Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8508 (UTT)

RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1936/2026 · 2026-07-22

Pankaj Purohit

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010126682026 2026:UHC:6196 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1936 of 2026 22 July, 2026 Rajendra Prasad --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no.5-UPNL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Petitioner was working as Lab Assistant at Government Intermediate College, Sarnol, Block Naugaon, District Uttarkashi with the respondent- Education Department through UPNL. Petitioner joined as Lab Assistant in the aforesaid Intermediate College on 23.08.2012. Pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2012, passed by District Project Officer, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, Uttarkashi the Principal of the Government Intermediate College revoked the joining of the petitioner. Petitioner has come to this Court for the following reliefs:- “A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Lab Assistant at Government Inter College Sarnol, Block Naugaon, District Uttarkashi. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to give the petitioner full back wages from the period from 23.08.2012 to UKHC010126682026 2026:UHC:6196 2 20.09.2012 with an interest on the delayed payment of the back wages, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 2. The writ petition is hopelessly time barred and there is no explanation for the laches as to why the petitioner has come up before this Court after such a period. Further, the order by which joining of the petitioner has been revoked has also not been challenged. 3. In such view of the matter, no interference is warranted. Writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.07.2026 AK AVNEET KAUR Digitally signed by AVNEET KAUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=a82175252dc1a0f53f0e245a1c11df9aa490cfd1403838bf52f9acab4cc3a5b9, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=5BEC18DADE54688668187E4D722C2EDBFDAF35AB2F676A551481BE62508FDDEE, cn=AVNEET KAUR Date: 2026.07.22 17:52:18 +05'30'