Govind Singh Koundal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in Public Works Department in the year 2004. He was subsequently, promoted as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 31.01.2020, on the recommendation of Public Service Commission.

By means of this Writ Petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to grant notional promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 09.12.2011 i.e., the date of recommendation for promotion by Public Service Commission, as has been granted to his contemporary Mr. Neeraj Kumar Agarwal, pursuant to the orders this Hon'ble High Court dated 03.11.2020 in WPSS No. 1544 of 2013 [Neeraj Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.)."

The basis of the relief sought by the petitioner is a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 1544 of 2013. Operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

"14. In the light of this development, there is no doubt that, in fact, the earlier recommendation of the PSC dated 18.11.2010 had lost its significance with regard to the candidates falling under 8.33% quota. The Court does not intend to proceed in this controversy any further because Rakesh Prakash Naithani is not before the Court and his case is not pending scrutiny.

The name of the petitioner was recommended by the PSC for his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) on 09.12.2011. It was cancelled by the PSC on 19.03.2013, because in the writ petition, 8.33% quota reserved for graduate Engineers was quashed. But, now situation has changed. The decision of this Court dated 20.07.2012 passed in the writ petition has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefits, based on the recommendation dated 09.12.2012. It is informed that the petitioner has now been promoted. In view of it, the petitioner is entitled to notional promotion from the date of the recommendation dated 09.12.2011. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is similarly situate, as Mr. Neeraj Kumar Agarwal, who was petitioner in WPSS No. 1544 of 2013. Thus, according to him, he is also entitled to similar benefit, as was granted to Mr. Neeraj Kumar Agarwal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made a representation to the Competent Authority on 11.03.2021 (Annexure No.-8 to the Writ Petition).

Having regard to the relief claimed in the writ petition, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if Competent Authority is directed to consider petitioner's representation.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Uttarakhand to consider and decide petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2021 (Annexure No.-8 to the writ petition), in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with copy of representation.