IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 120 (S/B) of 2011 Banshi Lal Arya …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Mrs. Prabha Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no. 1. The petitioner is presently working as Incharge, District Social Welfare Officer at Champawat and belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. It is alleged by the petitioner that he has about 11 months of service left before he retires and that the respondent no. 2 is bent upon in not only harassing the petitioner but making it open that the petitioner would be charge sheeted and that the petitioner would not be allowed to retire gracefully from service. In this regard, the petitioner has contended that respondent no. 2, who is the Minister of Social Welfare, is harassing the petitioner since the year 1994. In paragraphs 14 and 34 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that respondent no. 2 in some meeting had humiliated the petitioner in front of other Officers by using caste indicated words, etc. The petitioner has further contended that the Minister has also written a letter to the Government to post a permanent District Social Welfare Officer at Champawat. On these allegations, the petitioner has approached to this writ court praying that a writ of 2 mandamus should be issued commanding respondent no. 2 not to take any illegal action against the petitioner and/or not to harass the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in paragraphs 14 and 34 of the writ petition cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction since such allegations are not supported by any cogent proof. If respondent no. 2 is using such words, which are caste indicated words and which humiliates the petitioner or brings him down before other Officers, it would be open to the petitioner to file a First Information Report against the Minister concerned under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This Court cannot interfere in such matters in a writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 06-06-2011 SP