[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Omkar Nath Kosta on 10 December, 2025
2025:UHC:10993-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 339 of 2025
10th December, 2025
State Of Uttarakhand and Another .........Petitioners
Versus
Omkar Nath Kosta ...........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the
State/petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra and Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, learned counsel for
respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
In the present writ petition, challenge has been
made to the judgment and order dated 21.03.2025
passed by the learned Uttarakhand Public Services
Tribunal, Nainital Bench, in Claim Petition No.
24/NB/DB/2024, Omkar Nath Kosta vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, as well as the order dated
04.04.2025 modifying the earlier judgment dated
21.03.2025.
2. The respondent was serving as Head of
Department (Electrical Engineering) in Government
Polytechnic, Uttarkashi (the "College") during the year
2003-2004. For the relevant year, the Principal of the
College, acting as the Reporting Officer, awarded the
2025:UHC:10993-DB
respondent a 'Bad' Grade of the annual confidential
remarks of 2003-2004 and had also not certified the
integrity of the respondent. The Reviewing Officer,
however, disapproved the assessment of the Reporting
Officer and recorded that the respondent discharged his
duties with sincerity and dedication, and he is fully
suitable for promotion on his turn. The Accepting Officer,
without assigning any independent grading either positive
or negative endorsed on 15.06.2004 that he agreed with
the Principal only for the period from 25.09.2003 to
31.03.2004.
3. The respondent thereafter submitted a
representation against the said adverse entry. As per the
Uttarakhand Government Servants (Disposal of
Representations against Annual Confidential Report and
Allied Matters) Rules, 2002 ("the 2002 Rules"), such
representation was required to be decided within 120
days. Since no decision was taken within the stipulated
period, the adverse entry stood nullified on that ground
alone. Subsequently, the State Government decided the
representation and observed that the examination results
of the students taught by the respondent for the year
2003-04 were very good, and therefore there was no
justification for awarding a 'Bad' Grade. The respondent
was thereafter denied ACP benefits on the ground of non-
2025:UHC:10993-DB
certification of integrity, which he challenged before the
Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's
contentions, holding that his integrity had never been
categorized as "doubtful". Rather, it was marked as "non-
certified" solely on the basis of the adverse remarks/Bad
entry. Once the said 'Bad' entry stood expunged by the
State Government, no further adverse inference can be
attributed to the said alleged entry for the year 2003-04.
Now, it is challenge by the State Government.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
integrity of the respondent was not certified for the
relevant period. He further submits that Ground "H" of
the writ petition clarifies that integrity is an overall and
substantive assessment, which cannot be ignored while
filing the Annual Confidential Report of an employee.
7. To this, learned counsel for the respondent
contends that the sole basis for non-certification of
integrity by the Principal/Reporting Officer was the 'Bad'
Grade awarded to the respondent and once the said 'Bad'
Grade has been expunged, nothing survives for
continuing the non-certification of integrity.
8. The sequence of events clearly reveals that the
2025:UHC:10993-DB
'Bad' Grade awarded by the Reporting Officer was
disagreed with by the Reviewing Officer. Although the
Accepting Officer accepted the adverse remarks for a
limited period, the State Government ultimately expunged
the adverse entry in its entirety. The Tribunal has
correctly observed that the integrity of the respondent
was never declared doubtful; it was merely left uncertified
due to the existence of the 'Bad' Grade. Once the adverse
entry stood expunged, there remained no justification to
sustain the non-certification of integrity. The Tribunal,
therefore, rightly upheld the respondent's claim.
9. Having considered the submissions and the
material on record, we are of the view that there is no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which may
warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition lacks
merit and is hereby dismissed.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.12.2025 10.12.2025
Mamta
