IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 531 of 2008 (S/S) Chandra Kiran Bahuguna S/o late Sri S.D. Bahuguna R/o Village & P.O. Paundha District Dehradun. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. Director of Education Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 2. Joint Director of Education Garhwal Region, Pauri Garhwal. 3. District Education Officer, Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. 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 27th of May 2008, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. A further mandamus has also been sought by the petitioner seeking suo moto promotion in C.T. Grade admissible to him after completion of five years continuous service in the C.T. Grade. 3) This is fourth round of litigation initiated by the petitioner. 4) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade on 16.08.1974. He is claiming suo moto promotion on completion of one year of service in C.T. Grade under the Government Order No. 6062 / 15 – (7)- 1 (62) / 73 dated 25.01.1974. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1986 of 1994, in connection with the same claim which appears to have been disposed of on 09.05.1995, and in compliance of said order representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 06.02.1997, passed by Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh. On this, petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 14266 of 1997, challenging said order. Again, in compliance of order passed in second writ petition, representation of the petitioner was rejected on 05.07.1997, by the same authority i.e. Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, third Writ Petition No. 32219 of 1997 was filed before the Allahabad High Court, which was received by transferred to this Court, and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 5561 (S/S) of 2001. Said writ petition was disposed of on 11.12.2007, this time directing the District Education Officer, Dehradun (present respondent No. 3) to decide the representation of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 has by impugned order dated 27.05.2008, rejected the representation of the petitioner, by a speaking order. 5) Impugned order (a copy of which is Annexure –9 to the writ petition) shows that the petitioner is seeking suo moto promotion under Government Order dated 25.01.1974, which is not applicable to him, as he was not in service on that date. The petitioner was appointed in C.T. Grade only on 16.08.1974 i.e. subsequent to the date of the Government Order (25.01.1974). The first promotional pay scale payable to the petitioner on completion of five years of service, has been given to him w.e.f. 01.07.1979. On merger of the C.T. Grade into L.T. Grade, considering the ten years’ of satisfactory service of the petitioner, he was given L.T. Grade w.e.f. 01.07.1989. Respondent No. 3 has specifically observed that the Government Order No. 6062 dated 25.01.1974 is not applicable to the petitioner, as he was not the appointee prior to that date. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Annexure –1 to the writ petition, which is copy of part of the Government Order dated 25.01.1974. He drew attention of this Court to Clause 2 in Para 1 of the Government Order, which reads “tks izf’kf{kr Lukrd gSa vkSj ftUgksusa ,d o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gS@djsxsa] fo’ks"k #Ik ls xfBr gksus okyh ,d p;u lfefr }kjk mi;qDr ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ij Lkh0 Vh0 xzsM esa LoFk% ¼lw eksVks½ inksUufr fufnZ"V lsok vof/k iw.kZ djus ds fnukad ls tks fdlh Hkh fn’kk esa uoEcj 1] 1973 ls iwoZ u gksxk] nh tk;sxhA” 7) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word ‘djsxsa’, refers to the subsequent appointees to the Government Order dated 25.01.1974. But, in fact, the first Para of Government Order dated 25.01.1974 refers to a letter dated 15th December 1973, sent by the Directorate to the Government seeking certain instructions in respect of certain teachers. Apart from this, the petitioner could not show me that his case was recommended by Selection Committee constituted under the aforesaid Government Order. 8) Having gone through the impugned order and other papers on record, this Court does not find any error of law committed by respondent No. 3, in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner, vide its order dated 27.05.2008. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is summarily dismissed. (Interim Relief Application No. 4026 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. August 05, 2008. H.Negi