DEEPA CHATURVEDI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who was a permanent Class IV employee in the District Court Champawat, has challenged the order dated 20th October, 2008 passed by the District Judge, Champawat, whereby her services have been terminated.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

(3.) NOW , after a period of four years, one Mohd. Irshad and one another (who are employees of the same judgeship), moved an application before the District Judge challenging the inter se seniority between them and the Petitioner. Mohd. Irshad and another, perhaps claimed themselves to be senior to the Petitioner and hence on the basis of this application an enquiry was set up and the Inquiry Officer, who submitted its report on 20lh September, 2008 before the District Judge, Champawat, stated that "Applicants claim against Mrs. Deepa Chaturvedi is justified because withdrawal of her resignation is "void ab initio", in the eyes of law". On this report, the District Judge vide order dated 20th October, 2008 has held that the order dated 21st April, 2004 passed by the then District Judge is void ab initio and contrary to law since a resignation once accepted cannot be reconsidered or withdrawn and therefore the District Judge has passed an order dated 20 -10 -2008, presently impugned, terminating the services of the Petitioner by quashing the order dated 21 -4 -2004 of the then District Judge, "Champawat", by which the Petitioner was reinstated.