended only when
there is no evidence or the conclusion or finding
is such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached on the basis of the material available.
Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal
shows that the Tribunal has passed the order on
the basis of relevant material and evidences
available on record establishing that the
petitioner has contracted the second marriage in
breach of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1956.

26. For all the reasons afore-stated, we do
not find any good reason to interfere with the
impugned order of the Tribunal. Consequently,
the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1016
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 14072 of 2021

Ganga Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Dinesh Rai, Sri Shishir Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Seniority
-
Promotion/Appointment - Constitution of India
- Article 14 - The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Revenue Executive (Naib Tehsildar) Service
Rules, 2003 - Rule 16 - Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Revenue
Inspector) Service Rules, 2014 - Rule 5 - The
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive
(Naib
Tehsildar)
Service
Rules,
2003
as
amended by the Second Amendment Rules,
2014
-
Rule
5(2)(b)
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Rajasva
Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2014 - Uttar Pradesh
Assistant Revenue Clerk (Registrar Kanungo)
Service
Rules,
1958
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Revenue
Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2017.

From bare reading of the Revenue Inspector Service
Rules and Naib Tehsildar Service Rules, it emerges
that originally as per Naib Tehsildar Rules 2003, 9%
promotion to the post Naib Tehsildar through the
Commission
was
to
be
made
from
amongst
substantially appointed Registrars Kanungos who
have completed 5 years service as such on the first
day of the year of recruitment provided that if
sufficient number of eligible or suitable registrar
Kanungo are not available for promotion, the post
may be filled by promotion under sub clause (a) i.e.
from
amongst
substantially
appointed
Revenue
Inspectors. (Para 13)

Since the post of Registrar Kanungo, Assistant
Registrar Kanungo and Land Record Clerks were
merged and amalgamated in the equal pay scale on
the
post
of
Revenue
Inspector
as
per
recommendation of the pay Commission 2008 and the
decision of the State Government dated 22.11.2011
as mentioned in the GO dated 18.04.2012, as such
there arose some confusion as to the post of
Registrar
Kanungo
etc.
who
were
given
the
designation of Revenue Inspector. Therefore, to
streamline the things and to preserve the
benefit of promotion for the aforesaid cadre of
Registrar Kanungo etc., a new clause (b) in
sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Naib Tehsildar
11 All. Ganga Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
Service Rules, 2003 was substituted which is
under challenge in the present writ petition.

There is always presumption in favour of the
constitutional validity of statutory provisions.
(Para 18)

Perusal of Rule 5(2)(b) of the Naib Tehsildar service
Rules, 2003 shows that the same 9% promotion
quota has been reserved/retained by the amended
Rules for Revenue Inspectors whose originally
substantive posts were Registrar Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar Kanungo/Land Record Clerk. This provision
of 9% promotion quota shall continue till such time
the
availability
of
Registrar
Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar
Kanungo/Land
Record
Clerk
is
fully
exhausted and thereafter, the 50% quota for
promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar shall be filled
by promotion through commission from amongst
substantially appointed Revenue Inspectors who have
completed two years service as such on the first day
of the year of recruitment. (Para 14)

Conclusion can be drawn from the amended
provisions of the Naib Tehsildar Rules, 2003 that it
protects the interest of the originally substantially
appointed Registrars Kanungo/Assistant Registrars
Kanungo/Land Record clerk who have now been
designated as Revenue Inspector and are now
governed by the new set of Rules i.e. the Revenue
Inspector Service Rules, 2014 as superseded by the
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Rajasva Nirikshak) Rules 2017 notified by Notification
dated 17.10.2017. (Para 15)

The impugned Rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules 2003
as amended by the 2nd amendment Rules 2014
is neither discriminatory nor it violates any of
the fundamental rights of the petitioners and
instead it protects the promotion opportunity
of the petitioners who were originally and
substantially
appointed
as
Assistant
Registrar/Registrar
Kanungo/Land
Record
clerks. The promotion quota of 9% as was originally
provided for them for the promotion to the post of
Naib Tehsildar, has been still retained by the
impugned Rule 5(2)(b) of the Service Rules 2003 as
amended by the 2nd amendment by the Rules 2014.
(Para 16)

