- (1.) Heard Sri Vishal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.3.2010 passed by Director, Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh. This order has been passed in compliance of the orders passed in writ petition No. 231 (S/S) of 2010 by this Court on 19.1.2010. The petitioner is Clerk in the department of Agriculture. It was his claim that he is non-technical person and he has been posted on a technical post. In that writ petition the Court has observed as under: Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a simply clerk having no technical qualification and as such the order dated 24.11.2009 whereby the Director Agriculture passed an order asking the petitioner to take the charge of the godown. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is also bad in view of the Government Order dated 2.5.1995 wherein it is provided that the technical staff should be posted for technical purposes. He also submits that immediately after the order dated 24.11.2009, the petitioner gave a representation to the Director, Agriculture through proper channel pointing out the difficulties and other noticeable facts.
(2.) The Court observed that it was a trivial controversy and the Director was the best person to decide the controversy. Accordingly, the impugned order, Annexure No. 1, has been passed which is under challenge. The Director has stated in his decision that his order dated 24.11.2009 by which the petitioner was posted on technical job is being cancelled. He has further directed that the petitioner shall not be posted on any technical post in future. In a way, the total grievance of the petitioner has been ventilated and his claim not to work on a technical post has been entirely allowed by the Director in compliance of the Court orders.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the order has been passed in compliance of the Court's orders and whatever grievance was raised by the petitioner has been looked into by the Director personally and the order has been passed cancelling the order which was challenged in the earlier writ petition, as such, the petitioner does not have any grievance whatsoever and this writ petition is totally misconceived and not maintainable.;