2026:UHC:1264 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 4 4 8 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional CSC, for the State. (2) Petitioner is serving as Assistant Block Development Officer in Rural Development Department, in Naugaon Block of District Uttarkashi. His grievance is against posting of respondent no. 4 as In-charge Block Development Officer in Naugaon Block by ignoring his claim. Petitioner contends that he is senior to respondent no. 4, therefore he is entitled to hold the charge as B.D.O. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 4 was posted as Assistant Block Development Officer in Bhatwari Block of District Uttarkashi, therefore he could not have been brought in as In- charge Block Development Officer in Naugaon Block by superseding the petitioner. (4) Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions. On instructions, Mr. P.C. Bisht concedes that respondent no. 4 is junior to petitioner. He however submits that there are six blocks in District Uttarkashi and there is only one regular Block Development Officer in the District, who is presently posted in Block Bhatwari, therefore Assistant Block Development Officers were given charge as Block Development Officer in other blocks. Learned State Counsel, however, could not give any valid reason for posting respondent no. 4 as In-charge Block Development Officer in Naugaon Block, when his senior (petitioner) is serving in the said block as Assistant Block Development Officer. (5) Learned State Counsel submitted 2026:UHC:1264 that in the past, there was complaint regarding lack of interest shown by petitioner to various schemes undertaken by Rural Development Department. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioner has been rated as ‘Outstanding’ in his Annual Confidential Report for the Reporting Year 2024-25 and submits that the contention raised by learned State Counsel that petitioner’s work was not found satisfactory during the Financial Year 2024-25 is belied by the entry given to petitioner by his Reporting Officer. (6) This Court do not approve of the manner in which a junior Assistant Block Development Officer was brought and posted as In-charge Block Development Officer in Naugaon Block, when a senior person was serving there as Assistant Block Development Officer. Seniority of an officer cannot be overlooked while making officiating arrangements. (7) In such view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.1.2026, passed by the Chief Development Officer, whereby respondent no. 4 was appointed as In-charge Block Development Officer in Naugaon Block, is set aside. However, the competent authority shall be at liberty to post a regular Block Development Officer in Naugaon Block or to handover charge as Block Development Officer to another Assistant Block Development Officer, strictly as per his/ her seniority. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2 5 .2 .2 0 2 6 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab 198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6 FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.02.26 11:04:32 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1264