IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 221 OF 2005 (S/S) Rajesh Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus Director of Education (Madhyamik) and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the following relief: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for grant of promotion on the available vacant post of Lecturer English by extending the benefit of reservation to the petitioner. II. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the petition.” 3. Thereafter by way of amendment, the following prayer was also added on 16.6.2005:- 2 “IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.10.2004 and Resolution No. 6 dated 10.10.2004 appended as Annexure A3 & A4 in the present Amendment Application.” 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the following interim order was granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 4.3.2005:- “Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3. Admit. Issue notice to respondent no. 4 returnable at an early date. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. In the meantime, Respondent no. 5 may decide the representation of the petitioner dt. 6.8.02.” 5. In view of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in its interim order dated 4.3.2005, the matter was considered by the Education Authorities and an speaking order was passed on 7.4.2005, whereby it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Lecturer cannot be considered because at the relevant time, the petitioner was only working in C.T. Grade and a person, who has continuously worked for a period of five years in CT Grade can only be promoted to LT Grade and accordingly, he cannot be considered for 3 the post of Lecturer. According to the Education Authorities, the petitioner does not fulfill these conditions, and therefore, his claim for promotion to the post of Lecturer cannot be considered. 6. In view of the above, cause of action as far as present writ petition is concerned, no more survives. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to amend the writ petition. In opinion of this Court, no useful purpose will be solved, if he is permitted to do so. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 7.4.2005 by filing a fresh writ petition. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 5.1.2011 Rathour