Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 396 (UTT)

Lalit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-07-18

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Both these Appeals being connected, we are disposing of the same by a common judgment. These Appeals are maintained against a common judgment, which was pronounced in Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2016 (S/S) and Writ Petition No. 1241 of 2016 (S/S). 2. We heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia on behalf of the appellants in Special Appeal No. 98 of 2017, Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 66 of 2017, who has adopted the arguments of Mr. Shobhit Saharia. We also heard Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General with the Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission in Special Appeal No. 98 of 2017, Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education. 3. Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2016 (S/S) was filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Govt. Order dated 3rd May 2016 (copy of which is not available with the petitioner), providing for appointment of Visiting Teachers on the vacancies available in the cadre of Assistant Teachers, L.T. Grade / Lecturer being violative of the provisions of the Service Rules 2014. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Govt. Order dated 25th May, 2016 issued by the Additional Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Uttarakhand as well as the communication dated 20th May 2016 and 27th May 2016 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the State Government / Department in providing the temporary arrangement on the vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade / Lecturer by appointment through Visiting Teacher being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate the selection process for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade / Lecturer through direct recruitment in terms of the Service Rules, 2014, on the vacancies which have arisen after 24th February 2014.” 4. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate the selection process for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade / Lecturer through direct recruitment in terms of the Service Rules, 2014, on the vacancies which have arisen after 24th February 2014.” 4. Prayers in Writ Petition No. 1241 of 2016 (S/S) are as follows: “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government order dated 3.5.2016 (copy of which is not available with the petitioners), providing for appointment of Visiting Teachers on the vacancies available in the cadre of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade / Lecturer being violative of the provisions of Service Rules, 2014. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order dated 25.5.2016 issued by the Additional Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand as well as the communication dated 20.5.2016 and 27.5.2016 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the State Government / Department in providing the temporary arrangement on the vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade / Lecturer by appointment through Visiting Teacher being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate the selection process for the permanent appointment on the vacant post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade / Lecturer through direct recruitment in terms of the Service Rules, 2014, on the vacancies which have arisen after 24.2.2014.” 5. Learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition as follows: “29. In view of the above the scheme of “Guest Teachers” in Government Schools is declared to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, Government Orders dated 13.04.2015 and other subsequent orders such as Government Orders dated 08.05.2015, 27.05.2015, 04.08.2015, 03.05.2016 and 25.05.2016 pertaining to appointment and relating to Guest Teachers are hereby quashed and set aside. A mandamus is further issued to the Secretary, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand as well as Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to forthwith initiate the process of selection for all the existing vacancies of Assistant Teachers as well as of the Lecturers. A mandamus is further issued to the Secretary, School Education, Government of Uttarakhand as well as Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to forthwith initiate the process of selection for all the existing vacancies of Assistant Teachers as well as of the Lecturers. It is further made clear that apart from regular vacancies, they must prepare a waiting list as well, which must have a life of atleast one year so that recourse may not be taken of another selection process immediately. 30. All writ petitions are accordingly allowed. 31. Having made the above determination, however, the Court cannot loose sight of the fact, as has also been pointed out by the learned Advocate General Sri V.B.S. Negi before this Court today and even on earlier hearings, that there are Government Schools both at secondary and intermediate levels spread in the entire length and breadth of the State, but more particularly in remote hill areas where vacancies of Assistant Teachers and Lecturers are lying vacant, and presently can only be filled from the existing pool of Guest Teachers and as such they may be allowed to do that till a regular appointment is made on these posts in the present ongoing selection or in the next ongoing selection, which shall be taken recourse to immediately, if not already taken. 32. Consequently for the present juncture, a balance needs to be created purely in the interest of the student community who are the main stakeholders of the system. It is hence provided that in such blocks where competent and fully eligible Assistant Teachers having all qualifications including TET-II qualification are available they may be appointed as a stop-gap arrangement till regular incumbents are selected and formally join the post. It is, however, made clear that in no condition and irrespective of whether regularly selected candidates are appointed or not, these Guest Teachers shall not be allowed to continue on these posts beyond 31.03.2017, i.e. till the present ongoing academic session.” 