WPSB/174/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 754 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT AINITAL


THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA

                                    AND

            JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE


                Writ Petition (S/B) NO.174 OF 2021

                             14th MARCH, 2022


Between:

Girish Chandra Joshi                                      ...... Petitioner.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                          ...... Respondents.


Counsel for the petitioner               : Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State                    : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Add.
                                           Standing Counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent No.2          : Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned
                                           Counsel.



Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following


JUDGMENT:       (per the Acting Chief Justice Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)


             Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.           This writ petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
             (i)    Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
                    of certiorari, quashing the impugned order
                    dated 05.01.2015 passed by respondent no.3
                    (Annexure No.-6 to this writ petition) as far
                    as it relates to the respondent nos.3 to 8.
             (ii)   Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
                    of    mandamus,          commanding/directing           the
                    respondent no.2 to promote the petitioner to
                    the      post   of    Executive      Engineer      without
                    passing     the      professional     examination,          as
                   respondent no.2 has failed to conduct the
                  professional examination since the year 2014,
                  as juniors to the petitioner have already been
                  promoted.


3.          In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the
prayer no.1. Hence, the prayer no.1 is considered as not
pressed.

4.          So    far   as        consideration       of   the        petitioner's
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer is concerned,
learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he has
not passed professional examination, which was conducted in
the year 2015. However, as per the rules, such examination
should be conducted twice a year.

5.          The prayer of the petitioner to promote him
without passing professional examination, which has been
allegedly done in cases of the private respondents cannot be
allowed as there in no equality in illegality.

6.          Therefore, we dispose of the instant writ-petition
directing   the   respondent         nos.1      and   2    to    conduct      the
professional examination within a period of two months
allowing the writ-petitioner to sit in the examination and after
one month the result should be declared. If the petitioner
becomes     successful       in    the       examination,       his    case    for
promotion shall be considered by the respondents within a
period of 15 days thereafter.



                             _______________________
                             SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J.


                                                  ______________

                                   RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.

Dated: 14th MARCH, 2022 BS/SS