IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 200 of 2006 Sibte Hasan S/o Sri Hafiz Shaberati, serving as Stenographer Grade-I in the Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani, Kumaon Region, Uttaranchal. ..………. Petitioner Versus 1. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad through its Vice Chairman. 2. Union of India through Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), New Delhi. 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Lucknow. Present: Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date of Decision : 05.03.2011 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Prior to 1981, for a certain period, Staff Selection Commission was not functioning. In the Income Tax Department, at that time, there was a need for engaging Stenographers. The need was so pressing that the Income Tax Department, with the consent of the Staff Selection Commission, instead of waiting for the Staff Selection Commission to select Stenographers, selected Stenographers and appointed the petitioner. Such appointment was given to the petitioner on 11th February, 1981 with stipulation that the appointment shall come to an end, no sooner Staff Selection Commission makes selection of Stenographers. On 26th April, 2001, accepting the representation of the petitioner, who was continuing to serve until then, petitioner was regularized, but with effect from 11th February, 1981. In the meantime, various similarly situated 2 persons came before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and contended that they should be regularized with effect from the date they were initially appointed. Diverse orders were passed on those applications. In the circumstances, the matter came before the Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad. It declared that, inasmuch as, people have been made to work continuously for a long period of time despite selection of Stenographers subsequent to their initial engagement by the Staff Selection Commission, they should be deemed to have been appointed on the date of their initial appointment, provided the order of regularization had been passed before the Full Bench considered the matter. This order of the Full Bench was passed much before 26th April, 2001. The petitioner, therefore, cannot take advantage of the said order of Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad. The fact that the petitioner was regularized on 26th April, 2001, in view of the said order of Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad, will give him the status of a substantive employee on and from the date of his regularisation and not from the date of his initial appointment. The Tribunal, in the order impugned in the present writ petition, has merely repeated the same. 2. That being the situation, there appears to be no scope of interference in the present writ petition, inasmuch as, the pronouncement of the Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad is not under challenge in the present writ petition. We make it clear that the observations, as above, are only for the purpose of bringing on record the pronouncement made by the Full Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad, which was binding on the Tribunal, when the Tribunal considered the case of the petitioner in the three original applications dealt with by the order under challenge. We make it further clear that we have not gone into the question of seniority of the persons, as accepted by the Department, to the effect, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has been placed immediately below those who had been 3 appointed on recommendation by the Staff Selection Commission in the years 1991, 1992 & 1993. 3. This disposes of the writ petition. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 05.03.2011 P. Singh 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 172 of 2006 Madho Singh S/o Sri Kunwar Bahadur Singh, R/o Ward No.1, Canal Road, Kichha Behind FCI Godown, District Udham Singh Nagar. ..………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Education Civil Secretariat, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Director of Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Committee of Management, Sri Krishna Merchant Association Inter College, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar through its Manager. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date of Decision : 05.03.2011 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Petitioner, a Lecturer of a college, was asked to discharge the duties of the Principal in his officiating capacity, as the Principal of college, in view of his illness, was unable to discharge such duties. While the petitioner was, thus, officiating as Principal of the college, the Principal of the college died and, accordingly, petitioner continued to discharge the duties of the Principal of the college in his officiating capacity. The competent authority approved the said arrangement. Subsequently, there were 5 certain complaints against the functioning of the petitioner. Those were inquired into by a Principal of another college. The inquiry report found substance in the allegations, which were inquired into. In such view of the matter, the competent authority, by an order, relieved the petitioner of his responsibilities of officiating Principal of the college in question and directed charge to be given to another person. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that since he is the senior most, he alone should be permitted to discharge officiating duties of the Principal and the person, who has been asked to take over charge from the petitioner, is admittedly junior to the petitioner. The next contention of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer was holding the same and equal post as was being held by the petitioner and as such he was incompetent to function as Inquiry Officer. 3. We do not think that there is any substance in the second contention of the petitioner, mentioned above. The fact that the petitioner was discharging the duties of the Principal in his officiating capacity did not make the petitioner Principal of the college, he was and continued to remain substantively a Lecturer of the college. The person, who held the inquiry, was Principal of another college. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to contend that a person holding similar rank held inquiry against the petitioner. In any event, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring to our notice any law preventing holding of inquiry by a person holding equal rank against a person whose conduct is being inquired. 4. It is true that normally officiating charge is given to the senior most, but when it is found on probe that the senior most has not been able to maintain the confidence reposed in him, there is no bar in replacing him by a junior. 6 5. That being the situation, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 05.03.2011 P. Singh