IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 800 of 2011 Ranvir Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Coordinator, which is a block level appointment. Assistant Coordinator works under the Coordinator, which is again a block level appointment. The two officers supervise the government projects, which are for elementary schools. These posts are administrative in nature, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Coordinator in the Block Resource Centre, Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar in the year 1997. The coordinator who was working above the petitioner was transferred to another block and while doing so he gave the charge of Coordinator to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner was officiating as a Coordinator. However, the charge of Coordinator was subsequently taken away from the petitioner and was given to another Assistant Coordinator. Aggrieved the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. (S/S) 277 of 2010, which was dismissed as having premature. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. (S/S) 384 of 2010, which was again disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the petitioner was given a liberty to move an appropriate representation with the direction to the concerned authority to decide the same. Consequently, the petitioner moved a 2 representation, which was decided by the concerned authority on 5.3.2011 holding that the charge of Assistant Coordinator shall remain with the petitioner and the charge of Coordinator will remain with the present incumbent as per earlier orders passed in this regard. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The first argument of the petitioner in the present case is that he had lodged a complaint before the police against respondent no.3 i.e. Block Education Officer, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Aggrieved, the Block Education Officer had complained to the authorities and thereafter he has a grudge against the petitioner and the charge of the Coordinator was taken away from the petitioner. The second argument of the petitioner is that the Assistant Teacher who has been given the charge of the Coordinator is above 45 years of age and therefore as per the Government order dated 7.2.2008 by which the said Assistant Coordinator and Coordinator are appointed is violative of the said Government order as being above 45 years of age he could not be appointed as a coordinator. Both these arguments of the petitioner are misconceived for the following reasons:- Firstly, the petitioner has no lien on the post of Coordinator inasmuch as he was only appointed as Assistant Coordinator and only exercising the duties of a Coordinator in an officiating capacity. Moreover, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the then superior authorities i.e. the District Education Officer. Thirdly, as far as respondent no.4 Jhabbu Lal being above 45 years of age, this argument also does not hold good inasmuch as the upper age limit is only for regular appointment of Coordinator or for Assistant Coordinator. Respondent no.4 has only been given charge of the Coordinator of B.R.C., Gadarpur, only as a stop gap arrangement. 3 4. The writ petition therefore lacks merit and is disposed of with a direction to the Director Education to appoint the regular qualified candidate as a Coordinator for the same block within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 5. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. N. P. Sah undertakes to inform the District Education Officer about the order of this Court 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.11.2011 Kuldeep