IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1041 of 2003 Smt. Kanti Toliya …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …..Respondents Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents at length. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.9.2001 (Annexure – 6 to the Writ Petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh and the order dated 21.6.2003/28.6.2003 (Annexure – 10 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Nainital. Apart from this, there was another prayer for Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the seniority to the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 29.1.1990 and also to grant a time scale to the petitioner after completing eight years of continuous service with effect from 23.1.1998. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer vide order dated 23.1.1990. The appointment order dated 23.1.1990 clearly says that the appointment of the petitioner is purely temporary in nature and that her services can be terminated at any time after the appointment of a regular Stenographer on that post. According to the petitioner, another employee, namely, Jagdish Prasad Bhatt was appointed as Stenographer in the office of D.G.C., Pithoragarh. In the year, 1994, the petitioner was transferred to the post of Stenographer D.G.C., Pithoragarh and Jagdish Prasad Bhatt was transferred in place of the petitioner i.e. to the post of Stenographer in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Munshyari. The petitioner claims that in the inter se seniority list issued by the 2 respondents, the petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 18 whereas Jagdish Prasad Bhatt is shown at Serial No. 15. The claim of the petitioner is that she was appointed prior to Jagdish Prasad Bhatt and, therefore, ipso facto she is senior, to Sri Jagdish Prasad Bhatt. Sri Jagdish Prasad Bhatt has, however, not been impleaded as a party in the present Writ Petition, by the petitioner. The respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that the initial appointment of the petitioner was only adhoc in nature, which was regularised later by the order dated 10.11.1995. As per the Rules applicable for the Government servants in the State of Uttarakhand, the seniority has to be calculated from the date of substantive appointment and the substantive appointment of the petitioner in any case is only with effect from 14.11.1995. Therefore, her claim for calculating the seniority from 23.1.1990 is absolutely misconceived. The petitioner had earlier moved a representation before the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, which was rejected by the District Magistrate vide order dated 3.9.2001 stating that she was initially appointed only in adhoc capacity on 23.1.1990 and her services were regularised only on 14.11.1995 and, therefore, she cannot be given selection grade from 23.1.1998 as she has not completed 8 years of regular service on the post of Stenographer, as her date of substantive appointment will be with effect from 14.11.1995. Aggrieved, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Nainital, which was also rejected by a speaking order dated 21.6.2003/28.6.2003. The Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Nainital in his order has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the date of seniority of the petitioner has to be taken from her substantive appointment and the substantive appointment of the petitioner is 14.11.1995 and as such the petitioner cannot claim for calculating her seniority with effect from 23.1.1990. The respondents in their counter affidavit have reiterated what the Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Nainital and the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh have stated in their orders referred above. 3 On apprisal of the rival contentions, this Court finds absolutely no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is claiming seniority over Jagdish Prasad Bhatt, who has not been impleaded as a party. Further from the records available before this Court, it is clear that entire claim of the petitioner for calculating her date of initial appointment for the purposes of determining the seniority and time scale is based on a misconceived notion that her seniority is liable to be calculated from the date of her initial appointment. Admittedly the date of her initial appointment i.e. 23.1.1990, is not a date of her substantive appointment. Her substantive appointment is only in the year 1995 and under the Rules her seniority is liable to be calculated only from the year 1995. In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 29.7.2010 Avneet