IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 104 of 2010 Gajendra Singh Sikarwar ………. Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …………. Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Mr. Jagdish S. Bisht, Advocate for the appellant. Dated of Decision: 25.06.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The duties and responsibilities of the post of Farm In- charge were vested with respondent No.4 Anil Kumar Tiwari, holding the substantive post of Lecturer in Agriculture. The aforesaid charge was, however, withdrawn from him and vested with Gajendra Singh Sikarwar, the appellant herein, holding the substantive post of L.T. grade teacher in Agriculture. Dissatisfied with the action of the authorities in divesting of charge vested in him, respondent No.4 Anil Kumar Tiwari addressed a representation dated 22.03.2010 to the District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, requesting him to restore the charge of the post of Farm In-charge with him, on account of his superiority over the appellant, inasmuch as, he was holding a higher post than the appellant. Accepting his aforesaid representation, by an order dated 05.05.2010, the charge of the post of Farm In-charge was restored with respondent No.4 Anil Kumar Tiwari, as a natural consequence the charge vested with the appellant was revoked. 2. Dissatisfied with the order dated 05.05.2010, the appellant herein preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 363 of 2010. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.05.2010. 3. Through the present Special Appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.05.2010 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No.363 of 2010. 4. Whilst learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute the superiority of respondent No.4 over the appellant, inasmuch as, respondent No.4 substantively holds the post of Lecturer in Agriculture, wherein the appellant substantively holds the post of L.T. grade teacher in Agriculture, yet it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the withdrawal of charge of the post of Farm In- charge from respondent No.4 was based on a communication dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure 5 with the writ petition). The aforesaid communication has been read out to us, a perusal whereof reveals, that respondent No.4 had not been performing the duties of the post of Farm In-charge appropriately, he had not been executing the orders of the Principal of the College, and had also not been furnishing information sought from him. It is the sole submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that in the background of the allegations referred to in the communication dated 17.01.2007, it was inappropriate to re-vest the duties of the post of Farm In-charge with respondent No.4. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The allegations leveled against respondent No.4, emerging out of the communication dated 17.01.2007, are not very serious. In any case, the competent administrative authority is vested with the discretion in granting charge of a particular post based on the suitability of the individual concerned. Undoubtedly, respondent No.4 holds the higher post of Lecturer in Agriculture viz. the appellant herein who merely holds the post of L.T. grade teacher in Agriculture. Keeping the aforesaid aspect in view, a recommendation was made by the District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar on the representation filed by respondent No.4 dated 22.03.2010 to the effect, that the senior person should be vested with the charge of the post of Farm In-charge. The aforesaid recommendation was accepted and given effect to through the impugned order dated 05.05.2010. We are satisfied that the aforesaid determination was in administrative exigency and was fully justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 19.05.2010 disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 363 of 2010. 7. Since the main appeal has been disposed of on merits, it is not necessary for us to pass any formal order on the application for condonation of delay (CLMA No. 4931 of 2010) in filing the appeal. 8. As a matter of oversight at our hands, while disposing of the instant writ petition, we did not take into consideration one of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The same was brought to our notice after the order was dictated. We therefore record our consideration in respect thereof. It was also the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of the hearing, that seniority is not, and can not, be the criterion for vesting charge of the post of Farm In-charge, and that, the same could not therefore be the basis of divesting the appellant of the aforesaid charge and re-vesting the same with respondent No.4. For the same reasons (as have been recorded hereinabove), namely, that respondent No.4 was holding a superior post viz. the appellant, it was fully justified for the authorities to vest the charge of the post of Farm In-charge in respondent No.4 as a matter of preference over the appellant. We, therefore, find no merit even in the additional submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 25.06.2010 P.Singh