Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 5314 of 2001 (Old No. 13441 of 2000). M.A.Khan S/o late Abdul Latif Khan, R/o 26/1 Mohini Road, Dehradun. ………… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Ministry of Education at Lucknow. 2. District Inspector of School, Dehradun. 3. Committee of Management of Church of North India (C.N.I.) Boy’s Inter College, Dehradun through its Manager. 4. Principal, Church of North India Boys’ Inter College, Dehradun. ……… Respondents. Sri A.M.Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State / respondents. Date: 26th March, 2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the reversion order dated 24.02.2000 passed by respondent No.2, contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No.3 as Assistant Teacher in Mathematics and Science on 08.7.1992 in Church of North India(CNI) Boys’ Inter College, Dehradun. The respondent No.2/ District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun, approved the appointment of the petitioner. The qualification of the petitioner is M.Sc. (Maths) and B.Ed. On the resolution of respondent No.3/committee of Management to promote the petitioner and two other Assistant Teachers on the posts of Lecturer, the respondent No.2 gave his approval on 16.12.1992. On 23.12.1992 the petitioner took charge as Lecturer in Mathematics in the said School. After the promotion of the petitioner, five more persons were directly recruited on the posts of Lecturer. By the impugned order dated 24.2.2000 the petitioner was reverted on the ground that that there are total 12 sanctioned posts of Lecturer in the School and his promotion was made as 13th Lecturer by the then District Inspector of School, Dehradun in contravention of the rules. The petitioner further challenged the impugned reversion order on the ground that his reversion on the post of Assistant Teacher is illegal and arbitrary. It is also alleged by the petitioner that three persons including the petitioner were promoted on 16.12.1992 but the respondent No.2 illegally marked the petitioner as the 13th Lecturer. 3. In the counter affidavit the respondent No.2 conceded the promotion of petitioner on the post of Lecturer on 16.12.1992 but alleged that later on the said promotion was found to be in contravention of rules, reverted the petitioner on his original post by the order dated 24.2.2000. The respondent No.2/District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun also denied the assertion made by the petitioner that the vacancy on which the petitioner was given promotion exist from before. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Lecturer which fell vacant much earlier on the retirement of Sri Sri B.Ram on 30.06.1982. 4. It is clear from the record that the promotion of the petitioner was made against the sanctioned strength of posts. Hence the promotion can not be said to be legal, rather it was made in violation of the rules. There is no illegality in the order under challenge. 5. The petition has no force and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.03.2008 P.Singh