2025:UHC:3145-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/531/2015 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. 1. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sheetal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Maithani, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Petitioner was serving as Scientific Officer in Sugar Cane Research Centre, Kashipur, which is under the administrative control of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. Petitioner claim for promotion was rejected vide order 02.12.2015 passed by Additional Chief Personal Officer. 4. The impugned order is on record as Annexure – 1 to the writ petition. The reason assigned for denying him promotion is that there was an adverse entry recorded against him during reporting year 2014-15. The date of adverse entry is also indicated, as 10.04.2015. 5. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had made a representation against adverse entry, which has not been decided so far; thus, he submits that adverse entry is liable to be overlooked. 6. Mr. Rajendra Dolbhal, learned 2025:UHC:3145-DB Senior Counsel for the University vehemently argued that since representation made by petitioner was after the expiry of limitation period, therefore, the adverse entry recorded against him attained finality and the Competent Authority was under no duty to decide the representation. 7. This Court finds substance in the said submission. State Government has framed the Uttaranchal Government Servants (Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 2002, which was notified on 13.08.2002. As per Rule 4(2) of the said Rules, representation against adverse entry has to be made within 45 days. Since the representation made by petitioner was after 45 days, therefore, the Competent Authority was under no duty to take decision on his representation. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.04.2025 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f 9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26 F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.04.30 10:21:27 -07'00' 2025:UHC:3145-DB