High CourtsSingle Bench

Prakash Chandra Devrari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 8 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 UK CK 0404

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Service Single No. 1475 Of 2026
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

12 paragraphs · 363 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to grant seniority to the petitioner from the date when persons lower in merit than him were granted appointment on 18.06.1999.

2.

Facts of the case curled out from the writ petition are that respondent no.3-Additional Director, Secondary Education, Pauri-Garhwal, put an advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Biology).

3.

The petitioner obtained 78.26 quality points on the basis of his testimonials.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of quality points the petitioner found place in the merit list; however, due to some discrepancy with regard to the subject combination in the B.Sc IInd year, appointment of the petitioner was delayed and he was offered appointment on 10.07.1999.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the person below in merit to the petitioner got appointment on 18.06.1999.

6.

According to him, this delay in his appointment was attributable to the respondent-Department which unnecessarily raised objection to the qualification of the petitioner.

7.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner wants the respondent to be directed to give him seniority w.e.f., 18.06.1999 when persons below in merit to the petitioner were given appointment.

8.

The petitioner has submitted several representations to the respondent-Department for the said relief, but all the representations submitted by the petitioner after 2025 were left undecided. The petitioner has submitted his latest representation to respondent no.3 on 24.10.2025 which is annexed as annexure no.5 to the writ petition.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction is issued to respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time then ends of justice would be met.

10.

To the said relief there is no objection from the side of the State counsel.

11.

Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of. Respondent no.3-Additional Director, Secondary Education, Pauri-Garhwal, is directed to decide the representation dated 24.10.2025, annexure no.5 to the writ petition, within a period of eight weeks' from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly, in accordance with law, by a speaking and reasoned order.