2026:UHC:3395 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 369/2020 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Bali, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondent no. 1 to 5. (2) Petitioner is serving as Assistant Sub Inspector (Steno) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He is aggrieved by denial of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Steno) in the promotion exercise held in 2019. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “i. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to provide the petitioner break-up details and his marks in departmental promotion committee held vide letter dated 20.09.2018. ii. A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quash the impugned promotion order dated 22.08.2019. iii. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to add/give 55 marks for the annual performance appraisal reports (APARs) into his total marks of DPC and duly promote the petitioner from due promotion date 22.08.2019. iv. Writ order or directing in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give all consequential benefits of promotion from the due promotion date 22.08.2019.” (3) Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 to 5 refers to CISF Circular No. 44 of 2011, issued by Directorate General, CISF on 14.10.2011. Clause 07 of the said circular, on which heavy reliance is placed by learned Counsel, is extracted below: “The personnel having one minor punishment would be considered for promotion but five marks will be deducted for the minor 2026:UHC:3395 punishment.” (4) Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 5 submits that two minor punishments were imposed upon petitioner, first on 4.6.2015 and second on 24.7.2018. By the first punishment order, petitioner was asked to pay fine equivalent to five days’ pay and by the second order, petitioner was asked to pay fine equivalent to seven days’ pay. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that two minor punishments were imposed upon the petitioner. He, however, submits that petitioner’s score, in terms of Annual Performance Appraisal Report, was 55, therefore petitioner could not have been denied promotion. (6) Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 to 5 submits that because of two minor punishments, 10 marks were reduced from score of the petitioner, therefore he could not make it to the list of candidates found successful for promotion. He further submits that reading of the relief clause indicates that petitioner himself is not clear regarding the ground on which he has challenged the promotion order dated 22.8.2019. He submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit, as promotions were made strictly as per applicable rules. (7) In the absence of any valid reason for interfering with the promotion granted to private respondents, this Court do not find any scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 5.5.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C9195 7BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.05 17:43:55 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3395