WPSS No.363/2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kovid Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K. C. Tiwari, the learned brief holder for the State. Admittedly, respondent no.4 Anil Kumar Tiwari was working as a Farm In-charge in the institution of respondent no.3. By an order dated 17th January, 2007, the Principal directed the respondent no.4 to hand over the charge to the petitioner and based on the said order, the petitioner has been working as Farm In-charge since then. It transpires that respondent no.4 made a representation to the District Education Officer, who by the impugned order has directed the Principal to ensure that the charge is given back to the respondent no.4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, the petitioner does not have an indefeasible right for holding the charge as an In- charge Farm Inspector. Admittedly, the respondent no.4 was senior to the petitioner and, he was, in fact, given the charge of Farm Inspector earlier. Consequently, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. The allegation that there is an enquiry against the respondent no.4 is immaterial inasmuch as the earlier order dated 17th January, 2007 does not indicate allegations of any charges against the respondent no.4 when he was asked to hand over the charge in favour of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Dated: 19.5.2010 (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Nishant