6. The matter relates to the appointment of Guest Teachers. The appointment of Assistant Teachers is a matter, which is actually controlled by the Statutory Rules known as the Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2014. Rule 5 contemplates appointment to be made as follows: “1. 60 % posts have to be filled by way of direct recruitment through a written examination. 2. The appointment of Assistant Teachers is a matter, which is actually controlled by the Statutory Rules known as the Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2014. Rule 5 contemplates appointment to be made as follows: “1. 60 % posts have to be filled by way of direct recruitment through a written examination. 2. 30 % posts have to be filled by way of promotion from amongst the Headmasters of Primary Schools, Assistant Teachers of Junior High Schools and Assistant Teachers of Government Model Schools. These 30 % posts have to be filled by way of promotion on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. 3. The remaining 10 % posts of Assistant Teachers have to be filled by way of departmental written examination from amongst Primary School Teachers, Headmasters, and Primary Schools, Assistant Teacher in Junior High Schools and Assistant Teachers in Government Model Schools, who have the qualification for the post.” 7. The learned Single Judge noted that the writ petitioners were concerned with only 60 percent of the vacancies, namely, the direct recruitment of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). It appears that the Government brought out order dated 13.04.2015. In the said order, it is stated that in Government Schools and Colleges, there are a number of posts of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and Lecturers presently lying vacant. Those vacancies would appear to affect education and the overall development of students and it reduces the quality of education as well. Learned Single Judge notes that the Government Order posed a seemingly genuine problem, stating that as of now there are 3089 posts of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) and 1213 posts of Lecturers lying vacant in the State, and though requisition has already been sent to the selection body for making selections on these posts, yet regular selection and appointment is a time consuming process, and in any case short term vacancies keep arising in Government Schools and Colleges, in cases of maternity leave, child care leave, or in cases of other unforeseen contingencies, and the Government, therefore, has taken a policy decision, in public interest, to constitute a pool of “Guest Teachers”, at Block level, from which teachers will be sent to these schools and colleges where these vacancies arise. The Government Order further contemplates that this pool would be constituted at Block level and will consist of twice the numbers of existing vacancies in a Block. For determining the number of ‘visiting teachers’ to be appointed in a particular Block, a four-members Block Level Committee was to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the concerned Block. The Committee was also to consist of three Block Education Officers and the Chief Education Officer as Member Secretary. There is also a procedure given in the Government Order as to how the marks are to be awarded to the candidates for selection in this “pool” of teachers. 8. There is no dispute that the Scheme was challenged in Writ Petition No. 598 of 2015 (S/S). However, the learned Single Judge upheld the said Scheme. It is, thereafter, that another bunch of writ petitions, in which, Writ Petition No. 318 of 2016 (S/S) was treated as the leading case, was filed. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, notes the order in the said bunch of writ petitions as follows: “4. All the same, today Ms. Sushma Singh, Regional Additional Director (Intermediate Education), Kumaon Region, Nainital is present before this Court and she has given a statement that she has instructions from the Director General of Education in this regard that the Government has taken a decision not to renew the period for the Guest Teachers after 31.03.2016 and therefore as of now there are no Guest Teacher is working in the State of Uttarakhand. This Court has further been informed by her that the vacancies, which were at one time occupied, even though temporarily, by the Guest Teachers are now vacant and hence the selected candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) will be appointed on these posts. 5. In any case, the scheme for appointment of Guest Teachers was only there to cater to a contingency where teachers were on leave due to sickness, maternity or any such contingency. These appointments are absolutely temporary and stop gap arrangement and the persons who occupy such posts have absolutely no right to continue on the said post endlessly. 5. In any case, the scheme for appointment of Guest Teachers was only there to cater to a contingency where teachers were on leave due to sickness, maternity or any such contingency. These appointments are absolutely temporary and stop gap arrangement and the persons who occupy such posts have absolutely no right to continue on the said post endlessly. All the same, since the decision has been taken by the Government itself not to continue with the Guest Teachers and such posts which were earlier occupied by them will now be filled by regular selection candidates, nothing further needs to be said on this. The order dated 28.01.2016 which is impugned in the petitions and which had directed that Guest Teacher will not be disturbed, now loose its significance and effect. 