IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 237 of 2009 (S/B) 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Technical Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Secretary, Personnel (Karmik) Government of Uttarakhand Secretariat, Dehradun. 3. Director, Technical Education Uttarakhand, Dehradun. …………Petitioners Versus 1. The Public Services Tribunal Uttarakhand Nainital Bench, Nainital through Registrar. 2. Kamal Kumar Srivastava, S/o Shri Mata Sharan, Presently posted as Lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) Govt. Polytechnic Staff Colony, Mallital Nainital Uttarakhand. ……….Respondents 3. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, S/o Rajendra Prasad Verma, presently posted as Head, Mechanical Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Narendra Kumar, presently posted as Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic, Dehradun. 5. Gajendra Kumar, presently posted as Head of Department Mechanical Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic, Nainital. ………3 to 5 Proforma Respondents Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. 2 Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.03.2009, passed by Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Claim Petition No. 31/N.B./2006, whereby the petition of respondent No.2-Kamal Kumar Srivastava has been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-Kamal Kumar Srivastava, respondent No.3- Sarvesh Kumar Verma, respondent No.4-Narendra Kumar and respondent No.5-Gajendra Kumar were Lecturers in Mechanical Engineering in the Government Polytechnic Colleges. Respondent No.2 was senior to the rest of the three respondents (No.3 to 5). The grievance of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal was that he was wrongly deprived of his promotion by the departmental promotion committee and petitioners, as juniors to him were preferred for promotion. The services of respondents No. 2 to 5 were governed by U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officer Service Rules, 1990 and Uttarakhand Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2004. Under both the Rules, the promotion was required to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection 3 of unfit. The record was examined by the Tribunal and it was found that there was neither any departmental inquiry pending against the respondent No.2 nor was there any adverse entry on his record. The Tribunal after hearing the parties found that the claim of the respondent No.2 was correct for he was wrongly superseded in promotion. We have also gone through the annexures filed with the writ petition showing the comparative chart of the grading of the respondent No.2, who was superseded, and other respondents, who were promoted. We do not find any error of law or that of fact committed by the Tribunal in allowing the claim petition of respondent No.2. 4. Therefore, this writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 9346 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Alok Singh, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 30.10.2009 NS