Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 588 (UTT)

TILAK RAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-09-18

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] Since the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1283(S/S) of 2008 a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought for quashing the order dated 1-12-2008, passed by respondent No.3, Additional Director, Garhwal Mandal Pauri, contained in Annexure No.10 of the writ petition. 3. In Writ Petition No. 13 16(S/S) of 2008 a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought for quashing the orders dated 1-12-2008, passed by respondent No.3, Additional Director, Garhwal Mandal Pauri, contained in Annexure Nos. 13-A and 13-B of the writ petition. 4. According to the petitioners’ case in the year 1997 the Joint Director of Education Garhwal Region, Pauri invited the applications for 532 posts of Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade, under the U.P. Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983. In response to the advertisement many candidates including the petitioners submitted their applications. Total number of 434 candidates were selected and appointed by the Joint Director, Garhwal Region on 18-11-1998. After around eight months services of petitioners were cancelled by the Joint Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal Pauri vide order dated 17-6-1999 without giving opportunity and against that order writ petitions were filed before Allahabad High Court and interim order dated 20-7-1999 and 14-10-1999 were passed. After creation of State of Uttarakhand the writ petitions were transferred to High Court of Uttarakhand and the same were clubbed and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 10-5-2007 passed in W.P. No. 6778 (S/S) of 2001 and connected petitions, quashed the order dated 17-6-1999, whereby the services of petitioners along with others were terminated. It appears that in compliance of above order of this Court the Additional Director of Education Garhwal Region, Pauri passed the impugned orders dated 1-12-2008 after issuing notices to the petitioners and once again the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled on the ground that they secured less quality points than cut off quality marks. 5. Hence these writ petitions. 6. Heard Sri Ravi Babulkar Advocate for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Bansal Standing Counsel on behalf of State/respondents. 7. 5. Hence these writ petitions. 6. Heard Sri Ravi Babulkar Advocate for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Bansal Standing Counsel on behalf of State/respondents. 7. In these writ petitions supplementary affidavits have been filed by the petitioners that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions has already been decided by the Division Bench and the Single Bench of this Court. Copies of the judgments were also annexed with the supplementary affidavit. This court vide order dated 7-9-2012 has directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to whether the petitions are similarly situated persons and are covered by the aforesaid judgments of this Court. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the petitioners in these writ petitions are similarly situated persons to those of Writ Petition No. 1252 (S/S) of 2008 Sanjay Chauhan and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and connected writ petition No. 04(S/S) of 2009 Dalpat Singh Vs. State and others, decided by learned Single Judge of this Court on 1-8-20 12 and similar controversy is involved in the cases at hand. 9. In the above Writ Petition No. 1252 (S/S) of 2008 the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the order dated 18-09-1998, passed by Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 30344 of 1998, and G.O. dated 13-10-1995, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and further considering the fact that the respondents failed to show any document suggesting that a minimum quality points cut off marks were higher than what was secured by the petitioners and allowed the writ petitions. In the present case also no such document has been filed therefore the writ petitions are liable to be allowed. 10. Therefore, both the writ petitions are allowed in terms of Writ Petition No. 1252 (S/S) of 2008 Sanjay Chauhan and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and connected writ petition No. 04(S/S) of 2009 Dalpat Singh Vs. State and others, decided by learned Single Judge of this Court on 1-8-20 12 and the impugned orders dated 1-12-2008, passed by the Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri Garhwal are hereby quashed. No orders as to costs.