Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 573 (UTT)

Committee of Management v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-12-11

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. For the reason stated in the application, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. IA No. 4566 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly. 3. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.12.2011, Annexure -6 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioners were directed to keep in abeyance the interviews of the candidates. 4. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that there were some vacant posts in the various education institutions of the petitioners, therefore, petitioners applied before the education authorities seeking permission to initiate the process of recruitment to fill up the Class-IV vacant posts; the then District Education Officer was pleased to permit the petitioners to initiate the process for the recruitment of Class-IV employees against the vacant posts; advertisement, inviting applications were published on various dates. Applicants were short listed and thereafter permission was sought from the education authorities to conduct the interviews of the short listed applicants, however, permission sought to conduct the interviews was declined and interviews were directed to be kept in abeyance vide impugned order saying that meanwhile, Government vide GO dated 14.12.2011 was pleased to declare the Class-IV cadre as dying cadre in aided schools, therefore, interviews may be kept in abeyance till the Directorate of Education issues any direction in this regard. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2013 passed in WPMS No. 1083 of 2012 has held that if recruitment process has been initiated prior to issuance of GO dated 14.12.2011, therefore, it has to be reached to his logical conclusion and the GO dated 14.12.2011 shall not be made applicable from the retrospective date. He further contends that judgment dated 02.09.2013 was also relied upon by me in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2690 of 2013, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 10.04.2014. 6. He further contends that judgment dated 02.09.2013 was also relied upon by me in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2690 of 2013, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 10.04.2014. 6. In both the Writ Petitions i.e. WPMS No. 1038 of 2012 as well as WPMS No. 2930 of 2013 interviews were held prior to the issuance of GO dated 14.12.2011, in view of that peculiar facts, it was held that since selection process was over prior to the issuance of GO dated 14.12.2011, therefore, GO dated 14.12.2011 would not come into the way of issuing the appointment letters to the persons who had already been selected prior to the issuance of G.O dated 14.12.2011. 7. In the present case, the selection process is not yet over. Before interviews could be held, GO dated 14.12.2011 came to be passed. No rights can be said to have been acrued in favour of the candidates merely because they have participated in the recruitment process. The moment cadre is declared dead cadre, recruitment process cannot be proceeded with. The fact of the present case are totally different from Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1038 of 2012 as well as Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2930 of 2013. 8. Therefore, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. CLMA No. 5753 of 2012 also stands disposed of accordingly.