IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 346 OF 2006 Suresh Chandra …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……...Respondents. Present: Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Yogesh Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for respondent no. 5. No one appears for respondent nos. 6 and 7. Date of Decision : 6.8.2010 Coram: Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Tarun Agarwala, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner alleges that he is the senior most L.T. Grade Teacher in the Institution and is liable to be given the charge of the Acting Principal. The petitioner, accordingly, has prayed for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to give him the charge of the Acting Principal of the Institution. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the seniority list prepared by the Management of the Institution. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed in L.T. Grade in an ad-hoc capacity on 14.12.1990 and was given a substantive appointment on 7.8.1993, whereas respondent nos. 6 and 7 were initially appointed in the C.T. Grade were merged in L.T. Grade after C.T. Grade was declared as a dying cadre. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period spent by respondent nos. 6 and 7 in C.T. Grade cannot be counted towards seniority as per the Government Order dated 5.11.2003. 3. Under Section 24 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006, Regulations have been framed and Part II (1) provides for determination of seniority. The said provision indicates that where the 2 seniority is determined, a person aggrieved may file an Appeal before the District Education Officer. 4. In the present case, it has come on record that the seniority list was declared by the Committee of Management of the Institution in July 2006. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said seniority list, it would be open to the petitioner to file an Appeal before the District Education Officer and contend before the said Authority that the seniority of the petitioner has to be counted from 14.12.1990 i.e. from the date he was initially appointed in an ad-hoc capacity, and may also contend that the said respondents whose seniority list includes the period, which they had spent in C.T. Grade should not be counted. It is also open to the petitioner to raise such other grounds before the District Education Officer. 5. In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 6.8.2010 Rathour