JUDGMENT
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.3.1999, passed by the respondent No. 2, reverting the petitioner from Group-C post to Group-D post.
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed in Group-D post in Sub-Treasury Maulekhal (SALT), district Almora on 18.12.1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. On 18.8.1998, the petitioner was promoted from Group-D to Group-C on the post of clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 3,050-4,590 under departmental promotion as per Government order dated 31.8.1982 and 21.8.1993. The petitioner served the department in both of his capacities first on Group-D post and thereafter on Group-C post to full satisfaction to his seniors. However, petitioner was suddenly reverted from Group-C post to Group-D post vide order dated 16.3.1999 passed by respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Almora. The said letter was based on letters dated 8.1.1999 issued by the Joint Director Treasury, Kumaun Division, Nainital (respondent No. 4) and another letter dated 8.2.1999 issued by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital. It is alleged that the impugned order and the letters on which it was based are not only wrong and arbitrary but also against the law.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the promotion order issued on 18.8.1998 by the District Magistrate was not correct and against the Rule. The promotion from Group-D to Group-C was only to the extent of 15% posts reserved for the departmental candidates. This mistake was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate through the letters dated 7.1.1999 issued by the Joint Director Treasury, Nainital and letter dated 8.2.1999 issued by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital. As such according to respondents, what has been achieved by the impugned order is the correction in the mistake committed by the department, as such neither the impugned order is wrong nor against the law.
4. This writ petition was filed in the year 1999 before the Allahabad High Court and received by way of transfer to this Court under Section 35 of the U. P. Re-organization Act, 2000 for disposal,
5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here, the relevant Rule regarding promotion from Group-D post to Group-C post. Rule 5 (a) of U. P. Treasury Ministerial Service Rules, 1938, reads as under :
“5. Source of recruitment.- Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the following sources :
(a) Routine Grade Clerk.- (i) By direct recruitment, (ii) By promotion to the extent of 10 per cent, from amongst Group ‘D’ employees in the Treasury of the concerned district(s).
(b) …. ”
I may mention here that the aforementioned 10 per cent posts refer to the percentage of posts reserved in Group-C for the promotion from Group-D to Group-C and that 10 per cent has to be carved out from the existing post of Group-C. Incidentally in the year 1995 the said quota has been increased to 15% and at present now it is 25%. What the respondents have done is this that by misinterpreting said Rule they have taken the stand that 10% of the employees of the Group-D can only be promoted. This is not the spirit of the Rule. The impugned order by which the petitioner has been reverted from Group-C post to Group-D post, reads as under:
vkns’k
  ^^la;qDr funs’kd] dks”kxkj]
dqeka;w e.My] gY}kuh ¼uSuhrky½ ds i= la[;k 1791@{ks-dk-@34&,@98&99 fn-
8-1-99 rFkk vk;qDr] dqeka;w e.My] uSuhrky ds i= la[;k 2111@{ks-dk-@34&,@98&99
fnukad 8-2-99 ds vuqikyu esa Jh dsoy jke vk;Z ,oa Jh /kke flag c?kjh dk inksUufr
vkns’k la- 522@dks-vf/k-@98&99
fnukad 18-8-98 ,rn}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mUgsa muds ewy in pijklh ij
izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS A**
ftykf/kdkjh]
vYeksM+k A
The letters mentioned in aforesaid impugned order are annexed with the counter-affidavit, which are Annexure- C.A.-1 and Annexure-C.A.-2 to said affidavit. Both these letters indicate that respondent No. 4 has mis- interpreted the rule by giving a new meaning to the quota whereby, he has expressed that beyond the 10 per cent (later 15%) of strength of employees in the Group-D cannot be promoted, and on that basis respondent No. 5 has issued the consequential letter. Ultimately, in compliance of said order the impugned order appears to have been passed by the District Magistrate. There is no scope of misinterpreting Rule 5 (a) and giving it a new meaning that the promotions cannot be made more than 10% (later 15%) of the existing posts of Group-D. The simple meaning of Rule 5 (a) as quoted above is that 10% (later increased to 15%) posts in Group-C are required to be filled from amongst Group-D employees in the Treasury of concerned District(s) and remaining 90% (later reduced to 85%) posts in Group-C are required to be filled by direct recruitment. As such, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the letters dated 7/8.1.1999 issued by the Joint Director Treasury, Nainital is misconceived and on its basis letter dated 8.2.1999 issued by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital and impugned order passed by the District Magistrate are wrong and against the law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.3.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Almora is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits in Group-C post.