JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) in a private though grant-in-aid school, namely, “Janta Inter College Ramar Dang”. He was appointed after a due selection vide order dated 15.05.2013. He is presently aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2013 by which the entire selection for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) in the said College has been cancelled! Prior to it, after a due selection and the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appointing authority i.e. the Committee of Management had issued an appointment letter dated 15.05.2013 to the petitioner. The said appointment letter has not yet been recalled or cancelled by the authority concerned, and according to the counsel for the petitioner, with consent of the Management, the petitioner is continuously teaching in the said Management school for the last 2½ years. A fact, which is admitted by the Management Committee which is respondent no. 6 and is represented by Mr. Sunil Upadhyay. 2. Brief facts of the case, which needs a narration, are as follows :- In district Pauri Garhwal there is a grant-in-aid private school run by the Management Committee known as “Janta Inter College Ramar Dang” which is situated in block Kaljikhal, Pauri Garhwal. The post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) fell vacant in the year 2012 and subsequently after due permission from the authorities concerned, an advertisement was issued by the Management Committee on 16.04.2012 in Amar Ujala and on 17.04.2012 in Dainik Jagran, newspapers which are in vide circulation in District Pauri Garhwal in Uttarakhand. Apart from the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit), seven other posts were also advertised, with which we are presently not concerned. The process is that subsequent to the advertisement, the candidates who applied for the posts have to submit their documents in the Office of the Chief Education Officer of the District and thereafter these documents are evaluated and merit list is prepared and a list of top eight candidates is then sent to the Management Committee of the concerned school for their interview/viva voce. This evaluation is done by the Chief Education Officer on the basis of past records of each candidates, such as, the marks obtained by the candidates in High School, Intermediate, Graduation etc. This evaluation is done by the Chief Education Officer on the basis of past records of each candidates, such as, the marks obtained by the candidates in High School, Intermediate, Graduation etc. A list of eight candidates was sent by the District Education Officer (now known as “Chief Education Officer”). The candidates, who have been recommended by the District Education Officer for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit), and the marks obtained by each of the candidates, are as follows :- SL. No. Name of the candidates Marks obtained 1. Dr. Keshwanand Gaur 93.05 2. Meena Kandari 93.05 3. Usha Nautiyal 90.62 4. Dr. Lalita 88.76 5. Kumari Anjana 84.40 6. Nagendra Parsad Pokhriyal 83.26 7. Kumari Arpana 83.20 8. Pawan Kumar 82.20 3. Out of these eight candidates when the interview for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) was scheduled to take place in the designated place, only three candidates appeared for the interview, namely, Usha Nautiyal, Dr. Keshwanand (present petitioner) and Dr. Lalita. In the interview, the petitioner obtained 17 marks out of 25 marks and the total marks, including the quality points marks, of the petitioner comes to 110.05 (93.05+17). Consequently, the petitioner has obtained the highest number of marks out of these eight candidates. Thereafter, the Selection Committee forwarded the name of the petitioner before the appointing authority, i.e. the Chief Education Officer, on 04.03.2013. Since an approval is required by the Chief Education Officer for the said selection and only after the approval appointment can be made by the Management Committee. However, the regulations, which are presently applicable in such appointments, are known as “Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006” (in short “Act of 2006”). As per Rule 17 (g) of the Act of 2006, once the Selection Committee sends the name, the District Education Officer has to pass an order within two months thereafter and if no orders are passed within a period of two months then the approval is “deemed” to have been given. Consequently, since no order was passed by the Chief Education Officer within two months and invoking the deeming clause (referred above) the Management Committee gave an appointment letter on 15.05.2013 to the petitioner. Consequently, since no order was passed by the Chief Education Officer within two months and invoking the deeming clause (referred above) the Management Committee gave an appointment letter on 15.05.2013 to the petitioner. Since the documents were sent for approval as far back as on 04.03.2013 and after two months i.e. on 05.05.2013 deeming clause could have been invoked and only thereafter the appointment letter was given to the petitioner on 15.05.2013. Since then the petitioner is teaching in the said school. 4. Meanwhile, a writ petition was filed before this Court by one Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal being WPSS No. 225/2013. His case before this Court was that he was also one of the candidates, who had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) in the same school in which the petitioner has been selected and appointed, and he could not appear for the interview as there was another interview in which he had to appear on the same day for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in an adjacent school namely “Janta Inter College Kamalpur, Sanglakoti”. In that school he was withheld by the Management Committee and consequently could not appear in the interview in the Janta Inter College Ramar Dang and hence seeks direction of this Court to quash the entire selection process of the aforesaid schools. The writ petition (WPSS No. 225 of 2013) was disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2013 by the learned Single Judge of this Court by passing following order :- “Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripthi, Addl.C.S.C. present for the State of Uttarakhand. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No. 2 i.e. Director of Education, Secondary Education Dehradun to treat copy of the writ petition as representation and also enquire into the matter as alleged by the petitioner in the petition. If as on today, the selection process is not finalized, the same shall not be done without deciding this matter. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall also be notified for personal hearing in the matter. Petitioner may also be notified at the same time. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. If the selection process has already been completed, it will abide by the result of the enquiry. 5 & 6 shall also be notified for personal hearing in the matter. Petitioner may also be notified at the same time. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. If the selection process has already been completed, it will abide by the result of the enquiry. Let a copy of the writ petition and certified copy of this order be forwarded to the above Officer.” 5. Thereafter, the Chief Education Officer on the basis of the said order got an enquiry done in this matter and on the basis of the enquiry he has cancelled the entire selection process of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) of Janta Inter College Ramar Dang. Therefore, in effect, the petitioner though selected and appointed and though is continuously teaching in the school for the last 2½ years is not getting his salary even though his appointment has not been cancelled as yet. The petitioner also alleges that the impugned order dated 25.06.2013 passed by the Director Education without affording an opportunity, though it has civil consequences. Hence, in any case it is clearly violative of the principle of natural justice and fair play. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State, this Court has absolutely no doubt in its mind that the order dated 25.06.2013 is totally illegal and cannot be allowed to stand. The reasons are as follows :- The Director, Education who has cancelled the selection vide its order dated 25.06.2013 had done it primarily on the ground that Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal (the petitioner in WPSS No. 225 of 2013) was deprived of appearing in the interview on 19.02.2013 for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) and hence the entire selection is set aside. On coming to this conclusion he has relied upon an enquiry report of District Education Officer (now known as “Chief Education Officer”) who has for some reasons stated that on 19.02.2013 the interview for Lecturer (Hindi) and Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) were held in two different colleges on which Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal was a candidate for both the posts. On coming to this conclusion he has relied upon an enquiry report of District Education Officer (now known as “Chief Education Officer”) who has for some reasons stated that on 19.02.2013 the interview for Lecturer (Hindi) and Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) were held in two different colleges on which Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal was a candidate for both the posts. He appeared for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) initially, but there he was detained for some reasons and after finishing his interview for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) when he went to give his interview for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit), he was denied the same. Both these places are by and large either adjacent to each other or in the same premises, so there was no question of Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal covering a long distance and appearing in the interview at two different places. But since this enquiry report of the Chief Education Officer has not been produced either by the petitioner or by the State Government, this Court had summoned the records of the writ petition filed by Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal (as already referred above) which was disposed of by Learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 13.03.2013. 7. In that writ petition, Annexure 5 is the application of Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal before the Director of Education. This application has been perused. This application which is in Hindi states that he was a candidate for both the interviews (as already referred above), first he went to appear for the interview of Lecturer (Hindi) at Janta Inter College Kamalpur, Sanglakoti. Both the interviews were to take place between 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 19.02.2013. First he went to give interview at Sanglakoti where only two persons had appeared for the interview. The interview could not proceed as minimum of at least three candidates were required for the interview and only when three candidates did appear, the interview could start, and therefore, he was detained by the authorities at Sanglakoti on that day. First he went to give interview at Sanglakoti where only two persons had appeared for the interview. The interview could not proceed as minimum of at least three candidates were required for the interview and only when three candidates did appear, the interview could start, and therefore, he was detained by the authorities at Sanglakoti on that day. In other words, he shifts the entire blame on the Management Committee of Sanglakoti and he further says that by the time he went to give his interview at Ramar Dang, he was informed that the interview for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) had already been concluded within the prescribed time and hence he was not allowed to appear in the interview. In other words Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal himself has not shifted any blame either on the present petitioner or to the authorities of Management Committee Ramar Dang. Therefore, for what reason the Enquiry Officer has concluded and shifted blame on the authorities is beyond the comprehension of this Court. 8. Even assuming for the sake of argument, that petitioner would have appeared for the interview, yet comparing the relative merit of the petitioner and Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal, I find that even if Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal would have got the highest marks in the interview i.e. 25 marks, his total marks even in that case would have been less than the total marks of the present petitioner. Therefore, he had absolutely no chance of scoring over the present petitioner. The present petitioner has got 93.05 marks on the basis of his past records and documents whereas Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal has got only 83.26 marks, which is admittedly less than the present petitioner. The petitioner got additional marks of 17 in the interview. Therefore his total marks are 110.05. Even, if Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal would have got 25 out of 25 marks in the interview then also his total marks would have been 108.26, which are in any case less than the marks of the present petitioner. Therefore, this entire exercise is pointless. 9. Therefore his total marks are 110.05. Even, if Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal would have got 25 out of 25 marks in the interview then also his total marks would have been 108.26, which are in any case less than the marks of the present petitioner. Therefore, this entire exercise is pointless. 9. It is further necessary to mention here that as per the Regulations, the total marks of the interview are 25 marks and a candidate is normally given marks between 10 to 18 and if he is given less than 10 marks or more than 18 marks than the member of the Selection Committee, which gives him these low or high marks must assign special reasons for doing so. In any case, as we have seen even if Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal gets the highest marks then too his marks are less than the present petitioner. 10. There is another glaring anomaly here which is that although Mr. Nagendra Pokhariyal has full knowledge of the selection, as selection had preceded the date when he had filed the writ petition before this Court, he had not impleaded the selected candidate, i.e. the present petitioner, in that writ petition, who is a necessary party. Moreover, in any case the Director has passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and this is totally in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. In total analysis of the matter, however, the impugned order dated 25.06.2013 cannot stand and is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Considering that the present petitioner has already suffered enough whereby in spite of a valid selection and appointment as he has been effectively deprived of it and is without salary for the last 2½ years. It is further directed that the concerned authority shall treat the petitioner to be in continuous in service since the date of his joining/appointment and he shall be given regular salary from now and the entire arrears of the salary be also given to the petitioner by the concerned authority within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.