Rakesh Singh Rawat And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: -

“(i) A writ, order direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation 03.03.2025 (Annexure-3 to this writ petition) preferred by the petitioners and further with the prayer to direct the respondent department to consider only those Junior Engineer of the respondent Department/ Public Works Department those who have completed their AMI E(India) Course Section "A" and Section "B"/ Degree Holder in Civil Engineering as per the Departmental Assistant Engineer Service Rules 2003, 2005 and 2014 for the post of Assistant Engineer as per AICTE Rules and Regulation and further complete the promotion exercise/ DPC for the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department to fill up the post of 2 Assistant Engineer for the Selection year 2024-25 within stipulated time period preferably with one month.

(ii) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award cost throughout to the petitioner.”

Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, submitted that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents’ department whereby despite of the petitioners being eligible and competent to be considered for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, the department is unnecessary delaying the process of the DPC. The petitioners have moved a representation dated 03.03.2025. The said representation is still pending.

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State, on instruction, submitted that the said representation dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) moved before the respondent no.2, has been transferred to the respondent no.1. He has sought eight weeks time to decide the said representation.

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, agrees with the said time limit.

With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1 to decide the said representation dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition), as per law, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.