Mahimant Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

V.K. Bist, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

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.

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.

On the other hand Shri M.C. Tiwari, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has not annexed any such document, which shows that petitioner has not been permitted for the written examination and also stated that the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.N. Joshi insisted that he should be given permission to attend the examination as Block Education Officer has informed the petitioner that he will not be permitted to appear in the examination and in case promotion examination is held, his petition will render infructuous.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after examining record of the writ petition, as interim measure, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the departmental promotion examination which is going to held on 25.06.2010 provisionally.

List this petition immediately after six weeks. In the meantime respondents may file counter affidavit. Application No. 4283 of 2010 stands disposed of.