IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 491 of 2008 (S/S) Avnish Kumar, S/o Sri Mangat Ram R/o 1141 / 3, Saharanpur Road, Harbertpur, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State Project Director Sarve Siksha Abhiyan, Uttarakhand. 2. District Project Officer, Sarve Siksha Abhiyan, Distt. Dehradun. 3. Block Education Officer, Block Kalsi, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.06.2008, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner Avnish Kumar, a Co-cordinator at Block Resources Centre, Kalsi, District Dehradun, has been reverted back to his original department as Assistant Teacher in the Junior High School. 2 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not on deputation and his posting was regular in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Project. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to order dated 06.06.2008 (Annexure –6 to the writ petition) wherein it is clarified that word ‘deputation’ in the appointment letter shall be read as word ‘posting’. However, merely that order does not solve the problem of the petitioner, for the reason that other conditions on which the petitioner was appointed as Co-cordinator remained undisturbed. The appointment letter dated 4th September 2003 (copy Annexure –3 to the writ petition) shows that there is specific condition in the order that if the work of the employee is not found satisfactory he shall be reverted back to his original post. The impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner is being reverted, for he committed disobedience of the orders of his senior officers, acted arbitrarily, and committed misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no supporting material shown in the counter affidavit to the allegations made in the impugned order. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the petitioner had accepted his posting under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Project on the 3 condition that if his work is not found satisfactory he could be sent back to his original post. Therefore, without interfering with the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may make representation for redressal of his grievances to respondent No. 1. (Stay Application No. 3838 of 2008 also stands dismissed, accordingly). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. July 16, 2008. H.Negi