IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1289 of 2006 (S/S) Chandra Shekhar Joshi ….…… Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……….Respondents Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the U.P. State / respondent No. 3. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 4 and 5. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 6. Date of Judgment: 19.07.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) One Sri Gopal Pandey has been arrayed as respondent No. 6 to the writ petition. Despite service, he has not responded. 2. In the writ petition, petitioner has challenged a corrigendum dated 17th July, 2006, whereby changes were made in the final allocation list of senior clerks by replacing one Sri Amitabh Mukherjee from the allocation list by one Sri Gopal Pandey. This corrigendum was stayed by this Court by an order dated 28th September, 2006. It is the contention of the State of Uttar Pradesh that Sri Amitabh Mukherjee as well as Sri Gopal Pandey opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh, but since Sri Amitabh Mukherjee was considered to be the junior-most, he was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Subsequently, Sri Amitabh Mukherjee made a representation to the effect that Sri Gopal Pandey is junior to him and, accordingly, instead of allocating Sri Amitabh Mukherjee to the State of Uttarakhand, Sri Gopal Pandey ought to have had been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. It is the contention of the State of Uttar Pradesh that the said representation of Sri Amitabh Mukherjee was considered, when it transpired that Sri Gopal Pandey is junior to Sri Amitabh Mukherjee, and as such the mistake, as crept in the final allocation list, was corrected by the corrigendum by replacing Sri 2 Amitabh Mukherjee as an allocatee to the State of Uttarakhand by Sri Gopal Pandey, who, thus, stood allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In the writ petition, petitioner has contended that Sri Gopal Pandey is senior to him and, accordingly, his allocation to the State of Uttarakhand will affect the petitioner. There appears to be no dispute that petitioner comes from one cadre and Sri Amitabh Mukherjee and Sri Gopal Pandey come from another cadre. In the allocation list, it has been shown that petitioner is senior to Sri Amitabh Mukherjee, as the name of the petitioner is listed above the name of Sri Amitabh Mukherjee. In the seniority list of the cadre to which Sri Amitabh Mukherjee belongs, as annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is shown that Sri Amitabh Mukherjee is senior to Sri Gopal Pandey. 4. In the circumstances, if Sri Amitabh Mukherjee is replaced by Sri Gopal Pandey, in the allocation list, Sri Gopal Pandey will occupy the place of Sri Amitabh Mukherjee, who is, admittedly, below the petitioner. 5. In those circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner that Sri Gopal Pandey, on being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, will seek seniority above the petitioner, is factually not borne out from the records of the writ petition. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition without any interference and, accordingly, vacate the interim order. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 19.07.2011 19.07.2011 Amit