Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 94 (UTT)

Shobha Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-01

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate with Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent nos.1 to 7. 3. In both the above writ petitions, the petitioners are Assistant Teachers LT-Grade and they were promoted vide order dated 31.10.2013 to the post of Lecturer, a promotion which the petitioners declined. Thereafter, 96 such Teachers who had earlier declined the promotion were reconsidered vide order dated 02.05.2015. Consequently, another list was published, promoting such Assistant Teacher LT-Grade to the post of Lecturer. Many of the Assistant Teachers have already joined their post i.e. on the post of Lecturer in pursuance of the new posting promotion. 4. The present petitioners who was amongst such Teachers but before she could join her new post of Lecturer, another order was issued by respondent no.2/Director General, Uttarakhand School Education cancelling the order of the Additional Director, Uttarkhand School Education. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State and the stand taken by the State Government is that such transfer could only be made by the Director General, School Education and Additional Director, Uttarakhand School Education has not taken prior approval from the Director General, School Education Uttarakhand. Since this approval has not been taken by the Additional Director, Uttarakhand School Education from the Director General, Uttarakhand School Education, the Director General, Uttarakhand School Education cancelled the order of the Additional Director, Uttarakhand School Education. 6. There is another aspect to the matter which needs to be considered. Neither the petitioners nor the respondents have been able to show the relevant law on the subject where an Assistant Teacher LT-Grade who has already refused his promotion earlier can still be considered later for promotions, that too within a span of less than three years? 7. The learned counsel for the State has also apprised this Court that due to the non-joining of such teacher as the petitioners on the post of Lecturer earlier there is an extreme shortage of Lecturers particularly in the remote areas, in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the State has also apprised this Court that due to the non-joining of such teacher as the petitioners on the post of Lecturer earlier there is an extreme shortage of Lecturers particularly in the remote areas, in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. The writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the Secretary, Education Government of Uttarakhand to look into all these aspects and if he comes to the conclusion that another chance could have been given to the petitioners under the law, he should assign reasons therein and pass an appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. The Director Education has already been ordered to set up an inquiry in this matter. This inquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and the Secretary, Education shall consider the inquiry report as well while considering the representations of the petitioners.