Dr. D.C.S. Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Challenging an adverse entry in the A.C.R. of the Petitioner, he approached the Tribunal. Challenge, thus, thrown by him, is still pending adjudication before the Tribunal. Inasmuch as, an exercise to accord promotions has been initiated and, inasmuch as, in view of the said adverse entry, Petitioner''s case for promotion may not be considered, Petitioner approached the Tribunal and sought for interim protection. The Tribunal has not granted such interim protection, inasmuch as, the law by which the Tribunal has been created, prevents the Tribunal to pass any interim order. Accordingly, the Petitioner is before us.

In the event the case of promotion of the Petitioner is not considered only for the said adverse entry and if the Tribunal ultimately quashes that entry, the entry in question will be oblitered from the date of its entry and, accordingly, it would not be possible for the employer to contend that for the said adverse entry, Petitioner''s case for promotion could not be considered and, accordingly, if it transpires before the Tribunal that because of the said adverse entry, case of promotion of the Petitioner could not be considered, it would be open to the Tribunal to pass such order as it may deem including consideration of the case of promotion of the Petitioner by an appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee with a further direction that the promotion, if any, will take effect from the date of decision of the previous Departmental Promotion Committee. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no necessity of giving any protection as regards exercise of consideration for promotion.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted, in addition to that he has got a strong case of success before the Tribunal and, accordingly, operation of the entry in the A.C.R. should be stayed. For that purpose, we are required to express a prima facie view and also to take into account balance of convenience and inconvenience. For the reasons indicated above, balance of convenience and inconvenience will not be in support of an order of stay. Having read the letter dated 5th March, 2009 and its reply dated 6th March, 2009, we are also unable to express any prima facie view that the Petitioner has a very strong case of succeeding before the Tribunal. In those circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition.