Gagan Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

(Via Video Conferencing)

A very peculiar circumstances and facts are under consideration in the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that after the grant of

‘NOC’ by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, he applied for the Sub-judiciary, to be appointed as ‘Administrative Officer’,

after the issuance of NOC on 16.04.2015. On completion of two years of his probation, the petitioner herein participated in the process of selection in

the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, by filing an application to the said effect on 03.03.2016, and as a consequence thereto, he was relieved

by respondent No. 2 herein, in order to enable him to join his service, the petitioner was ultimately relieved by Respondent No. 2 on 10.03.2016.

But, for the reasons best known, he submitted his resignation from UPCL on 04.06.2016, and it is his own case in para 9 of the writ petition, that the

said resignation was accepted by the respondent on 13.12.2016. But, after the acceptance of his representation, which was submitted by him on

04.06.2016, he prayed to respondent No. 2, to permit him to join the service of respondent No. 2, by filing a representation to the said effect on

09.06.2016 which remained pending and was not decided.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the petitioner was not decided and in the meantime, as a consequence of

the selection in the subordinate Courts, he joined the District Court, as an Administrative Officer, as respondent No. 2 did not permit him to join back

into the services in pursuance to his representation to Respondent No. 2, dated 09.06.2016, and because of acceptance of his resignation by

Respondent No. 2, on 13.12.2016.

Later on, he preferred a writ petition, agitating these controversies by way of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2391 of 2018, which was disposed of by the

coordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 17.05.2019, directing the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation.

The following directions were issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court, which is extracted hereunder:-

“Petitioner made request to the Competent Authority in Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education to permit him to join duties on the post of Data

Entry Operator. Since no decision has been taken on petitioner’s request, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made representation from time to time, therefore, Competent Authority in Uttarakhand

Board of Technical Education be directed to consider his representation and take appropriate decision.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioner is permitted

to make representation to the competent authority, which shall be decided by the competent authority within some specified time frame.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation to Competent Authority within two weeks from

today. If such representation is made, Competent Authority shall look into the matter and shall take appropriate decision by passing a speaking order,

in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.â€​

The representation thus preferred by the petitioner, was rejected by the respondents on 03.07.2019 in compliance of the judgment dated 17.05.2019.

Subsequent thereto, yet another Writ Petition is shown to have been preferred by the petitioner being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1982 of 2019, which

however, later on was dismissed as withdrawn by the coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgement dated 02.12.2020. Meaning thereby, as a

consequence of the withdrawal of the writ petition on 02.12.2020, the effect would be that the claim of the petitioner, which stood rejected by the

order dated 03.07.2019, deciding the representation of the petitioner in compliance of the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated

17.05.2019, stood affirmed.

May it be, for whatsoever reasons, the respondent No. 2, thereafter are shown to have agreed to revert the petitioner to their department by an

order dated 21.10.2020. The petitioner contended that he joined the service of Respondent No. 2, on 18.12.2020, and it is thereafter that the

respondent had published a seniority list on 04.03.2021, which yet again is not the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition or before any

other particular competent platform.

The grievance of the petitioner, in fact, what is reflected from the writ petition is as against the decision of the Departmental Promotional

Committee (DPC), which was held on 06.03.2021, for granting promotion to the next superior post, the unfortunate part is that holding of the DPC and

denial of a promotion to the petitioner by an order dated 08.03.2021, is yet again not the subject matter of challenge at the behest of the petitioner

before any competent Court. Rather, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, praying for a very peculiar relief, which now after his joining the

services with respondent No. 2, on 21.10.2020, the said issue raised in the present writ petition pertaining to the year 2016, becomes irrelevant, for the

reason being that after joining the services with Respondent No. 2, on 18.12.2020, rightly or wrongly, his seniority has been determined by the order

dated 04.03.2021, and that too thereafter his claim for promotion has been rejected by the DPC, by the decision dated 08.03.2021, which is not the

subject matter of challenge of the present writ petition.

In these eventualities, the nature of relief sought for pertaining to an incident and circumstances, under which the resignation of the petitioner was

accepted way back in 2016, cannot be made as a chapter to be permitted to be reopened now after the petitioner has joined his service back with

respondent No. 2 on 21.10.2020, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the principal grievance, agitated by the petitioner and if it is read in correlation to

relief No. 2, is pertaining to the decision which has been taken by the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC), on 06.03.2021, and looking to the

factual backdrop, particularly pertaining to the modalities of acceptance of resignation of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 13.12.2016, his joining

back into the services on account of the order, which was passed by respondent No. 2 later on, on 21.10.2020, on account of finalisation of seniority

list dated 04.03.2021, and holding of the DPC on 06.03.2021, since all these facts are not a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition and

rather, in fact, it entails a determination of dispute of seniority interse between the private respondents, who have already been promoted as a

consequence of the result of the DPC, which was conducted on 06.03.2021, and its result declared on 08.03.2021, the controversy will fall to be within

the ambit of its consideration by the Public Services Tribunal as the aspect of determination of seniority and promotion of the private respondents is an

issue.

Hence, while dismissing this writ petition, the petitioner is relegated back to approach before the Public Services Tribunal and to get his appropriate

seniority determine and also the consequential promotion, if any, he is entitled to, in accordance with law.

Subject to above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed.