Advocates:
['PRABHA NAITHANI', '', 'AVIDIT NOLIYAL', 'C S C']

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.

2

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