6. In view thereof, the writ petitions succeed. The respondents are directed to fill all the vacancies of teachers, keeping 10% posts vacant for “Rajya Andolankaris”, as that is still a subject matter pending before the Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. Let the remaining 90% of the posts be filled by way of regular selection. Let the appointments be made, in accordance with law. 7. The State Government shall declare the result for the Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) forthwith, and make appointments.” 9. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to note, however, that the order of the Court dated 11.04.2016, which we have extracted above, was circumvented and further orders were issued, which were dated 08.05.2015, 27.05.2015 and 04.08.2015. These three orders are related to honorarium, duration of the guest teachers and other norms, as seen from time to time. Lastly, the order dated 25.05.2016 was issued. By this order, the learned Single Judge noticed, the duration of Guest teachers was extended till the end of academic session or till a regular selection is made. It was further declared that in case a post is not available at the same Block, the guest teacher could be adjusted to another Block and if there is no another Block, then anywhere in the State. The learned Single Judge has stated that, therefore, there is a shift in Government’s policy, which has turned a student Centric Policy to a teacher Centric Policy. The learned Single Judge has stated that, therefore, there is a shift in Government’s policy, which has turned a student Centric Policy to a teacher Centric Policy. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge proceeded to refer to certain judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court and also the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, besides the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and, thereafter, proceeded to dispose of the matter as is discernible from paragraphs 29 onwards, which we have already extracted. 10. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would make the following submissions: He would submit that the learned Single Judge was in error in proceeding to declare the order dated 13.04.2015 as illegal. In the earlier round, the learned Single Judge had upheld the said order as is clear from perusal of the said judgment itself. Still further, he would submit that this is a case, where the mechanism of appointment of Guest Lecturers was resorted to cater to the contingency of vacancies of the Assistant Teachers remaining unfilled on account of various reasons. He would submit that in the order issued to the appellants [who are Guest Lecturers at the level of Assistant Teacher, except for one in Special Appeal No. 66 of 2017, who is a Lecturer] it is made clear that their appointment is limited to the point of time when there is no body available from the regular stream or till the end of the academic year and it is being extended. Therefore, it is not a case, where there was any case made out for interference with the Government Orders, which essentially embodied the Government Policy. He would further point out that there is no challenge to the order dated 13.04.2015 even in either of the writ petitions. He would also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Satya Narain Kapoor and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 630 in this regard. He would further contend that the selection of the appellants was not through the backdoor; the selections were by an open selection process, in which all were permitted to participate, who had the requisite qualifications. He would further contend that the selection of the appellants was not through the backdoor; the selections were by an open selection process, in which all were permitted to participate, who had the requisite qualifications. The selection was based on merit as there were quality point marks as per the G.O. and the selection was done at the Block level by a Committee. Still further, he would submit that as is provided in the Rules, where reservation has to be followed, in the case of the Government Orders also, the reservation was followed. There was no material to come to the conclusion, in the circumstances, that the appointment was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has himself come to the conclusion that it was begun with a laudable object. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is no change in the scenario in this regard. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court, there was a case where there was no merit based selection and it could not be compared. 11. Per contra, Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that the Government Order falls foul of the requirements in the Statutory Rules, insofar as in the Government Orders, which deal with the selection, selection is being done at the Block Level. Reservation policy, which is stated to be followed, is followed at the District Level; whereas in the Statutory Rules, reservation policy is to be followed at the State Level. So placed side by side with the Statutory Rules, the provisions of the Government Order will clearly stand imperiled, being diametrically opposed to the requirements in the Statutory Rules. He would submit that there is no competition at the proper level and the persons, who could have otherwise competed at the State Level selection, have been deprived of the opportunity and, therefore, there is a legal lacunae. 12. The position, as on today, in regard to the vacancies has been placed before us by the State in the form of a supplementary affidavit as follows: “4. 