Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 358 (UTT)

Atul Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-19

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioners before this Court are primarily challenging the regularization of respondent no. 7 to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 01.10.1990 and thereafter promotion of respondent no. 7 to the post of Lecturer. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the State Counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 7 that respondent no. 7 was granted benefit vide order dated 28.10.2004 in a writ petition moved by him before this Court being WPSB No. 162 of 2002. Respondent no. 7, who was the petitioner in the said writ petition has been given the benefit of Government Order dated 21.11.1995, which was passed by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and was meant for the Assistant Teachers and the Lecturers, who were appointed on ad hoc capacity prior to 01.10.1990 in the hill area of Uttarakhand. As per the terms of the said Government Order, such Assistant Teachers/Lecturers who were appointed on the post of Assistant Teachers or Lecturers, in ad hoc capacity were liable to be regularized. The writ petition of respondent no. 7 Sri Bhuwan Chandra Kandpal was allowed in terms of the Government Order dated 21.11.1995, by the learned Single Judge on 28.10.2014. 3. The judgment dated 28.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was challenged by State Government in special appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2006. Thereafter, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench were challenged by the State Government before the Hon’ble Apex Court. This Court has also been informed that on the appeal filed by the State Government, leave was first granted to the State but thereafter its civil appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 20.4.2011. The order dated 20.04.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as under: “Heard Sri S.S. Sham Sherry, learned counsel for the appellants. Upon perusal of the Government Order No. 3179/15-2-95-27 (40)-93 dated November 21, 1995, we are of the view that the Single Judge of the High Court took the correct view in directing that the services of the respondents be treated to have been regularized in L.T. Grade w.e.f. October 1, 1990. The dismissal of the Special Appeal by the Division Bench, therefore, cannot be faulted. The dismissal of the Special Appeal by the Division Bench, therefore, cannot be faulted. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 4. Since, the benefit granted to respondent no. 7 by order of this Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, any interference in the present writ petition would amount to at least a re-appraisal of the above. Needless to say this cannot be done. In fact this petition seems to be totally misconceived. The writ petition has absolutely no merit and is being hereby dismissed. 5. Having made the aforesaid dismissal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has also brought to the knowledge of this Court that another order has been passed by the State of Uttarakhand dated 26.12.2001, in which it has been stated that ad hoc employee should complete atleast three years of service before regularization, and hence allege discrepancy. 6. This Court can say nothing on this aspect. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise argument in accordance with law, in case they are aggrieved by the above Government Order. 7. Let certified copy of this order be issued within three days on payment of usual charges.