RASHMI NEGI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of In­dia, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the re­spondent No. 2-District Education Of­ficer, Pauri Garhwal, to promote the petitioner, in place of respondent No. 4. A further mandamus has been sought directing respondent No. 2 to comply the order of Director of Educa­tion, Uttarakhand and that of Additional Director of Education, Pauri Garhwal. Also, a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought quashing the order dated 20.10.2008, whereby respondent No. 4-Naseem Ahmad, has been pro­moted to the post of Head Master.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the affidavits, counter af­fidavits and rejoinder affidavits on record.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, in which it has been stated that petitioner's appointment in August 1995 on the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School (Junior High School) Nagar Kshetra Kotdwar, was purely temporary in nature and subject to the condition that her sen­iority in the joint seniority list would re­main as it was earlier. As such, the peti­tioner's seniority remained as an Assist­ant Teacher in the Primary School and not as Assistant Teacher of Junior High School. The defence of respondents No. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner cannot claim senior­ity with the teachers of Junior High School. It is stated that respondent No. 4-Naseem Ahmad was directly appointed as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School, vide order dated 30.10.1995 (copy of which is annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit of the answering respondent). It is also stated that his services were confirmed vide order dated 22.05.2003, w.e.f. November 1995, as is apparent from annexure-C.A. 2 to the counter af­fidavit. In the counter affidavit of re­spondents No. 2 and 3, it is further stated that petitioner is wrongly claiming her seniority over respondent No. 4. As to the directions, issued by Director of Educa­tion, it is stated that a detailed report was submitted by respondent No. 2, a copy of which is C.A. 3 to the counter affidavit.