MAHIMANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on Class IV post i.e on the post of Peon in the year 1989 and has completed 21 years of service.

(3.) On 01.01.2010, the District Education Officer issued letter/order to all Basic Education Officer situated within his territory, by which it has been directed by the District Education Officer asking for the confidential report of Class IV employees who have completed 5 years of service in the department. By this letter the Block Education Officers were also directed to forward the application of such Class IV employees who are eligible for promotion. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter the petitioner submitted his application for promotion, which was duly forwarded by the Principal of the petitioner's institution on 28.01.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, Additional Director of Education, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital issued an advertisement on 02.06.2010 in the daily newspaper in which information was given to all the Class IV employees that written examination for promotion will be held on 25.06.2010. At this petitioner approached the office of Block Education Officer and prayed for issuance of admit card for participating in the examination of promotion which is going to be held on 25.06.2010 and further requested him to permit the petitioner to deposit Rs. 100/- as mentioned in the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Block Education Officer declined to issue admit card to the petitioner and orally informed the petitioner that due to the pendency of writ petition no.288/2007, admit card cannot be issued to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition no.288/2007 has nothing to do with the promotion exercise being carried out by the respondents.