HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 760/2009 (S/S) Rajendra Prasad Arya. … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and four others. … Respondents Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. K.P. Uppadhyay, Addl.C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 5, Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4. Dated: August 6, 2009: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. CLMA No. 6498/09 (Delay Condonation Application) Heard learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons stated, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing counter affidavit is hereby condoned. C0unter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 is taken on record. Writ Petition No. 760/2009 (S/S) Heard. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 25.06.2009 passed by respondent no.2 (contained as annexure no.1 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been reverted back from the post of In-charge Assistant Manager to the post of Senior Clerk. The main ground for assailing the impugned order taken by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the senior to the other persons who are working as In-charge Assistant Manager in other districts. Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4 stated before the Court that no person junior to the 2 petitioner is given charge of Assistant Manger and whenever any person will be assigned as In-charge Assistant Manager in the Department the petitioner will be given priority as per his seniority. This court is refraining to inter into the merits of the case, however it is observed that in case any person junior to the petitioner is assigned as In-charge Assistant Manager in the Department, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered for In-charge Assistant Manager. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to file fresh representation before Managing Director/respondent no.2 who may be directed to decide the same expeditiously. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to move fresh representation before the respondent no.2 and in case such representation is filed, the respondent no.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 06.08.2009 NCM: