Dismissed

Bablesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Dec 2022WPSS/2271/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of service location entries on an education portal. The court held the matter lacked substance as the issue is reserved for the next transfer session. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the competent authority within one week with a representation.

Bablesh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Education and Admissions | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			WPSS No. 2271 of 2022 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. T. A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.C.Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. Petitioner earlier filed a writ petition no. 2077 of 2022 (S/S), which was disposed of vide order dated 04.11.2022. Operative portion of the said order is being quoted below: “In view of the public interest involved in the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of adjustment passed in respect of the petitioner,. However, it is provided that petitioner’s case for transfer shall be considered as per provisions of Transfer Act during the next transfer season and the service rendered by him at Kunwakheda, in terms of the impugned order, shall be deemed to have been rendered at Kopa Basanta for ascertaining his eligibility.” Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.” In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the entry of the Employee’s details of the petitioner available on the Education Portal of respondents, showing the period spent by the petitioner between 03.07.2019 to 11.11.2020 at Govt. Primary School, Canal Colony No. 2, Gularbhoj as “Remote Area” in place of “Accessible Area”. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the portion of the employee’s detail of the petitioner, available on education portal of he respondent in which the period spent by the petitioner in Govt. Primary School, Canal Colony No. 2 for a period of 1 year 4 months and 9 days has been shown in Sugam(Accessible Area) (as mentioned in

¶2

annexure no. 6 to this petition).
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents
to make an entry in the Employee’s Details of
the petitioner on the education portal by
showing the period to be spent by the
petitioner
in
Govt.
Primary
School,
Kuwakheda, Block Gadarpur in Remote Area.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper may kindly be
awarded in favour of the petitioner and against
the respondents.
(iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of
the petitioner and against the respondents.”
According to learned counsel for the
petitioner,
petitioner
was
attached
at
Government Primary School, Canal Colony-2,
Gulerbhoj, Gadarpur, which was inaccessible
place, however, in view of Proviso to Section 10
of the Transfer Act, the service rendered by him
at Canal Colony, is treated as having been
rendered at a accessible Place. He further
submits that despite the order passed by this
Court on 04.11.2022, the particulars of the
petitioner in the employees portal have not been
corrected.
Learned
Standing
Counsel,
however
submits that the grievance raised by the
petitioner in this writ petition is without any
substance and his case will be considered for
transfer during the next transfer session as per
law and also in view of the directions issued by
this Court in the earlier writ petition.
However, learned counsel for the State
fairly
submits
that
if
petitioner
has
any
grievance, he may approach the competent
authority instead of rushing to the court. The
writ petition is accordingly disposed of by
permitting petitioner to approach the competent
authority within one week from today and if he
makes a representation, decision thereupon
shall be taken within four months.
**(Manoj K.Tiwari, J.) **
01.12.2022

Kaushal

Bablesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Chandra Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary Secretariat Dehradun

Sarabjeet Kaur Vs Gurmej Singh

Sarabjeet Kaur Vs Gurmej Singh

Rakesh Chandra Gogna Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prem Dutt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Waseem Ahamad Vs Kashim Ali