B. Both the well settled principles for challenging
the constitutional validity of a statutory provisions,
namely, lack of legislative competence and
infringement of any of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India; are
totally absent in the present set of facts. Neither
there is any allegation in the writ petition nor it has been
argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
impugned Rules are beyond Rule making power or
legislative competence of the State. (Para 17)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges validity of Rule 5(2)(b)
of The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue
Executive (Naib Tehsildar) Service Rules, 2003 as
amended by the Second Amendment Rules, 2014.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
& Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Sri Harish Kumar Srivastava,
learned standing counsel for the State - respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for
the following reliefs :

"I. Issue a writ order or direction of
appropriate nature declaring ultra-vires to the Rule
5 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Executive (Naib
Tehsildar) Service Rules, 2003 as amended by Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Executive (Naib Tehsildar)
Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2014 and by
this amendment inside quota was prescribed as
Rule 5(2)ka prescribed that out of 50% appointment
by promotion, 41% promotion were to be made
from the cadre of Revenue Inspector and 9% were
to be promoted from Revenue Inspector who
initially joined as Registrar Kanungo/ Assistant
Registrar
Kanungo/Land
Revenue
Clerk
as
arbitrary, illegal and ultra-vires to Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the Respondents
to promote the petitioners on the post of Naib
Tehsildar in pursuance of the Rule 16 of the
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate revenue Executives
(Naib Tehsildar) Service Rules, 2003 on the
basis of seniority list prepared after merger of
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all the cadre of Registrar Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar Kanungo/Land Revenue Clerk in the
cadre of Revenue Inspector.
(Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition).

IlI. Issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding respondent
no. 2 not to promote/appoint Naib Tehsildar
contrary to the seniority list as Annexure No. 9
to the writ petition and not to promote juniors to
petitioners ignoring seniority of petitioners.

IV. Issue any other writ order or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the
present case."

Facts

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are
that according to the petitioners they were initially
appointed as Lekhpals and subsequently promoted
to the post of Assistant Registrar Kanungo.
Thereafter by Government Order No.900/,d-92012-jktLo-9, dated 18.04.2012, the post of
Assistant Registrar Kanungo/Registrar Kanungo
and Land Record Clerk were amalgamated in the
equal pay scale of the post of Revenue Inspector.
The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive
(Naib Tehsildar) Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as "Naib Tehsildar Rules 2003") was
enacted which came into effect from 16.08.2003.
As per Rule 5 (1) of the Naib Tehsildar Rules,
2003, 50% post of Naib Tehsildar were to be filled
by direct recruitment through commission. As per
Rule 5(2)(a) 41% post of Naib Tehsildar were to
be filed through promotion from amongst
substantially appointed Revenue Inspectors who
have completed two years of service. As per Rule
5(1) (kha) of the Naib Tehsildar Rules 2003, 9%
post of Naib Tehsildars were to be filled through
commission by promotion from amongst the
Registrar Kanungo who have completed 5 years of
service. The Naib Tehsildar Rules, 2003 was
amended by the 2nd amendment Rule 2014
notified by notification No.328/1-0-2014-3-3(1)-
67 PC dated 17.02.2014. By the aforesaid
amendment Rule 5(2)(b) of the Naib Tehsildar
Rules, 2003 was amended providing that 9%
promotion through commission shall be made to
the post of Naib Tehsildar from amongst such
substantially
appointed
Rajasva
Nirikshak
(Revenue Inspector) whose original substantive
post were Registrar Kanungo/Assistant Registrar
Kanungo/Land Record Clerk and who have
completed two years of service as Registrar
Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar
Kanungo/Land
Record Clerk/Rajasva Nirikshak on the first day of
the year of the recruitment. The aforesaid 9%
promotion quota is to continue till such time the
availability
of
Registrar
Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar Kanungo/Land Record Clerk is fully
exhausted and thereafter 50% quota for promotion
to the post of Naib Tehsildar shall be filled by
promotion through the commission from amongst
substantially
appointed
Rajasva
Nirikshak
(Revenue Nirikshak) who have completed two
years service as such on the first day of the year of
recruitment. Simultaneously, the provisions of the
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive
(Rajasva Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2014 were also
enacted and notified by Notification No.327/1-92014-RA-9-4892-2011, dated 17.02.2014.

4. The aforesaid Rules 2014 amended the
provisions
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue Executive (Revenue Inspector) Service
Rules 2011 and the Uttar Pradesh Assistant
Revenue Clerk (Registrar Kanungo Service
Rules 1958.

