Uttarakhand High Court
Tevendra Prasad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1018 of 2021
Tevendra Prasad ...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ..... Respondents
Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents to expunge the
adverse remark made in ACR of petitioner and the
petitioner may be given promotion on the post of
Administrative Officer from the date when his juniors
have been given promotion on the said post.
II. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
III. Award cost of the petition."
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annual Confidential
Remarks given to him. The petitioner is working as a Head Assistant in
Government Inter College, Kotabagh, District Naintal (for short, "the
college"). He was given adverse remarks for the period between
30.08.2018 and 31.03.2019. Petitioner represented against it and
thereafter, the Principal of the college conveyed on 13.12.2019 to the
superior officers for expunging the remarks given earlier to the
petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that still the adverse remarks
have not been expunged, therefore, petitioner seeks that the adverse
remarks awarded to him be expunged and he be considered for
promotion to the post of Administrative Officer.
5. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the
learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why should this Court entertain
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view
of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public
Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a
direction be issued to the respondents to consider the representation
dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure no.13 to the writ petition), submitted by
the petitioner.
7. On behalf of the State, a statement is given that the
representation dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure No.13 to the writ petition)
will be decided by the respondents within a period of two months from
today.
8. The Court takes on record the statement given by the
learned State counsel.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the
respondents, to decide the representation dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure
No.13 to the writ petition) within a period of two months from today.
But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of
the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be
entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the
instant writ petition.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
11.08.2021
Sanjay
