Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 355 (UTT)

Manju Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-04

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is a Lecturer (Chemistry) in a grant-in-aid college, namely, “Phool Chand Nari Shilp Mandir Inter College, Dehradun” (respondent No. 7 in the present writ petition). The dispute in the present case relates to inter se seniority of present petitioner, who is Lecturer (Chemistry) in the said college and respondent No. 6 – Smt. Nisha Jain, who is also a Lecturer (History) in the same college. Both petitioner and respondent No. 6 were working in the said college as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade and both were promoted to the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) and Lecturer (History) respectively on the same day i.e. 31.07.2006. Although the District Education Officer, Dehradun has refused to grant promotion to respondent No. 6 from 01.07.2003, however, the promotion of the petitioner was granted w.e.f. 01.07.2003. The dispute is between the seniority or more precisely from the date respondent No. 6 has to be treated as a Lecturer. 2. Since the date of promotion of respondent no. 6 has not been considered from 01.07.2003 by the District Education Officer, as in the case of the petitioner, she moved a representation before the District Education Officer, Dehradun which was rejected on the ground that the post on which she was promoted was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. Instead of challenging the said order before this Court, respondent No. 6 made a complaint to Chairman, Uttarakhand Minority Commission (in short “Commission”). On the said complaint, the Commission passed an order dated 17.10.2008 directing the District Education Officer, Dehradun to consider the promotion of respondent No. 6 to the post of Lecturer (History) from 01.07.2003. Thereafter, the District Education Officer, Dehradun in turn without applying its mind to the controversy before him complied with the order of the Commission vide order dated 01.12.2008 and declared that respondent No. 6 is deemed to be promoted to the post of Lecturer (History) since 01.07.2003. It is this order, which the petitioner has challenged before this Court. 3. Nothing can be said as to the relative merit between petitioner and respondent No. 6 as to their inter se seniority or as to whether they were rightly promoted to the post. However, the orders passed by the Chairman, Uttarakhand Minority Commission on 17.10.2008 and its compliance by the District Education Officer vide order dated 01.12.2008, are wholly without jurisdiction. 4. However, the orders passed by the Chairman, Uttarakhand Minority Commission on 17.10.2008 and its compliance by the District Education Officer vide order dated 01.12.2008, are wholly without jurisdiction. 4. The functions of Uttarakhand Minority Commission are given under Section 9(1) of the Uttarakhand Commission for Minorities Act, 2002, which reads as under:- “9. (1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions namely:- (a) evaluate the progress of the development of minorities in Uttaranchal. (b) monitor the working of the safeguards in respect of minorities provided in the Constitution and in laws enacted by the State Legislature. (c) make recommendations for the effective implementation of safeguards for the protection of the interests of minorities by the Government. (d) look into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards of the minorities and take up such matters with the appropriate authorities; (e) cause studies to be undertaken into problems arising out of any discrimination against minorities and recommend measures for their removal; (f) conduct studies, research and analysis on the issues relating to socio-economic and educational development of minorities; (g) suggest appropriate measures in respect of any minority to be undertaken by the Government; (h) make periodical or special reports to the Government on any matter pertaining to minorities and in particular difficulties confronted by them; and (i) any other matter which may be referred to it by the Government.” 5. The counsel for the respondent No. 6 relies upon Section 9(1)(a),(c) and(d) of the Uttarakhand Commission for Minorities Act, 2002 and submits that in view of the above provision such recommendation can be made by the Chairman of the Commission. 6. This argument of learned counsel for the respondent is wholly misconceived. No such direction can be made by the Chairman permitting “A” instead of “B” or directing “C” to determine their inter se seniority that too laying down the manner in which it has to be determined. This is not the work of the Chairman, Uttarakhand Minority Commission. The order is totally without jurisdiction as the Minority Commission has absolutely no power to pass such an order, as done vide order dated 17.10.2008. Moreover, the compliance of the said order by the District Education Officer, Dehradun in turn is an order without application of mind to the fact as well as to the fact that this controversy had already been decided earlier. Moreover, the compliance of the said order by the District Education Officer, Dehradun in turn is an order without application of mind to the fact as well as to the fact that this controversy had already been decided earlier. He has simply complied with the order of the Commission and directed the Management of the College to consider the seniority of respondent No. 6 from 01.07.2003. 7. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Chairman, Uttarakhand Minority Commission and dated 01.12.2008 passed by District Education Officer, Dehradun are without jurisdiction and are therefore liable to be quashed. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 17.10.2008 and 01.12.2008 passed by respondent Nos. 5 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.