Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri M.C. Kandpal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S. S. Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri Subhash Upadhayaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the year 1982 in the office of the Assistant Director, Ganna Kishan Sansthan Evam Prashikshan Kendra, Sahjahanpur and from time to time, the petitioner was transferred to several places in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer by a resolution dated 23rd February, 1991 and, since then, the petitioner has been working as a Stenographer. The petitioner's name is also found in the seniority list of the post of Stenographers.
3. On 09th November, 2000, the State of Uttaranchal, now known as Uttarakhand, was created on the basis of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. The petitioner at that moment of time was working at Kashipur centre, which came in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner gave an option for being allocated the State of Uttarakhand. In the meeting dated 08th April, 2002, the authorities of the State of Uttarakhand resolved to absorb the petitioner as an employee in the Government of Uttarakhand. Since then, the petitioner is being treated as an employee of the State Government of Uttarakhand and is also being taken salary from the exchequer of Uttarakhand Government.
4. By an order dated 16th August, 2004, the Deputy Director, U.P. Ganna Kishan Sansthan, Lucknow reverted the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk. Feeling aggrieved by the reversion order, the petitioner made a representation before the Director, Ganna Kishan Sansthan, Kashipur, which was rejected by an order dated 14th June, 2007. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 02nd February, 2006 passed by the Commissioner directing the petitioner to be posted as a Junior Clerk till the disposal of the representation, as well as the order dated 14th June, 2007 by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the sole ground that the Deputy Director, Lucknow had passed an order dated 16th August, 2004 reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk.
6. Even though, the order of Deputy Director, Lucknow dated 16th August, 2004 has not been questioned or challenged by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the said order is a void and a nonest order simple because the State Government of Uttar Pradesh through its Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to revert the petitioner, who is an employee of the State of Uttarakhand and was no longer an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Any reversion order, which is to be passed, could only be passed by the competent authority. The Deputy Director of the Government of Uttar Pradesh had no authority to pass an order against the petitioner, who was not their employee. This fact has been clearly admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, the posting of the petitioner as a Junior Clerk pursuant to the order of the Deputy Director of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 16th August, 2004 could not have been issued nor could the petitioner's representation be rejected on this ground. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 02.02.2006 and 14.06.2007 passed by the Commissioner / Director, Sugar and Cane Development, Ganna Kishan Sansthan Evam Prashiksahan Kendra, Kashipur, U. S. Nagar cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. This Court is of the opinion that the order of the Deputy Director, U.P. Ganna Kishan Sansthan, Lucknow dated 16th August, 2004 is a nonest order in so far as it relates to the petitioner. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Stenographer.
8. In the event, it is found that the petitioner is not qualified under the relevant rules, it would be open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law.