IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 165 of 2009 (S/B) Mohammad Zafar Khan S/o late Abdul Gafur Khan R/o Lower Bazaar, District Pauri Garhwal Presently residing at D.P.R.O. (Incharge) Tehri Garhwal. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Panchayat Raj Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Directorate of Panchayat Raj Through its Director, Dehradun. 3. District Magistrate District Tehri Garhwal. 4. Rajendra Prakash Makuri S/o Sri Udai Ram Makuri Incharge D.P.R.O. Chamoli. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb the functioning of the 2 petitioner as District Panchayat Raj Officer (Incharge), Tehri Garhwal, till juniors to him are working as Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer, in other Districts. A further mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to fill the vacant posts of District Panchayat Raj Officer in the Districts of Chamoli and Dehradun. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer (for brevity hereinafter referred as DPRO) could be filled by direct recruitment or by promotion from amongst the Addl. DPRO (Technical) and Addl. DPRO (Panchayat). In this connection U.P. District Panchayat Raj Officer Services Rules, 2000 (applicable to the State of Uttarakhand) are referred. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is being divested of his charge on the post of DPRO, Tehri Garhwal to accommodate the direct recruit on said post, leaving the other junior Addl. DPRO (Panchayat) to function as Incharge DPROs in other Districts. 4) We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by them. We are of the view that Addl. DPRO, who is functioning as Incharge DPRO, has no right of 3 continuance when a regular DPRO, whether on promotion or through direct recruitment, is posted in the District. But, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that respondent No. 4 Rajendra Prakash Makuri, who is not even Addl. DPRO but merely a Panchayat Inspector, has been allowed to function as Incharge DPRO in Chamoli. It is further pointed out that the Writ Petition No. 1750 (S/S) of 2001 (Old No. 32313 of 1998) filed by respondent No. 4 has already been dismissed on 27.09.2004, still he is allowed to function as Incharge DPRO. Our attention is also drawn to the letter dated 4th of April 2006, issued by the Government of Uttarakhand (a copy of which is Annexure –10 to the writ petition), and the Government Order No. 801 / 1 –Panchayat / Stha / 05-06, dated 25th of November 2005, issued by the Government of Uttarakhand (copy of which is Annexure –11 to the writ petition) and it is argued that in the case of similarly situated persons the State Government has directed that the junior most Incharge officer should be reverted instead of disturbing the senior officers. 5) In the above circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation that the respondents may consider the case of the petitioner on the same lines as mentioned in Annexure –10 and Annexure –11 to the writ petition, to avoid embarrassment to the 4 senior officer as against the junior officer to him and pass necessary orders, within a period of three months. (Stay Application No. 7166 of 2009 as well as Interim Relief Application No. 7655 of 2009 both stand disposed of, accordingly). (Alok Singh, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 11, 2009. H. Negi