12. The position, as on today, in regard to the vacancies has been placed before us by the State in the form of a supplementary affidavit as follows: “4. That as per the information furnished by the appointing authority i.e. Additional Director, Garhwal Mandal / Kumaon Mandal, the vacancy position and the number of working Teachers in L.T. Grade upto June 2017 is as under:- Sl. No. Name of Division Sanctioned Posts Working Teachers Vacant Unfilled vacancies against requisition of 2014 / Promotion Requisition sent in the year January 2017 1 Kumaon 7485 6236 1249 430 518 2 Garhwal 9649 8130 1719 670 696 Total 17334 14366 2968 1100 1214 6. That as per the information furnished by the appointing authority i.e. Additional Director, Garhwal Mandal / Kumaon Mandal, the vacancy position and the number of working Teachers in Lecturer up-to December 2016 is as under:- Sl. No. Source of Recruitment Sanctioned Posts Working Lecturers Vacancies 1 Direct 5732 4286 1446 2 Promotion 5755 3875 1880 Total 11487 8161 3326 8. That it is stated that in the month of January 2015, the department sent a requisition for filling 1213 vacancies on the post of Lecturer in different subjects to the Public Service Commission, out of which, the Commission recommended the name of 540 selected candidates. However, only 181 selected candidates have been given joining and for appointment on 255 posts the counseling is going on and for remaining 104 posts due to provisional selection and other reasons, the appointment is awaited. 9. That considering the shortage of Teachers in Govt. Secondary Schools / Colleges, the State Government issued a G.O. No. 376 dated 16th May, 2017 for filling up the vacancies on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade and Lecturer Grade in the interest of students on contract basis till regularly selected candidates are made available and such contractual appointment will be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Court in Special No. 98 of 2017 and Special Appeal No. 66 of 2017 as well as the directions given by the Hon’ble Court from time to time. 10. 10. That in the aforesaid Special Appeal, this Hon’ble Court on 11th April, 2017 while staying the portion of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that in no condition and irrespective of whether regularly selected candidates are appointed or not, the Guest Teachers shall not be allowed to continue on these posts beyond 31.03.2017, permitted the State Government to continue with the Guest Teachers for further period of two months. Further making it clear, that the vacancies, where regular selected candidates are available, must necessarily and mandatorily be filled up by the regularly recruited candidates. The aforesaid period to continue with the Guest Teachers has already been expired on 11th June, 2017.” 13. Therefore, it is their case that even now, there are a number of vacancies, which cannot be filled up, in short, by the regular appointees. Obviously, the blame is sought to be put at the doorstep of the recruiting bodies, which are represented by Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal. 14. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel would submit that every effort will be made to complete the selection process by 31st December, 2017. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education would submit that every effort will be made to complete the selection process by November, 2017. 15. We have to notice certain features in this case. The State and the Authorities, under it, have not challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Far from it, in contempt proceedings initiated, they have assured the Court that the Guest Teachers will not be allowed to continue after 31st March, 2017. We must, therefore, appreciate the contentions in these Appeals in the context of the said development. At the threshold, we must pose to ourselves a legal problem, with which we are confronted in dealing with the merits of the Appeals. This is a case, where the learned Single Judge has made a declaration of illegality regarding the continuance of the Guest Teachers. Apparently, the Government Orders, which have been set aside, deal with both the Assistant Teachers and also the Lecturers. All the Government Orders have been set aside. This is a case, where the learned Single Judge has made a declaration of illegality regarding the continuance of the Guest Teachers. Apparently, the Government Orders, which have been set aside, deal with both the Assistant Teachers and also the Lecturers. All the Government Orders have been set aside. In the penultimate paragraph, the learned Single Judge, however, noting the problems of the vacancies in the State, more particularly, in remote areas, has permitted continuance of appointment of the Assistant Teachers in the State, but it was declared that they could not continue beyond 31.03.2017. 16. When with the State on the party array, a Government Order or the Statutory Rules or law made by the Legislature is interfered with by the Court in the exercise of judicial review of the administrative action or judicial review of legislation and the State has accepted the judgment and what is more, as noticed before, has assured the Court in contempt proceeding that the phenomenon of the Guest Teachers will not be continued after a certain date, which date has already been crossed, the maintainability of the Appeals, at the instance of the appellants, in this case, by leave becomes suspect. The appellants only may have a derivative title and may not have an independent right to call in question the Government Orders. The Author of the orders, by not filing the Appeal and taking into consideration their conduct in the contempt proceeding, must be treated as having completely accepted the judgment. We would think that the appellants, at the instance of the Guest Lecturers, who are only the creations under the Government Orders, may not have, in our view, a right as such to maintain the Appeals. 