5. The aforesaid Revenue Inspector
Service Rules, 2014 were superseded by the
Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive
(Rajaswa Nirikshak) Service Rules 2017,
notified by Notification No.1783/1-9-20173(S)/2017, dated 17.10.2017.

6. Aggrieved with the 2nd amendment
Rules, 2014 amending Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Executive
(Naib
Tehsildar)
Rules,
2003,
substituting new Rule 5(2)(b), the petitioners
11 All. Ganga Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1019
have filed the present writ petition challenging
the constitutional validity of the aforesaid Rule
5(2)(b) of the Naib Tehsildar Rules, 2003 as
amended by the 2nd amendment Rules 2014.

Submissions

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
referred to paragraph Nos.3, 7, 15, 16, 19 and
30 of the writ petition and reiterated the same as
his submissions. The aforesaid paragraphs of
the writ petition are reproduced below :-

3. That the petitioners were initially
appointed on the post of Lekhpal in the year
1981, 1994 and 1997 and later on, promoted to
the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar,
Kanungo/Revenue
Inspector.
Now
the
petitioners are working as such and are posted
and working in district Siddhartha Nagar.

The petitioners are filing a chart showing
their names in the seniority list, their date of
initial appointment, date of promotion and its
confirmation. Copy of chart showing the details
of the petitioners is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

7. That initially the Assistant Registrar
Kanungo and Registrar Kanungo was the
functionaries required to work in the office of
Teshil Headquarter, while the Land Record
Clerk was required to work at Collectorate in
District Headquarter.

15. That while promulgating the Naib
Tehsildar (Second Amendment) Service Rules,
2014, the authorities did not taken into
consideration the present position arises out of
merger of posts of RK/ARK/LCR in total
strength of Rajaswya Nirikshak in pursuance of
the Government order dated 17.4.2012 and
further the Naib Tehsildar (Second Amendment)
Service Rules, 2014 which too was enacted on
the same day i.e. 17.2.2014.

16. That as the Rajaswya Nirikshak
Service Rules, 2014 shown the total strength
of Rajaswya Nirikshak as 2473 including 1326
posts of Rajaswya Nirikshak as well as 1082
post
of Assistant
Registrar Kanungo /
Registrar Kanungo and 65 posts of Land
Record Clerks, therefore, the continuance of
the earlier position of 41% and 9% posts of
Naib Tehsildar for the purpose of promotion is
exfacie illegal as in Rajaswya Nirikshak
Service Rules, 2014 there is no post of
RK/ARK/LCR after their merger in the post of
Rajaswya Nirikshak.

19.That if the authorities concerned felt
any impediment in providing the 50% quota to
each i.e. to the erstwhile RK/ARK/LCR now
merged in the total cadre strength of
Rajaswya Nirikshak, they should have at least
provided for the proportionate promotional
avenue to the post of Naib Tehsildar should
have been provided taking into account the
number of posts of Rajaswya Nirikshak
including
erstwhile
posts
of
Rajaswya
Nirikshak (1326) and erstwhile posts of
RK/ARK/LCR (1147 posts) now merged in
Rajaswya Nirikshak.

30. That on 11.8.2021, a tentative list has
also been published by respondent no. 2 in
which the petitioners are at Serial No. 396,
397,399,498,499,500,501,502,508,
respectively and in case promotion is being
made as per provided under Rule 16 of the
Naib Tehsildar Service Rules, 2003, the
petitioners are also entitle for promotion on
the post of Naib Tehsildar, otherwise, in
pursuance Rule 5(2)ka of Naib Tehsildar
Service Rules, 2003, even much junior to the
petitioners directly appointed as Rajaswya
Nirikshak would be promoted on the post of
Naib Tehsildar. A copy of tentative list dated
11.8.2021 is being filed herewith and marked
as Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition.

8. Learned standing counsel supports the
amended Rules and submits that the Rules do
not suffer from any unconstitutionality and
therefore, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Discussion & Findings

9. We have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the parties
and perused the record of the writ petition and
with the consent of learned counsels for the
parties this writ petition is being finally heard
without calling for a counter affidavit.

