2025:UHC:5055 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 134 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, appears through V.C. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 3. By the instant petition, the petitioner is praying for the following relief:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned suspension order number 636/suspension/2013-14 dated 05.12.2013-14 & impugned termination order No.548/2014-15 dated 21.12.2014 passed by Additional Director (Secondary) Education Garhwal Mandal Pauri (containing annexure No.6) to the writ petition. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction to stay the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order number 636/suspension/2013-14 dated 05.12.2013-14 & impugned termination order No.548/2014-15 dated 31.12.2014 passed by Additional Director (Secondary) Education Garhwal Mandal Pauri (containing annexure no.6) to the writ petition. (c) Issue any writ, order or direction to the respondent to decide the representation dated 09.02.2016 (containing annexure No.8) to the writ petition. (d) Issue any writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (d) To pay the heavy cost of the petition to the petitioner. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (English) in Government Inter 2025:UHC:5055 College and after completion of probation period, he was confirmed. 5. From 08.10.2012 to 11.10.2012, the petitioner was deputed on election duty in District Tehri-Garhwal as a Presiding Officer and was relieved from election duty on 11.10.2012, and, thereafter, he became ill and could not resume his duty and the Principal of the Institution sent a letter to the Additional Director on 20.03.2013, whereby, he has intimated that the petitioner is absent from his duties since 01.10.2012 and notices were sent by registered posts to the petitioner, but he has not turned up and even no leave application was submitted by the petitioner. 6. On 27.01.2014, the petitioner submited a representation giving justification and requests that he may be granted leave from 12.10.2012 to 12.10.2014 without pay. Thereafter, order dated 31.12.2014, the service of the petitioner was terminated. 7. Being aggrieved with the same, now the instant writ petition has been preferred. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before terminating the petitioner, the service of the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 05.12.2013, but the same was not served and in the meantime, without concluding a disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was terminated from his service. After termination, the petitioner submitted various representations for revoking the order of suspension and termination, but no decision has been taken thereon. 9. On perusal of the relief(s) as sought, it appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.12.2013, and, thereafter, by order dated 31.12.2014, the petitioner was terminated from his service and now both the orders are being challenged by way of instant writ petition, which was presented before the Registrar Judicial since the Registry pointed out certain defects. Consequently, the Registrar Judicial directed that the defect be removed on or before 08.05.2025. Despite this, the 2025:UHC:5055 defect was not removed. Further opportunity was given to remove the defect and subsequently, on 11.06.2025, the defect was removed. 10. It appears from the relief(s) as sought therein, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.12.2014 in the year 2025 that almost after 11 years, which is highly at belated stage, and now as it appears from the relief clause particularly by relief (c), the petitioner is seeking relief that the respondent be directed to decide the representation dated 09.02.2016, even on perusal of the relief (c), it appears that the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus for deciding the representation, which was submitted on 09.02.2016, which also reveals that in respect of relief (c), the petition is highly belated, therefore, this Court is of the view that since the petition has been filed at a very belated stage and as such, the same is dismissed on the ground of latches. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.06.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:5055