2025:UHC:7778 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1401/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School in the year 2007 and she is serving as such ever since then. The next promotional post available to the petitioner is that of Assistant Teacher, Government Junior High School. Promotion exercise was initiated by the Competent Authority for supplying available vacancies on the promotional post and all teachers, who were eligible for promotion were required to furnish relevant information in the prescribed performa. One of the information sought by the Competent Authority was whether Department has filed any court case against the Teacher or whether the teacher has filed any case against the Department. 4. Petitioner furnished the desired information in the prescribed performa, which is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 5. Perusal of the said document reveals that petitioner stated that no case filed by Department against her is pending in any court and she further stated that any case filed by her is also not pending before any court of law. 6. Based on the information supplied by 2025:UHC:7778 the petitioner, she was offered promotion as Assistant Teacher, Junior High School on temporary basis, vide order dated 19.08.2025. The order of promotion passed in favour of petitioner was, however, suspended by District Education Officer (Elementary), the same day and petitioner was asked to show cause, within one week, as to why appropriate action be not taken against her for suppression of relevant information. The subsequent order passed on 19.08.2025, whereby offer of promotion was suspended, has been challenged in this writ petition. 7. In the impugned order, it is alleged that petitioner has furnished incorrect information on the following aspects:- (i) pendency of court cases, filed by petitioner, against the Department. (ii) information regarding adverse entry recorded against her. 8. Learned State Counsel submits that an adverse entry was recorded against the petitioner by District Education Officer during reporting year 2019-20, which fact was suppressed by her in the disclosure statement. He further submits that two writ petitions filed by petitioner, namely, WPSS No. 515 of 2020 and WPSS No. 208 of 2021, are pending consideration before this Court, yet she informed the Department that no case filed by her against the Department is pending. He further submits that when information on certain aspects is required from teachers, who were eligible for promotion, then it was incumbent upon them to supply correct information. He further submits that the Competent Authority, by treating the information given by petitioner to be correct, offered promotion to her, but when the information given by her was 2025:UHC:7778 found to be false, the offer of promotion made to her was suspended and show cause notice was issued to her. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of promotion, service record of last five years alone is to be seen, therefore, adverse entry recorded during reporting year 2019-20 is not relevant for promotion made in 2025. He further submits that District Education Officer has filed counter affidavits in the writ petitions, filed by petitioner, which are still pending before this Court, therefore, there was no need to seek information regarding pendency of cases filed by petitioner. 10. Learned State Counsel submits that there are thousands of teachers serving in Government Primary Schools / Government Junior High Schools in District Haridwar and going through the service record of each teacher for ascertaining as to whether any adverse entry was given to him/her or whether any writ petition filed by a teacher is still pending consideration before any court of law would take considerable time and effort, therefore, to expedite the process, information was sought from the teachers and every teacher had to make declaration on oath that whatever information is being supplied is correct. He submits that when the employer requires a Government Servant to furnish information on any aspect, then the Government Servant is duty bound to supply correct information and he cannot give false or misleading reply to the query made by the employer. He submits that although two writ petitions filed by petitioner are still pending before this Court, however, petitioner denied pendency of any case filed by her against the Department. 2025:UHC:7778 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the performa, in which information was sought by the Department, in the fourth paragraph, petitioner had scored off the expression “ugha”, which corresponds to ‘no’, therefore, the reply given by petitioner to Question No. 4 would mean that no case has been filed by her against the Department. 12. Learned State Counsel however, disputes the said contention and submits that Question No. 4 is in two parts, the first part is regarding the court case, if any, filed by the Department against a teacher and the second part is regarding the court case filed by the teacher against the Department. He submits that by scoring off “ugha” in the fourth paragraph, petitioner indicated that no case filed by Department against her is pending, however, by the latter half of fourth paragraph, she was required to make a declaration that no case filed by her against the Department is pending before any court, but she conveniently omitted to give any reply to the latter half, thereby creating an impression that she had not filed any court case. He thus, submits that petitioner deliberately suppressed material information for getting promotion and the Competent Authority was justified in issuing a show cause notice to her and also in suspending offer of promotion given to her. 13. Learned State Counsel further submits that whether the adverse entry recorded against petitioner during reporting year 2019-20 is to be considered at the time of promotion or not, is an aspect which would be governed by the applicable Rules or Government Orders, however, when petitioner was asked to disclose as to whether any adverse entry 2025:UHC:7778 was recorded against her, then it was incumbent upon the petitioner to mention about the adverse entry recorded during reporting year 2019-20. Thus, he submits that since petitioner has made incorrect statement on oath on the aforesaid two aspects, therefore, the Competent Authority was justified in suspending the order of promotion passed in her favour. 14. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. As State employee, petitioner is bound by the provisions contained in Uttarakhand Government Servants (Conduct) Rules. The Competent Authority believing the declaration made by petitioner to be true offered promotion to her. After realising that the disclosure made by petitioner in the prescribed performa was incorrect on aforesaid two aspects, the Competent Authority was well within his right to suspend the offer of promotion. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, whereby offer of promotion was suspended, cannot be termed as illegal. 15. Thus, any interference in the matter would not be warranted. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 02.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477 005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C 2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531 726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.03 05:36:40 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7778