2026:UHC:1242 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 2 2 4 5 / 2 0 2 3 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J 1. Mr. M.C. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioiner. 2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner is serving as Group ‘D’ employee in Department of Women Welfare. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief: - (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ post as he is the only successful candidate in promotional examination, for promotion of Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ post under the quota of High School passed Group ‘D’ employees (Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition). 4. According to petitioner, exercise for promoting Group ‘D’ employee to Group ‘C’ post was initiated in the year 2023; petitioner participated in the said exercise and qualified the type test, but promotion exercise was not brought to its logical end. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Prashant Kumar Arya, Director, Women Welfare. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that petitioner could not qualify type test, therefore, he was not recommended for promotion. Para 13 of the counter affidavit is extracted below: - “1 3 . That the contents of paragraph no. 06 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted hence 2026:UHC:1242 denied. In reply thereof it is submitted here that for 01 vacant post of Junior Assistant, an examination was conducted on 27.04.2023, in which 06 candidates appeared in the examination, out of which 04 candidates being found eligible in the main examination of Typing and General Knowledge and on the basis of merit employee named Mr. Dinesh Dangwal with qualification of high school, was selected for the post of Junior Assistant.” 6. From the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that promotion exercise is concluded and one Mr. Dinesh Dangwal has been promoted based on his performance in the selection; petitioner has not challenged the promotion given to Mr. Dinesh Dangwal. 7. Without challenging the promotion given to Mr. Dinesh Dangwal, the relief, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J) 24.02.2026 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.02.24 03:59:06 -08'00' 2026:UHC:1242