Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/380/2011 of SAVITRI RAWAT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS on 29 December 2011
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 380 of 2011 Savitri Rawat W/o J.S. Rawat, Presently posted as Block Development Officer, Block Doiwala, Dehradun. ..….…… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Rural Development Department,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 380 of 2011
Savitri Rawat W/o J.S. Rawat, Presently posted as Block Development Officer, Block Doiwala, Dehradun.
..….…… Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
2. Commissioner, Rural Development, Uttarakhand, Pauri.
3. State Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand, Hardwar. Hardwar.
4. Smt. Anita Bisht, presently posted as B.D.O.
5. Shilpi Pant, presently posted as B.D.O. service through the Commissioner Rural Development, Uttarakhand, Pauri.
….……. Respondents
Present: Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief JusticeHon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 29[th] December, 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral)
Seniority dispute is sought to be sorted out by filing the present writ petition, though claiming that the promotion of the petitioner should be preponed. In the order, by which the petitioner was promoted, it was not indicated that the selection year for promotion of the petitioner is 2002-2003. In the petition, it is being contended that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted for the selection year 2000-2001 and, accordingly, the promotion of the petitioner for the selection year 2002-2003 should be modified to the selection year 2000-2001. As aforesaid, the order, by which the petitioner was promoted, does not show that she was promoted taking into consideration the selection year 2002-2003 and, accordingly, question of modifying the promotion of the petitioner, signifying therein that the selection year of the promotion of the petitioner is 2000-2001 instead of 2002-2003 does not arise. As has already been held by this Court, matters pertaining to any dispute on account of seniority must first be exhausted before the Tribunal.
2. With the observations as above, we dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.
P. Singh
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.12.2011 29.12.2011 29.12.2011 29.12.2011