Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 463 (UTT)

Shalini Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-11

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and had applied under the women (Scheduled Caste) category for the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school. According to the petitioner, though she has secured 63.25 marks, she has not been selected, whereas respondent no. 5 who has secured 53.83 marks has been selected in Scheduled Caste women category. 2. The petitioner has all the requisite qualifications including the qualification of Teachers Eligibility Test and B.Ed. qualification. According to the petitioner, this is her last chance to participate in the selection process as the special concession in the State of Uttarakhand for B.Ed. candidates will last till 31.03.2016 and thereafter she would not be able to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School and Senior Primary School. 3. The reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is that she was not registered in a local employment exchange, which was one of the essential conditions. According to the petitioner, though she was registered with the employment exchange upto 31.12.2015, she could not get renewed the same and, therefore, her candidature has not been considered. Aggrieved, she has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Perused the records and the counter affidavit filed by the State. 5. The contention of the petitioner regarding the marks obtained by her i.e., 63.25 is admitted by the respondents. It is also admitted by the respondents that the last selected candidate in her category has secured only 53.83 marks which is much lower than that of the present petitioner. It is again an admitted fact that the reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is that she was not registered with the employment exchange. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pankaj Tangwan contends that this ineligibility, if at all, was curable inasmuch as the petitioner was duly registered till 31.12.2015 and since one gets two months time for renewal, therefore, till the end of February, 2016 she could have got her registration renewed with the employment exchange. In any case, on the date of advertisement, it cannot be technically said that there was no registration on record, as the date of advertisement is 17.02.2016 and the two months period, referred above, can be treated to be as a “grace period”. In any case, on the date of advertisement, it cannot be technically said that there was no registration on record, as the date of advertisement is 17.02.2016 and the two months period, referred above, can be treated to be as a “grace period”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has, in any case, got registered in the employment exchange in the month of April, 2016. 7. Considering all these facts it is clear that there is no qualificational ineligibility attached with the petitioner, as the so called ineligibility is in any case procedural. 8. Hence mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the ongoing selection process. However, it is made clear that respondent no. 5 who has been selected shall not be disturbed nor will be any other selected candidate. The petitioner shall only be considered in case there are vacancies still lying vacant for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, irrespective of the district or the choice given by the petitioner. 9. In view of the above and with the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed.