IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 439 of 2008 (S/S) Manpal Sharma S/o Late Sri Sukhbir Singh Sub Inspector (Ministerial) Working as Accountant in the Police Headquarters Uttarakhand Dehradun. ….…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary (Home) Government of Uttarakhand Civil Secretariat, Subhash Road Dehradun. 2. Director General of Police Uttarakhand, Subhash Road Dehradun. 3. Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Office of Director General of Police, Uttarakhand Subhash Road, Dehradun. .……….Respondents. Shri H.C. Bisht, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah and Shri Paresh Tripathi, Advocates for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the year 2005 along with consequential monitory benefits. A further mandamus has also been sought 2 directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for the post of Inspector (Ministerial)/Office Superintendent for the departmental promotion, and the decision be taken to promote the petitioner in the light of the Government Order dated 30.06.1993. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner’s service record contains adverse entries against him. It is stated that the integrity of the petitioner was withheld in the year 1999 and also in the year 2001. It is stated that in terms of G.O. No. 761/Karmik -1/1993, dated 30.06.1993, the petitioner’s service record was not satisfactory, and earlier he was not found fit for promotion. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 2008, the petitioner has now already been promoted as Inspector (Ministerial). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that final allocation of the employees was made by Government of India, vide its order No. 27/30/2004-S.R. (S), dated 09.11.2004, and there were many employees who were to be relieved by the respective States. It is also stated that two employees- Sub- Inspector (M) Narendra Singh and Sub Inspector 3 (M) Shiv Prasad Nautiyal, were already serving in State of Uttarakhand and only after their superannuation, the case of the petitioner for promotion could be considered. 4. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the above averments, made in the counter affidavit, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to grant relief, claimed by the petitioner, that he be promoted w.e.f. 2005. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:20.11.2009 Sweta 4 5 6 7 8 9