COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 1403/2002 Sri Vijay Ram Bhatt …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal, Through Secretary, Nagar Vikas and Others ……Respondents Sri S.K. Posti, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 23rd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.3.2002 contained as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition, whereby respondent no. 4 Sri Kunwar Singh has been promoted from the post of Peon to the post of Daftari. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Mali in the year 1991 on daily wages in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Tehri and his services were regularized on the said post vide order dated 11.3.1991, which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. In the year 2001 the petitioner was asked to perform the duties of Daftari which was lying vacant. Thereafter respondent no. 4 was regularly promoted to the post of Daftari. Petitioner claims to be senior to the respondent no. 4 and has challenged the promotion of respondent no. 4 to the post of Daftari. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. Respondent no. 2 and 3 have filed their joint affidavit. A copy of seniority list dated 6.11.2001 has also been filed which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit and perusal of the same reveals that respondent no. 4 is senior to the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 was initially appointed on the post of Peon on 1.6.1987, whereas the petitioner was appointed as Mali in the year 1991. Petitioner has nowhere challenged the seniority list dated 6.11.2001. Petitioner was only asked to perform the duties of Daftari as a stopgap arrangement. Therefore, promotion of respondent no. 4 being senior to the petitioner is legal and in accordance with the rules. The petitioner cannot claim for the promotion to the post of Daftari only by performing the work of Daftari for time being. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh