IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 8 of 2010 (S/S) Jaibeer Ram S/o Late Bhola Ram ..……… Petitioner. Versus District Magistrate and another ……… Respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri S.K. Posti, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. The petitioner is working as a Registrar Kanoongo and by an order dated 28th November, 2001 was promoted as a Naib Tehsildar on an adhoc basis for a period of 89 days. However, the District Magistrate on a complaint made by one person, issued an order dated 1st December, 2001 directing that its earlier order dated 28th November, 2001 would be kept in abeyance till the completion of the inquiry. It is alleged that the complaint made certain allegations against the petitioner with regard to his promotion on an adhoc basis. The matter remained at that stage and the petitioner was not given the benefit of the adhoc promotion. The petitioner, after a long lapse of nine years, woke up and filed the present writ petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to take a decision in pursuance to the order dated 1st December, 2001 and that the respondents be further directed to enforce the order dated 28th November, 2001. In short, the petitioner contended that the order of promotion should be given effect which was only for a period of 89 days. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and, upon a perusal of the Government Order dated 20th April, 1993, 2 the Court finds from a perusal of paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit that pursuant to some representation made by the petitioner, the Commissioner had passed the order dated 1st September, 2005 rejecting his representation on the ground that no post of Naib Tehsildar was available and therefore, the petitioner cannot be promoted. In view of this averment, which has been denied by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus since the decision has already been taken by the respondents. The writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 06.05.2010 Shiv