10. It is admitted case of the petitioners
that they were originally appointed as Lekhpal
and subsequently promoted to the post of
Assistant Registrar Kanungo. Their services
were governed by the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Assistant Revenue Clerk (Registrar
Kanungo/Assistant Registrar Kanungo) Service
Rules, 1958. Subsequently, by the above
referred Government Order dated 18.04.2012,
the
post
of
Assistant
Registrar
Kanungo/Registrar Kanungo (1082 posts) and
Land
Record
Clerk
(65
posts)
were
amalgamated in the equal pay scale and
designated as Revenue Inspector.

11. In these situations, the Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Revenue
Executive
(Rajasva
Nirikshak) Service Rules, 2014 was enacted
with effect from 17.02.2014; in exercise of
powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India and in supersession
of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue
Executive (Revenue Inspector) Service Rules,
2011 and the Uttar Pradesh Assistant Revenue
Clerk (Registrar Kanoongo/Assistant Registrar
Kanoongo) Service Rules, 1958 as amended
from time to time, and any other Rules and
orders on the subject. Thus, the petitioners who
were originally appointed as Lekhpal and
subsequently promoted as Assistant Registrar
Kanungo, came to be governed by the provisions
of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue
Executive (Rajasva Nirikshak) Service Rules,
2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Revenue
Inspector Service Rules, 2014"). Rule 5 of the
Revenue Inspector Service Rules, 2014 provides
for recruitment to the post of Revenue Inspector
from
four
sources
(a)
25%
by
Direct
Recruitment through the Commission on the
basis of competitive examination (b) 55% by
promotion
through
the
commission
from
amongst substantially appointed Lekhpals who
have completed 5 years service as such on the
first day of the year of recruitment (c) 18% by
promotion
through
the
commission
from
amongst substantially appointed Collection
Amins who have completed five years service as
such on the first day of the year of recruitment
and (d) 2% by promotion through the
Commission
from
amongst
substantially
appointed Land Acquisition Amins who have
completed five years service as such on the first
day of the year of recruitment. The aforesaid
Revenue Inspector Service Rules, 2014 were
notified by Notification dated 17.02.2014.
Simultaneously, the Naib Tehsildar Service
Rules, 2003 were also amended by 2nd
Amendment Rules 2014, vide Notification
No.328/1-9-2014-Ra-3-3(1)-97-T.C.
dated
17.02.2014 Rule 5 by the aforesaid 2nd
Amendment Rule 5(2)(b) was substituted by a
new Rule 5(2)(b) which is reproduced below :

COLUMN I COLUMN II
Existing clause clause as substituted

(b) Nine percent by
promotion through the
commission
from
amongst substantively
appointed
Registrar
Kanungos who have
completed five year
service as such on the
first day of the year of
recruitment.
(b) Nine percent by
promotion through the
commission
from
amongst
such
substantively
appointed
Rajaswa
Nirikshaks
whose
original
substantive
posts were Registrar
kanungos/
Assistant
Registrar
kanungo/
Land record clerk and
who
have
have
completed two years
service as Registrar
kanungo/Assistant
Registrar
kanungo/Land record
clerk/Rajaswa
11 All. Ganga Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021
Nirikshak on the first
day of the year of
recruitment.
provided
that
if
sufficient number of
eligible or
suitable
Registrar
Kanungos
are not available for
promotion the post
may
be
filled
by
promotion under sub
clause(a).
provided
that
the
provisions referred to
in sub clause (a) and
(b)
above
shall
continue till such time
the
availability
of
Registrar
kanungo/Assistant
Registrar
Kanungo/Land
Record clerk is fully
exhausted
and,
thereafter,
the
fifty
percent
quota
for
promotion to the post
of Naib-tahsildar shall
be
filled
up
by
promotion through the
commission
from
amongst substantively
appointed
Rajaswa
Nirikshak who have
completed two years
service as such on the
first day of the year of
recruitment.

12. The aforequoted Rule 5(2)(b) of the
Naib Tehsildar Service Rules, 2003 as
amended by the Second Amendment Rules,
2014 dated 17.02.2014, is under challenge in
the present writ petition.

