2025:UHC:3873-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 14thMAY, 2025 WRIT PETITION (S/B)NO.131 OF 2025 Hari Om Prakash Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents With WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 132 OF 2025 Vijay PrakashSrivastava …...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.S. Yadav, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr.J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.) After making submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners creates ruckus saying that this Court is not following its own orders. The order at Annexure-13 has been passed in entirely different circumstances where there was no issue of eligibility arising. Though, the candidate was eligible, but the State on account of its own lack of diligence, or for other reasons, had not taken up the case of the petitioner therein for consideration to the promotional post, despite the candidate having been found fit for promotion. In those circumstances, a concession was made by the State in view of the fact that the petitioner therein was demitting office on 24.01.2025. 2. In the instant case, the petitioners in Writ Petition (S/B) Nos.131 and 132 of 2025, had their cases considered by the Screening Committee in 2018 and they were found ineligible 1 2025:UHC:3873-DB and hence, promotion was not accorded to them. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners, but would come up with the prayer seeking for granting promotion from retrospective date, i.e. from 2015. The petitioners having not challenged the decision of the Screening Committee of 2018, the writ petitions are woefully misconceived. 3. This Court also records its displeasure with the conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioners, who though is a counsel of standing, has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a counsel with standing. 4. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- each.Costs to be deposited into the account of High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. 5. Despite the passing of the order, learned counsel for the petitioners continues with the ruckus. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 14thMay, 2025 NISHANT 2