Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 562 (UTT)

SHAZIA SAIFI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-12-10

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 3. Delay condonation application (CLMA No.13869 of 2015) in filing the counter affidavit is allowed. Delay is condoned. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 is taken on record. 4. During the course of arguments, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner prays that he wants to amend his prayer clause in the writ petition. 5. Permission granted. 6. The petitioner before this Court was a candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary School) in the State of Uttarakhand. She has all requisite educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary School) including the fact that she has also qualified the “Teachers Eligibility Test” (TET). 7. Vacancies were advertised for the year 2011-12. Petitioner admittedly applied for the said post and selected as an OBC candidate but the candidature of the petitioner was not considered as the OBC certificate of the petitioner was for the purposes of “education” only and consequently the concerned authority did not consider the candidature of the petitioner and rejected the same. Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition before this Court being WPSS No. 1719 of 2012. 8. Now another objection has been raised by the respondents is that the caste certificate is valid for only one year and the petitioner should submit a new caste certificate. The writ petition No.1719 of 2012 was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the Education authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and do the needful. 9. Now by an order dated 21.09.2015, the Director Primary Education, Uttarakhand has considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same on wholly frivolous grounds. The Director while rejecting the representation of the petitioner narrated the entire facts such as the caste certificate of the petitioner was not submitted in time and the caste certificate is only for the purpose of “education”, etc and now the vacancies have already been included in the next selection process and presently there are no existing vacancies! Hence appointment cannot be given to the petitioner, according to the respondents. 10. Hence appointment cannot be given to the petitioner, according to the respondents. 10. The principal contention of the respondents is that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered because she has not submitted her OBC caste certificate in time. The OBC caste certificate for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities carried a remark that it is only for the purpose of “education” whereas a caste certificate is a certificate and to say that it is only for a given purpose is not correct. This Court had enquired from the learned counsel for the State Mr. B.P.S. Mer as to why the caste certificate has to be given for the purposes of education only but no assistance has come forward on this aspect. In any case, caste certificate is a caste certificate which is valid for all purposes, it cannot be said that caste certificate is given for education only and not for other purposes and therefore the non consideration of the petitioner candidature is wholly for irrelevant reasons. The petitioner has already suffered much merely due to the callous and total apathy on the part of the respondents. 11. The writ petition succeeds with a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) which shall be given by the Secretary Education to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. This cost may be recovered from the concerned officer or officers who have caused this unnecessary delay and harassment to the petitioner. Respondents shall also give an appointment letter to the petitioner for any existing vacancy in Primary School first at Kotdwar and if for any reason, the same could not be made, efforts be made to adjust the petitioner anywhere in District Pauri Garhwal. 12. The District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal shall ensure that the above cost is given to the petitioner, along with the first salary she draws.