RAJENDRA SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Rajendra Singh Rawat became an employee of Arya Inter College, Subhash Nagar, Dehradun only in the year 2005. Prior thereto, since 1993, he was working on the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) in the selfsame college under the provisions of Section 2 of Removal of Difficulties Ordinance, 1981, in terms whereof, he did not, however, acquire any right as an employee of the said college. Only upon his regularization in 2005, appellant acquired a right to be treated as an employee of the said college entitled to all the benefits that the Government became obliged to give to the employees of the said college under the Grants -in Rules of the Government and, since then, appellant also became entitled to the benefits of the erstwhile provisions of law made by the Legislature pertaining to such college and their employees and, also, to the law subsequently made in 2007 by the Legislature by the name 'School Education Act, 2007.

(2.) IN the year 2001, Chandra Mohan Singh Negi came to serve the selfsame college, after having had obtained a transfer from another college. This transfer was the principal bone of contention pertaining to representations made by the appellant on 17th December, 2007 and 20th December, 2007. Those were not considered. Appellant, accordingly, approached this Court by filing a writ petition. That writ petition was disposed of by directing the Director of Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to decide the same within three months. In terms thereof, the Director 2 rendered a decision and, thereby, rejected the said representations of the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, appellant preferred a writ petition. That writ petition, as correctly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, was disposed of by the judgment and order under Appeal proceeding on the basis that the appellant was aggrieved by a usual transfer order. There was, though, just reason to prefer an Appeal as the writ petition of the appellant was not decided on its merit, but, having had considered the merits of the case as above, we refuse to entertain the Appeal only on the ground that a transfer effected in 2001 could not be challenged by the appellant in 2007 as he purported to do.

(3.) THE Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.