IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 751 of 2008 (S/S) WITH Interim Relief App. No. 4594 of 2008 Km. Nirmala Sah D/o Sri Chiranji Lal Sah Assistant Teacher Pindar Public Junior High School Tharali, District Chamoli. …….Petitioner. Versus State and 4 others. ……..Respondents. Shri B.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for respondents No. 1 to 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.06.2008, passed by respondent No. 3. 3. Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in Pindar Public Junior High School, Tharali, District Chamoli and respondent No. 5- Dinesh Prasad Kaparwan, is a Head Master. In the earlier round of litigation, petitioner filed writ petition No. 389 of 2008 (S/S), alleging that the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 5, and his appointment as Head Master, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, is illegal. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.05.2008, directing respondent No. 3 to decide the representation dated 07.03.2008, made by the petitioner. 4. In compliance of aforesaid order dated 23.05.2008, passed by this Court in writ petition No. 389 (S/S) of 2008, the impugned order dated 25.06.2008, appears to have been passed by the authority concerned. The impugned order shows that after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 5, and examining the record, the respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional District Education Officer (Basic), found that petitioner is claiming seniority of the period when the school was not recognized and the same was not available to her. Apart from this, respondent No. 3 has further mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner participated in the selection process in 1993, and respondent No. 5 stood first after the interview as against the petitioner, who stood second in the merit. As such, no illegality is found in the appointment of respondent No. 5, as principal of aforesaid school. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.06.2008, passed by respondent No. 3. The writ is dismissed summarily. (Interim relief application No. 4594of 2008, stands dismissed.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 24.07.2008 Sweta