Visarjan Kumar Dwivedi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Nirmal Yadav, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) on 5.2.1983 against the substantive post. Along with the Petitioner, Anil Kumar Pant, Ghanshyam Joshi and Raj Narain were also appointed. In the appointment letter, the name of the Petitioner figures at serial No. 5, while the names of Anil Kumar Pant, Ghanshyam Joshi and Raj Narayan figure at serial No. 6, 9 and 13 respectively. The Petitioner is working continuously since the date of his appointment. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Biology) on 3.5.1995.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the persons junior to him, namely, Anil Kumar Pant, Ghanshyam Joshi and Raj Narain were given regular promotion on the post of Lecturer (Biology) w.e.f. 11.2.1993, whereas the Petitioner has been promoted two years thereafter. It is further contended that being aggrieved by this, the Petitioner submitted his representation dated 24.3.2009, annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, before the Respondent No. 2, but till date the same has not been decided.

Taking into consideration the facts and the averments made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Respondent No. 2 to decided the aforesaid representation submitted by the Petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. While deciding the said representation of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 shall keep in mind the seniority of the Petitioner, vis-�-vis, the other persons, who have been promoted prior to him in the year 1993, though they were junior to the Petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.