13. From bare reading of the aforesaid
Revenue Inspector Service Rules and Naib
Tehsildar Service Rules, it emerges that
originally as per Naib Tehsildar Rules 2003, 9%
promotion to the post Naib Tehsildar through the
Commission was to be made from amongst
substantially appointed Registrars Kanungos
who have completed 5 years service as such on
the first day of the year of recruitment provided
that if sufficient number of eligible or suitable
registrar
Kanungo
are
not
available
for
promotion, the post may be filled by promotion
under sub clause (a) i.e. from amongst
substantially appointed Revenue Inspectors.
Since the post of Registrar Kanungo, Assistant
Registrar Kanungo and Land Record Clerks
were merged and amalgamated in the equal pay
scale on the post of Revenue Inspector as per
recommendation of the pay Commission 2008
and the decision of the State Government dated
22.11.2011 as mentioned in the above referred
Government Order dated 18.04.2012, as such
there arose some confusion as to the post of
Registrar Kanungo etc. who were given the
designation of Revenue Inspector. Therefore, to
streamline the things and to preserve the benefit
of promotion for the aforesaid cadre of Registrar
Kanungo etc., a new clause (b) in sub-rule (2) of
Rule 5 of the Naib Tehsildar Service Rules,
2003 was substituted which has been reproduced
above and which is under challenge in the
present writ petition.

14. Perusal of the clause (b) of sub Rule 2
of Rule 5 of the Naib Tehsildar service Rules,
2003 shows that the same 9% promotion quota
has been reserved/retained by the amended
Rules for Revenue Inspectors whose originally
substantive
posts
were
Registrar
Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar
Kanungo/Land
Record Clerk. This provision of 9% promotion
quota shall continue till such time the
availability of Registrar Kanungo/Assistant
Registrar Kanungo/Land Record Clerk is fully
exhausted and thereafter, the 50% quota for
promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar shall be
filled by promotion through commission from
amongst
substantially
appointed
Revenue
Inspectors who have completed two years
service as such on the first day of the year of
recruitment.

15. An irresistible conclusion can be drawn
from the aforequoted amended provisions of the
Naib Tehsildar Rules, 2003 that it protects the
interest of the originally substantially appointed
Registrars
Kanungo/Assistant
Registrars
Kanungo/Land Record clerk who have now been
designated as Revenue Inspector and are now
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
governed by the new set of Rules i.e. the
Revenue Inspector Service Rules, 2014 as
superseded by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Revenue Executive (Rajasva Nirikshak) Rules
2017 notified by Notification dated 17.10.2017.

16. The impugned clause (b) of sub Rule 2 of
Rule 5 of the Rules 2003 as amended by the 2nd
amendment Rules 2014 is neither discriminatory
nor it violates any of the fundamental rights of the
petitioners and instead it protects the promotion
opportunity of the petitioners who were originally
and
substantially
appointed
as
Assistant
Registrar/Registrar Kanungo/Land Record clerks.
The promotion quota of 9% as was originally
provided for them for the promotion to the post of
Naib Tehsildar, has been still retained by the
impugned clause (b) of sub Rule 2 of Rule 5 of the
Service Rules 2003 as amended by the 2nd
amendment by the Rules 2014.

17. Neither there is any allegation in the
writ petition nor it has been argued by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the impugned
Rules are beyond Rule making power or
legislative competence of the State. Therefore,
both the well settled principles for challenging
the constitutional validity of a statutory
provisions,
namely,
lack
of
legislative
competence and infringement of any of the
fundamental
rights
guaranteed
under
the
Constitution of India; are totally absent in the
present set of facts.

18. It is well settled that there is always
presumption in favour of the constitutional
validity of a statutory provisions.

19. Considering the entire facts and
circumstance and the provisions of the Rule
5(2)(b) of Service Rules, 2003 under challenge
and the other relevant Rules, we do not find any
unconstitutionality in the impugned provisions.
The writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and,
therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

20. For all the reasons aforestated, the writ
petition is dismissed. The provisions of Rule
5(2)(b) of Service Rules, 2003 is held to be
valid.

21. After this judgment was dictated in
open court, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the consideration of the petitioners for
promotion are being held up by the State
Government on one pretext or the other.

22. Be as it may, we feel it appropriate to
observe that the State Government shall proceed
forthwith to consider for promotion of Revenue
Inspectors to the post of Naib Tehsildar, in
accordance with law, provided there is no legal
impediment.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1022
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 8789 of 2021

Vimal Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment -
Pension - U.P. Government Servant Dying-inHarness Rule, 1974 - Rules 4 & 5 - U.P.
Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group "C"
Posts (Outside the Purview of Uttar Pradesh
Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998 - Rule
5(4)(e) - Once the family member of the
deceased
employee
has
obtained
compassionate appointment, his right to be
considered, on a subsequent occasion upon