17. This is not to, in any way, cloud the fact that there is some merit in their contentions, which are noted as follows: The order dated 13.04.2015 is not challenged. Further, we may notice that actually, the Government Orders, which apparently have been issued, were issued in exercise of executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. What it contemplated was a situation, where the vacancies remained on account of their not being supplied as per the Rules on account of the difficulties in the recruitment process, which process was entrusted to different agencies, besides other vacancies arising out of the maternity leave or other contingencies. What it contemplated was a situation, where the vacancies remained on account of their not being supplied as per the Rules on account of the difficulties in the recruitment process, which process was entrusted to different agencies, besides other vacancies arising out of the maternity leave or other contingencies. It may not be as if, there is a parallel mode of a regular appointment. The appointments under the Government Orders are only to last till the regular appointee turns up. 18. It is, no doubt, a phenomenon, which perhaps pervades the nation everywhere that temporary appointments, ad hoc appointments, contractual appointments are made de hors the Rules relating to regular appointment and a tendency is there to perpetuate that appointment, which probably could be described as a backdoor appointment, particularly in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , which is clearly proscribed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But there may be merit in the case of the appellants that in these cases, the Government Orders actually contemplate a situation, where regular appointments would take place as provided in the Rules, but it caters to the vacancies, which inevitably would arise because of the difficulties encountered by the recruiting agencies and therefore, consequently by the appointing authority, which will remain unfilled. We are particularly not to be oblivious to the context, in which this question arises. We are dealing education and the education is obviously a continuing process and the absence of teachers, even for a short period, would introduce chaos and an unavoidable vacuum, which would have deleterious consequences in their academic career. This would particularly so in a State like Uttarakhand, most parts of which consists in the hills, where there are remote and inaccessible areas and, therefore, it is imperative that teachers are appointed on a war-footing and there is no room for relaxing the rigor with which this ideal is pursued by both the appointing authority and recruiting body that vacancies are not kept unfilled. We cannot obviously overlook the mandate of Article 21A of the Constitution enforced by the Right to Education Act, which guarantees right to education. We cannot obviously overlook the mandate of Article 21A of the Constitution enforced by the Right to Education Act, which guarantees right to education. The upshot is that under no circumstance, the State be permitted to leave unattended the Schools for any reason and the vacancies cannot be kept unfilled. There must be teachers to impart education. Therefore, while noticing the arguments and the features present in this case, we may not be inclined to interfere with the judgment as such, particularly noting that the appellants are the Guest Teachers, who may not have an independent right as such in the circumstances, where the State has accepted the order, besides also noticing the fact that in the Government Orders, there is at least an inconsistency with the Rules in regard to the reservation in the sense that District Level reservation is countenanced under the Government Orders, whereas the Rules provide for the State Level reservation, we only are, however, inclined to extend the date, which is mentioned in the judgment. 19. We must notice one argument of Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners that his clients must be given the benefit in case the Court is inclined to extend the time. We are afraid that the request is untenable. There is no case that the clients of Mr. Vinay Kumar have been selected at the Block Level as Assistant Teachers. His case is that a fresh selection must be ordered, but we would think that such a plea cannot be accepted. The only requirement, as noted by the learned Single Judge, is that the Teachers must have the requisite qualifications for them to continue. We have already recorded the submission of Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior counsel on behalf of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission and also Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education that selection will be completed by 31.12.2017 and 30.11.2017 respectively. We would think that since the assurance has been given on behalf of both the learned counsel for Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission and learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education that the selection process will be completed as far as possible by 31.12.2017 and 31.11.2017 respectively, it may take some further time to actually complete the process of appointment. We would direct that they can continue till 31.03.2018. We would direct that they can continue till 31.03.2018. This is subject, however, to a rider that the moment a regular candidate is available, the Guest Lecturer will undoubtedly stand replaced by the regular appointee. Further, we make it clear that the State will not indulge in any kind of procrastination in the matter of reporting the vacancies or filling up vacancies by appointing regular appointees as per the Rules from time to time. Equally, the recruiting bodies will bear in mind the need for urgency and will spare no effort in the matter of filling up the vacancies and making recruitment and reporting the matter to the appointing authority. We also record the submission of Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission that in regard to the vacancies of Lecturers, the procedure will be expedited and it will be completed at the earliest. Therefore, to make it clear while we affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge in all other respects, we only direct that the vacancies of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) can be filled up by appointing fully eligible Assistant Teachers having qualifications, including the T.E.T, till 31.03.2018. 20. Subject to the above, the Appeals are disposed of.