Uttarakhand High Court
Amar Nath Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 September, 2016
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: K.M. Joseph, V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (SB) No. 101 OF 2016
Amar Nath Singh Bisht ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ......Respondents.
Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Dated: 02.09.2016
Coram: Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Prayers sought in this writ petition are as follows:
"i) Declare petitioner's non recommendation for promotion against anticipated vacancy on the post of Chief Engineer Level II based on uncommunicated ACR entries in respect of reporting years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, as arbitrary and illegal.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and for quashing the recommendation made by the D.P.C. for promoting respondent no. 3 and 4 in its meeting dated 05-1-2016 and also for quashing the consequent promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Level II given to respondent no. 3 and 4.
iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to ignore the uncommunicated ACR entries recorded in petitioner's ACR during reporting years 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2012-13.
iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to ignore the uncommunicated ACR entries and reconsider petitioner's claim for promotion as Chief Engineer Level
- II by holding review DPC.
v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer Level - II from 2 due date, i.e. the date of promotion of his juniors, with all consequential benefits."
2. We heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Sri H.M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 and 2.
3. Very briefly put, the complaint of the petitioner relates to his not being recommended for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Level-II. The issue raised is, essentially, covered in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 95 of 2016 Jeewan Chandra Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand. In other words, this is a case, where certain entries in ACR were not communicated to the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 represented by Sri Vinay Kumar stands promoted pursuant to the recommendation of DPC. Respondent No. 3 is junior to the petitioner; equally is the 4th respondent junior to the petitioner. Though served (affidavit of service is filed), the 4th respondent does not appear.
4. In such circumstances, we follow the judgment passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 95 of 2016 Jeewan Chandra Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand, about the applicability of which, no dispute has been raised by the respondents.
5. The writ petition is allowed. We direct the first respondent to constitute a review DPC and the review DPC will consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Level II and as far as uncommunicated remarks are concerned, a decision will be taken in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in 2013 (9) SCC 566 and Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal vs. Chairman, UPSC and others reported in 2015(6) Supreme 692 in accordance with law and the orders of promotion of respondent nos. 3 & 4 will be subject to the decision of the review 3 DPC. The review DPC shall be held and be culminated within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
02.09.2016 02.09.2016
Rathour