HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.7259 of 2001 (S/S) Abhay Kumar Kukreti S/o late Sri Ravindra Dutt Kukreti … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated:- 29th March, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. D. S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M. C. Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhayay, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner’s name was found at serial no.4 of the select list, which was issued by the District Level Selection Committee in the year 1985 for the post of Clerk-Typist. It was alleged that even though he was placed at serial no.4 of the select list, he was not appointed and juniors to the petitioner were appointed by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith other persons filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India, which was disposed of by an order dated 28.11.1990. Certain directions were given by the Supreme Court, namely:- “After hearing both counsel, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner by way of direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners. However, we are of the opinion that the directions should be given to the respondents, namely 1. If out of the select list of 1985 any persons have been appointed who are juniors to any of the petitioners or other persons in the select list senior to those already appointed have been left out such petitioners or persons who had a place of seniority in the select list out have been overlooked should be appointed immediately. 2. So far as the rest of the persons in the said select list are concerned, as and when fresh vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment or otherwise they may also be considered for appointment or permitted to compete for selection therein alongwith other applicants without any restrictions on account of maximum age limit being held against them. We are making this direction because the petitioners’ named were in the select list and they cannot be blamed for not replying fresh or appointment in the meantime. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” Based on the aforesaid directions, the petitioner approached the District Level Authorities and it is alleged that the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal issued an order dated 21.06.1999 and based on that letter, the District Basic Education Officer, Dehradun issued an appointment letter dated 29th July, 1999 appointing the petitioner as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Basic Education Officer, Dehradun. On the next day i.e. 30th July, 1999, the same officer cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission, who issued certain directions and since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 30th July, 1999 by which the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The reason is that the petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition that juniors to him has been appointed and, that direction No.1 of the Supreme Court has not been complied with. No such proof of violation of direction No.1 of the Supreme Court has been indicated in the writ petition. Further, the respondents have alleged in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the District Basic Education Officer was not the competent authority to issue an appointment letter, and, consequently the appointment order of the petitioner was cancelled. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit has been denied vaguely by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 29.03.2010 LSR