Hari Om Prakash Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 399 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Hari Om Prakash Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 May, 2025

                                                           2025:UHC:3873-DB


      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
                        AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
                   14thMAY, 2025
        WRIT PETITION (S/B)NO.131 OF 2025
Hari Om Prakash Singh             ......Petitioner
                        Versus
 State of Uttarakhand and others. .......Respondents

                          With
        WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 132 OF 2025
Vijay PrakashSrivastava            ......Petitioner
                         Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others.    .......Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner(s)   :    Mr.S.S. Yadav, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State           :    Mr.J.C.   Pande,    learned   Standing
                                     Counsel.



JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)

After making submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioners creates ruckus saying that this Court is not following

its own orders. The order at Annexure-13 has been passed in

entirely different circumstances where there was no issue of

eligibility arising. Though, the candidate was eligible, but the

State on account of its own lack of diligence, or for other

reasons, had not taken up the case of the petitioner therein for

consideration to the promotional post, despite the candidate

having been found fit for promotion. In those circumstances, a

concession was made by the State in view of the fact that the

petitioner therein was demitting office on 24.01.2025.

2. In the instant case, the petitioners in Writ Petition

(S/B) Nos.131 and 132 of 2025, had their cases considered by

the Screening Committee in 2018 and they were found ineligible

2025:UHC:3873-DB

and hence, promotion was not accorded to them. The said order

has not been challenged by the petitioners, but would come up

with the prayer seeking for granting promotion from

retrospective date, i.e. from 2015. The petitioners having not

challenged the decision of the Screening Committee of 2018,

the writ petitions are woefully misconceived.

3. This Court also records its displeasure with the

conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioners, who though is

a counsel of standing, has conducted himself in a manner

unbecoming of a counsel with standing.

4. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed with

costs of Rs.25,000/- each.Costs to be deposited into the

account of High Court Legal Services Committee within two

weeks.

5. Despite the passing of the order, learned counsel for

the petitioners continues with the ruckus.

________________

G. NARENDAR, C.J.

_____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.

Dt: 14thMay, 2025 NISHANT