The petitioner who was permanent Class IV employee in the District Court Champawat, has challenged the order dated 20th October, 2008 passed by the District Judge, Champawat, whereby her services have been terminated.

2. Heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed on Class IV post on 19-6-2002 and was continuing on that post when she appeared in an examination for appointment on the Class III post in the same Judgeship. The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and consequently was given appointment on Class III post in the same judgeship. As the petitioner was already working in Class IV post in the same judgeship, she had to formally resign from her Class IV post and therefore, she submitted her resignation on 31-3-2004 to the respondent i.e. the then District Judge, Champawat, which was accepted by the District Judge, Champawat the same day. These are the admitted facts. Next day i.e. on 1st April, 2009 (sic, 2004), the petitioner joined her service as a Class III employee. However, the entire examination on the Class III post of the judgeship was cancelled by the orders of the High Court of Uttarakhand, which were communicated to the Champawat Judgeship and consequently, the services of petitioner on class III post came to an end w.e.f. 7th April, 2004. It is also an admitted case that this cancellation of examination was not challenged by the petitioner. Instead the petitioner moved two applications before the District Judge, Champawat on 8th April, 2004, where she stated the entire facts as to how she had formally resigned from Class IV post and consequently, the same was accepted and the petitioner cannot be blamed, if the examination of Class III post has been cancelled. She therefore pleaded that her resignation may be treated as a “conditional resignation” i.e. the condition to the fact of her joining on Class III post and since this condition has not materialized, therefore, her resignation is infact no resignation, and should not be treated as such. She also filed another application on the same day praying that her services rendered in the Class III post should be treated as leave without pay and continuity of her service on Class IV post may be maintained. On this an office report was prepared by the then District Judge, Champawat and thereafter by an order dated 21st April, 2004, the then District Judge, Champawat withdrew the acceptance of resignation, treating the resignation as “conditional” and the petitioner was reinstated in service as a class IV employee. The learned District Judge, has also relied upon a ruling of Punjab & Haryana High Court, according to which in a given case which was before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, resignation once accepted was withdrawn. However, it must be said here that the ruling referred to in order dated 21-4-2004 has no citation and even this Court had no privilege of going through this ruling as it was not placed before this Court. Therefore, this Court is not placing any reliance on the said ruling. However, in order to complete the narration of events, the petitioner in consequence of order dated 21-4-2004 joined the Class IV post on 22-4-2004 and continued to serve on that post till 2008.

4. Now, after a period of four years, one Mohd. Irshad and one another (who are employees of the same judgeship), moved an application before the District Judge challenging the inter se seniority between them and the petitioner. Mohd. Irshad and another, perhaps claimed themselves to be senior to the petitioner and hence on the basis of this application an enquiry was set up and the Inquiry Officer, who submitted its report on 20th September, 2008 before the District judge, Champawat, stated that “applicants claim against Mrs. Deepa Chaturvedi is justified because withdrawal of her resignation is “void ab initio”, in