2025:UHC:5349-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/418/2014 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. Krishna Kant Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 4. Mt. Sunil Chandra, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 5. This writ petition was filed in 2014 seeking the following reliefs:- “1. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of quo-warranto against the respondents No. 5 and 6 showing their authorities to be appointed as Office Superintendent-I pursuant to the order dated 27-04-2012 which has been passed by allowing benefit of promotion by way of reservation although no rule or law is in existence in the state of Uttarakhand on the date when the such promotion was given to them regarding reservation in promotion and to remove them from the aforesaid posts after calling the entire records from the respondents. 2. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to take appropriate action against the all erring persons who are involved in such type of illegal activities, which is in violation of the Hon'ble court orders and also to make it ensure that in State of Uttarakhand no 2025:UHC:5349-DB such promotion by way of reservation shall be given to any one unless or until the direction given by the Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court be complied with.” 6. According to the petitioners, respondent nos. 5 & 6 were promoted by giving benefit of reservation, although there was no provision for such reservation in promotion. Thus, petitioners have challenged the promotion granted to respondent nos. 5 & 6 to the post of Office Superintendent-I, vide order dated 27.04.2012. 7. Learned counsel appearing for UPCL/respondent no. 4 submits that respondent nos. 5 & 6 must have retired long back and petitioner no. 2 also completed age of superannuation in the year 2023. 8. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for UPCL. However, having regard to the relief claimed by petitioners, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to petitioners to approach the Managing Director, UPCL, by making representation. If they make representation within two weeks from today, Managing Director shall look into the grievance raised by petitioners and take decision, as per law, within six weeks thereafter. (Subhash Upadhyay, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 25.06.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df 006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.06.26 10:36:34 +05'30'