High CourtsSingle Bench

Devi Dutt Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 9 September 2024 · Citation: (2024) 09 UK CK 0057

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1671 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 458 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to respondent No.2 to open the sealed envelope containing the decision of the Select Committee regarding promotion of the petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2016, petitioner was posted in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Nainital as Chief Assistant. A promotional exercise was commenced for the post of Administrative Officer in the year 2018. Petitioner participated in the said promotional exercise, but, the result of the petitioner regarding promotion was kept in a sealed cover for the reason that the petitioner was facing a departmental inquiry at that time.

3.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental inquiry of the petitioner was initiated against him on 05.11.2016, which was resulted into issuance of a warning to him on 24.04.2023. According to the petitioner, the said warning is not a punishment as per the provisions of Uttarakhand Government Servants (Appeal & Discipline) Rules, 2003. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents for the reason that the sealed envelope of the petitioner for his promotion is not being opened by the respondents despite conclusion of the inquiry, petitioner is before this Court.

4.

Vide order dated 03.09.2024, instruction was called from the respondent-State. Today, learned State Counsel passed on to this Court written instruction dated 06.09.2024, which is taken on record.

5.

According to the instruction, learned State Counsel submits that respondent-department has again constituted three members Committee for opening sealed envelope of the petitioner. This appears to be fallacious for the reason that the promotional exercise has already been concluded by the respondents and the result of the petitioner regarding promotion has been kept in a sealed envelope. This much is only to be done that the sealed envelope is to be opened.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure No.15 to the writ petition, a Government Order dated 13.05.2003, whereby, it has been provided that the sealed envelope in such cases shall be opened by the Appointing Authority.

7.

In the opinion of this Court no Committee is required to be constituted to open the sealed envelope.

8.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Appointing Authority of the petitioner to open the sealed envelope of the petitioner’s promotion from the post of Chief Assistant to Administrative Officer, within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If petitioner is promoted, he shall be immediately given promotion from his due date, as per law.